The waterway the world is suddenly watching closely

When you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there's no room for slowdowns. With Granger's vast selection of high-quality motors, sensors, belts, and hard-to-find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place, so nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800 Granger, click Granger.com or just stop by. Granger, for the ones who get it done. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Neil Kirksal. Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is as it happens. Tonight. On the straight and narrow, American officials claim they've got the situation under control, but a former diplomat tells us that Iran, throttling the strait of Hormuz, could spell political disaster for Donald Trump. Base is loaded. An Iranian strike hit a Canadian bunker on a military base in Kuwait almost two weeks ago. No one was hurt, but the government said nothing about it. And the Conservatives' defense critic says that is a problem. He'll wait, wait, wait, no more. Bill Curtis has deployed his dulcet tones on the airwaves for six decades now. Tonight, he'll tell us about leaving his gig as the judge and scorekeeper on the NPR news quiz show, wait, wait, don't tell me. The short and the long of it, this weekend director, Gita Gundabir, is up. for two Oscars. She's nominated in both the short and feature-length documentary categories. I'll speak with her about her short doc. The Devil is Busy, which covers one day at a Georgia abortion clinic and her feature, The Perfect Neighbor, which tells the story. of a neighborhood shooting through police body camp footage. And surface tension. A new high-tech glass floor for basketball courts is great at blasting your retinas with statistics and ads and graphics, but it turns out to be not great at having basketball played on it. As it happens, the Friday edition, radio that finds itself in contempt of court.

It's a small body of water that most Americans and Canadians, for that matter, had probably never heard of. But now anyone watching prices skyrocket at the gas station has heard of the Strait of Hormuz. Since the U.S. and Israel started bombing Iran, the country has done everything in its power to hold up shipping traffic in the strait. And despite reassurances by Trump administration officials, it is causing severe ripples in the global economy. The spiking price of oil is just one effect. David Goldwyn is a former U.S. diplomat and energy department official. We reached him just outside Washington, D.C. David, you may have seen or heard the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He was asked about the Strait of Hormuz and said, quote, don't need to worry about it. Can you relax hearing that? I don't think so. The straits remain closed. Iran has demonstrated an ability to attack shipping, 13 ships attacked so far through a combination of missiles, drones, and swarm boats, and now it's reportedly mining the straits as well. I think it's also become clear that the U.S. Navy does not believe that it is safe to escort ships through the straits. I don't think there really is a military solution. to opening the straits, perhaps to damaging Iran, but not to opening the straits themselves. What is the worst case scenario from where you sit? The status quo scenario is a worst case scenario in that you would have a really severe economic shock. If you have, you know, 15 million barrels a day of oil that remain off the market and... and 20% of the world's supply of LNG, then you're looking first at massive inflation for the countries that are competing for access to gas that largely hits Europe and developed Asia while South Asia resorts to coal or worse, which is followed by recession. The other worst case scenario is escalation, where the U.S. and Israel start to target electricity or water or civilian infrastructure in Iran. That would lead to massive migration flows, probably terrorism, interruption of shipments in other places, say the Houthis in the attacking ships in the Red Sea, and still a significant disruption of oil supply, but followed by significant chaos. You've said elsewhere that this is the emergency scenario. Everyone feared you're not the only one carrot. characterizing that way. Others, you know, I've said you can't really overstate the scale of what we're going to be talking about here. So what do you make of where things are at with the Trump administration? Surely they would have made these calculations or anticipated all of this before starting its strikes on Iran. Surely they should have, but surely they did not. This certainly is the largest, FITBURL is the IEA, is the largest oil supply disruption in the history of our tracking them, but it's the largest energy disruption as well because of 20% of the world's supply of LNG, not to mention fertilizer and things that will address the food supply chain. So the Trump administration, I think.

overestimated its ability to open the streets within a week. You heard the vice president say, we're going to go big and go fast. And it was just hubris, really. They didn't prepare militarily. They didn't prepare their allies. They didn't prepare the Gulf. They didn't even evacuate diplomats and their families from the posts in the Middle East that were likely to be affected. So I think they were really quite stunned by the fact that Iran had these abilities to strike back, not only by obstructing the Straits, but also its attack on the other Gulf countries. Have you spoken to former colleagues, you know, former diplomats, current diplomats, about what they were experiencing or what they are experiencing? I have. I've spoken to a number of former diplomats, both in the energy space and career foreign service officers. I think they're shocked by the lack of preparation and by the shock, shocked by the lack of protection of American government employees and their families overseas. But it's not a complete surprise because policymaking, particularly foreign policymaking in the Trump administration, is largely done by five or six people. That's a really limiting factor when it comes to anticipating second order consequences. What are the off-ramps here? What could end this? Because it's not an administration that likes to show any sign of defeat or pull back, right? They're going to want to frame this a certain way. So what kind of off-ramps are there? Well, I would say if I was making suggestions, I would say that the administration by limiting its war aims to significant degradation of Iran's nuclear capability and its missile capability could be ready to declare victory now, essentially say that it's met its aims, abandon the regime change. aspirations that the administration has had from time to time and which the Israeli government has had essentially declare victory, warn Iran that reconstitution of those two capabilities or an attack on their neighbors will be met with significant retaliation and essentially declare its willingness to end hostilities if the straits are open. This is already a deadly war. The U.S. and Israeli airstrikes have claimed hundreds and hundreds of lives. We know. So in the context of this conversation, obviously we're not talking about life and death when we're talking about the economic impact, generally speaking. I wonder politically, though, how much longer you think the Trump administration can keep going on this path, given that people are now in the United States worried about gas prices and inflation and things like that. Four weeks. I think if we get to the end of April and certainly by Memorial Day and they have not found a way to bring gas prices down and tame inflation and the massive spending for this war, then they're going to be looking at losing both houses of Congress in the fall, inquiries, freezing budgets, you know, and potentially if they don't start explaining what they're doing and why even attempts to impeach some of the sitting cabinet officials.

He had over a dozen media availability and press conferences that he could disclose these facts. And when asked specifically about where our troops were and how they were doing, he kind of skated around the issue. So it is unfortunate that we aren't getting the facts. from Mr. Carney. We have a little bit from what Prime Minister Carney said. He was asked about this by reporters. So here's a little bit of how the Prime Minister responded. I just confirm that Canadian forces are the members of the Canadian forces are all safe and sound. I reinforce, as I said in French, what you know, which is that we are not engaged in these. actions of the US and Israel. We're not engaged in offensive actions, and we will not be engaged in those actions. We reached out to the Office of the Minister of National Defense. We've not heard back yet, but in previous statements to the media spokesperson for the Department of National Defense has said, quote, for operational security reasons, we do not discuss assessments of damage or impacts to military facilities, unquote. They've also said they're focused on the safety of Canadian forces. So could it be that greater transparency right now could make it dangerous for soldiers stationed overseas? How do you respond to what the Prime Minister and what the Defense Department said? Just before your clip starts, he actually said it in the press conference and he goes, well, I'm not the primary spokesperson for the government, which I find hilarious and an application of his responsibility. When it comes down to it, that, you know, this. happened. Canadians deserve to know. The families of those that are serving abroad deserve to know. The media deserves to know so they can properly report on these things as they're happening. And, you know, there's no secret that there's Canadians that were at the base in Kuwait. You know, we've been there since Operation Impact, providing logistical support for the better part of 15 years. And, you know, and that's for supporting the op impact and the operations around making sure that ISIS is eliminated in the region. And that's done through coalition forces. He's correct. Yes, we're not part of the conflict in Iran. But as Canadians, I think we all support as conservatives. We definitely support the removal of the terrorist regime in Tehran. But this just speaks again to the multiple flip-flops that we've seen from Prime Minister Mark Carney on this conflict and also now the secrecy that he's in the shroud of secrecy.

the safety of our own soldiers. Since Le Press published its investigation, I wonder if you've been able to learn anything more through your contacts, government sources, obviously, about what happened? Well, it appears that, you know, the base has been hit multiple times, including recently in the last 24 hours. They continue to target the Canadians and Italians and, of course, the Americans that are there. You know, there's concern around the condition of the runway and whether or not flights at the base can be orchestrated safely to if we have to evacuate personnel that are there. I'm hoping that Canadian Armed Forces are looking at alternatives to ensure that Canadian soldiers and air crew that are there are safe. And, you know, again, it comes down to is that the prime minister has had multiple opportunities, including the, take note that we had in the host commons and, you know, cane armed forces and others were at Defense Committee briefing us on the situation. I have a full opportunity to talk about, you know, that we had been attacked, the state of the equipment, the safety of our personnel, and the plan on how to make sure that. they have output force protection. Why do you think... They wouldn't have disclosed it earlier if it's not for, you know, protecting the troops that are there. From where you said, why do you think they wouldn't have spoken about it? I don't think anyone's asking them for the exact location of, you know, which members of K&R forces are stationed exactly where. You know, we know that we have a number of troops serving in different locales, different depots in place and logistical support hubs. You know, those aren't top secret. You know, this is about having, you know, true transparency with Canadians so that we understand how our forces are being used in the region and also to understand how they're going to get the safety if required. James Bazan, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Any time. James Bazan is a member of Parliament for Selkirk Interlake Eastman in Manitoba and the conservative defense critic. He's in Toulon, Manitoba. I'm

You and I have voices. Bill Curtis has one of the voices. You know it. You've been hearing it for decades. First when Mr. Curtis was a CBS news anchor, then when he was the host and narrator of the true crime series like A&E's cold case files. On June 19, 1989, Livonia Police Sergeant Donald Vanderslood responds to a home on seven-mile road where a man has been shot. The victim is Xavier Giller, the 67-year-old owner of a Detroit cab company. But Bill Curtis isn't just a generator of gravitas. The man has range. After years in the anchor chair, he lent his dulcet tones to narrating the Will Ferrell comedy's Anchorman, the legend of Ron Burgundy, and its sequel. And for the last 12 years, he's been delighting public radio audiences as the judge and scorekeeper of NPR's comedic weekly quiz show. Wait, wait, don't tell me. From NPR and WBEC Chicago, this is Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, the NPR News Quiz. I'm the voice so powerful, I command the clocks to spring forward. Now Mr. Curtis has decided to step away from the mic, at least in part. He'll be retiring from the show later this spring. We reached Bill Curtis in Chicago. Bill, you and the team have so much fun, the laughs, the appreciation from the audience. That can't be easy to give up. Oh, no, it's like a big family, first of all, on the team. But then they're waiting for us all to kind of get started as if they've been waiting all week, maybe all year. So the appreciation really is there, and it's hard to give up. Why did you decide that this was the time to leave? I'm 85. Yeah. Yeah, but it doesn't need much more explanation. But I've done it for 12 years, and it just seemed to be a good time. And it's a quasi on and off kind of thing. I'll go in for specials and maybe to fill in. So I tell myself, as long as I can move my cane in that direction. Listeners will be happy to hear that, that you'll be back from time to time. Of course, you're known for those wait, wait, intros, of course, but there are also limericks, news-related limericks that ask contestants to guess the missing word or phrase. I mean, 12 years is a long time. It's a lot of limericks and a lot of shows. But are there a couple that stand out for you? Well, a couple of the open, you know, the writers compete. to try and find things as good as this, my favorite. I'm the voice of your aunt's sexual awakening. Orah. I'm the only bill in Washington the Congress can't veto. So we go on and on. But, you know, coming from the news biz, did you ever, was there a moment where can I say this? Should I say this? Or by that time, you're all in? Well, you know, I had gone through the Anchorman movie. Yes. And I thought that was the end of my career. But I'll take the jump. Because newsbin.

and women, you know, don't do movies back in 2004. But Adam McKay, the director, was very nice. He was from Chicago, and I started to read the script. I was laughing at every line. And they finally set up an audition. so that I would make sure, they'd make sure that this, I was the guy. As if you had to audition. Yeah, can you imagine? Jud Appetow and Adam and Will Ferrell and God knows who else was out in the Universal Audio Room. They liked the voice. But they also liked hearing somebody with fresh ears laughing at their jokes. You know, once you write a joke, it's done. And so they hadn't been able to kind of experiment out. We actually have a clip from Anchorman, The Legend of Ron Burgundy, because you also were involved in the sequel, but from the original, here's a little bit for our listener. His name was Ron Burgundy. He was like a god walking amongst near mortals. He had a voice that could make a wolverine purr. And suits so fine they made Sinatra look like a hobo. I mean, it must have been so much fun to deliver them. Were you cracking up as you were recording those? I loved it. I did. You know, I had a wait in between lines. But, you know, we had no idea, neither did they, the kind of success it would have. I remember as someone working in news, going to that movie, a little bit nervous of what it was going to do, but it was hilarious. And to hear you, because, you know, growing up for me, you were the voice of A&E, all of those shows. I love those kinds of shows. So when I hear your name, I think of those days and those shows. But to have a career like this, is this what you imagine for yourself when you were younger and entering the biz? Well, I added it 16. So Walter Cronkite was doing the news then, and although I didn't think I could ever fill his shoes, at least, you know, I could kind of point my trajectory in that direction and pick it up. I tried a little play-by-play when I was in junior college, and I wanted to do everything. I wanted to touch all the experiences of radio to see. which one I liked. And I always came back to news because it was important. It had information that could help people. And the sports was sort of a one pony act. May 23rd is when your last episode of Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, is said to air. As you said, you'll be back from time to time. But what is the next chapter? What are you planning?

Well, I'm in my second book. My first one was out in September, and I'd suddenly discovered I like writing. You know, television writing was a little different. It's a hybrid between letting the visuals tell the story and filling in with your narration. And so all these years, you know... been trying to eliminate adverbs and adjectives and let the pictures tell the story. Well, suddenly, I'm in a position where I've got to fill that in to let people know what I'm talking about, and it's fun. It's like a puzzle. And you look at the right words to fit the pictures or a book, and I really like it. Bill Curtis, I've really enjoyed speaking to you. Thank you for this, and congratulations. Thank you very much. You have a wonderful voice. Oh, thank you. Oh, my God, Neil. Oh, my God. Bill Curtis is the judge and scorekeeper of NPR's comedic weekly quiz show. Wait, wait, don't tell me. We reached him in Chicago.

The Jumbotron under the court where you can get flashy or splashy or just plain normal. Nick Schaefer of KSHB TV in Kansas City telling viewers about exciting new basketball court technology, the ASB glass floor. Time was, you know, hardwood courts seemed high tech. I mean, old-timey dirt courts were uneven, hard on the knees, and riddled with weeds, puddles, and gopher holes. By contrast, hardwood was level, easier on the joints and largely free of gophers. The future of floors, we thought to ourselves. A floor would never be a giant, shiny screen, we thought, showing graphics and statistics and commercials. Why would that be good or necessary? We thought, you're there to watch people play on a floor, not to watch the... floor. Then someone asked us why we kept talking about floors and we realized that we had been thinking aloud. So we went and hid in the bathroom for a while. Anyway, the ASB glass floor is an LED floor that does show graphics and statistics and commercials during sports games. Not during play, that would be distracting to the athletes, but during breaks in play to prevent viewers from being bored or having a thought. It's been used for the women's basketball World Cup, the NBA All-Star Game, and now the NCAA Big 12 men's tournament. But it turns out the players are really glass floor half empty kinds of people. In a post-game interview, Kansas State Wildcats forward Todd Manning spoke for a lot of his fellow athletes. Everyone's been talking about this floor. What was it like playing on the floor? I saw a few slippages. Yeah, it's pretty bad. Yeah. It's slippery. The lights and stuff cause Kamari to get a migraine. Really? Yeah, it's a bad floor. They shouldn't bring it back. If you want my honest opinion. Seems like the floor is great for cool pictures and flashing lights, but not so great for basketball, which arguably is the point of a basketball game. Big 12 Commissioner Brent Yormark seems to think so because he's announced that, quote, to provide our student athletes with the greatest level of comfort on a huge stage this weekend, we will transition to a hardwood court for the remainder of the tournament, unquote. Good choice. Maybe one day everyone will play on chaotic glass, but we're not out of the wood yet. Oh,

We're going to take a short break now when we return a feature interview with a director who's pulled off a coup at the Academy Awards. She is nominated in two different documentary categories for two different films. Director Gita Gundabir joins Neil for an in-depth discussion of both her powerful films. One, about a day in the life of the staff of an abortion clinic in the American South. The other, a slow-burning feature told through police body cam footage as a neighborhood dispute reaches a tragic end. Stay tuned. I'm Neil Kirksell. And I'm Chris Haddon. When you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Granger's vast selection of high-quality motors, sensors, belts, and hard-to-find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place, so nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800 Granger, click Granger.com or just stop by. Granger, for the ones who get it done. Power and politics is in Prince Edward Island this week, where the country's premiers are meeting with each other and then sitting down with the prime minister. Mark Carney wants to keep the focus on the economy, but the premiers are pushing new demands for more health care spending. Tune in to the PMP pod this week as we interview the premiers one-on-one. We'll ask them about their top priorities and biggest concerns for the year ahead. Listen to and follow Power and Politics wherever you get your podcasts. The Academy Awards represent the pinnacle of the cinematic craft. So the prospect of winning one of those golden statues is a lifelong dream for a lot of filmmakers. But this year, Gita Gundabir could take home two. Even more notable is that she is nominated for two separate films in the short and feature-length documentary categories. In the documentary short, The Devil is Busy, Ms. Gundabir and her co-director, Crystal in Hampton, follow the head of security and other staff at a Georgia abortion clinic over the span of a day from open to close. Meanwhile, the feature-length documentary, The Perfect Neighbor, is pieced together from 30 hours of police body cam footage and shows the lead-up and aftermath of the killing of Adjica A.J. Owens in Florida on June 2, 2023. After a series of minor disputes over her kids playing outside, Ms. Owens' neighbor shot her through a locked door. Hey, somebody caught in my one. Yes. My neighbor has been screaming at the kids outside. And all of a sudden, I heard what to me sounded like a gunshot. It's the old lady that always calls the console here. All right, and it looks like we're receiving multiple calls in reference to this also. 911, what is the after? Somebody got shot. His mom got shot. Hey, is Ramon Lane in the grass? Yates! The film highlights issues of racism and prejudice behind stand-your-ground laws in states like Florida and is one of five nominees for Best Documentary Feature Film this weekend. Gita Gundabir joined Neil for a feature conversation about both her nominated documentaries from Los Angeles. Gita, how did this neighborhood, this family's ordeal? How did this story come to you? So Ajika Owens was a friend of my sister-in-law. She's actually really my cousin-in-law, but culturally we don't have a reference for that. And we are very close. So when this happened, when this murder occurred, we got a call right away, and we immediately jumped into action. And when I say we...

I'm referring to my husband and producer on this film, Nakan Kwan, too, and my team at Message Pictures. So the case basically came to us because of that connection. And two months later, we received the body camera footage from the family lawyers. And upon going through it, that's when I realized that there could be a film here. Yeah. Obviously, I would imagine all of your work is personal to you, clearly from what you've said, this was even more personal. You still had to approach Ajika's mother, Pam. for permission to take that next step, to make this into a film. What was that conversation like? So at that point, as I said, it was two months later and we had become close with Pam. She was obviously deeply grieving and we wanted something more for Ajika's death. We wanted it to mean something more. I think we were all seeking a way to put pain to purpose. It feels like there had to be more for Ajika, who was such a bright young woman who had really big dreams. When I saw the body camera footage, which went back two years, and really detailed the lead-up to what happened, and also the footage, again, the police unintentionally captured this beautiful multiracial community, as they were before, living together, loving each other, doing everything right, kind of the best of us. I wanted to use the footage to humanize them and to uplift them. But also I wanted to showcase what happened to Susan. I believe Susan was 100% failed by the system. And she is also sort of a victim of the laws that exist and particularly lax gun laws. She should have never had access to a gun. So to me, this film felt like it could, it was a microcosm of the larger ills that plague our society and that we could, again, maybe make change in Ojika's name. And that body camera footage, I mean, any, any filmmaker, documentarian, certainly, you know, well, you have so much footage to go through and decide what stays in, what you will leave out. I mean, it reveals so much. Just take us through sitting. with all of those hours and hours of footage, extremely difficult moments, you know, when her children find out she's been shot, but all of the moments leading up to it. What was it like for you to sift through that kind of material? Because this is a, in terms of the craft, this is very different than most documentaries. Sure. So I think with the footage, it was astonishing to us, sort of the layers of it. First of all, there are at least two police on scene at every call. And sometimes they were up to 15. So we had to synchronize all those cameras. And again, this is not production material. There is no slate. Then it was really about sifting through it and building scenes out of the material. Again, we left it unvarnished. It is, I think what is so compelling about the footage to us is that it is undeniable. It immerses the viewer in the situation as if they are a neighbor.

And you see the children playing in the street. You see these families living together, loving each other, doing everything right, as I said. And how one outlier, who, again, Susan, who was impacted by manufactured fear and weaponized racism. And she tried to use those as tools. I believe it's symptomatic of what's coming from the top down in our country. But she tried to weaponize. those, you know, concepts and And then you see the impact of terrible predatory laws like Stand Your Ground, which emboldened her to take action, and lacks gun laws, which, again, in Florida, you can buy a gun the way you could buy a toaster oven or a microwave. And so that makes almost anybody could be a threat because of that. I want to play for our listeners a little bit more from the film, and there are so many. calls to police that this neighbor, Susan, makes long before the night where she shot and killed Ajika. We'll play a point where it's near the beginning of the film. An exchange between Ajika, AJ, as some call her, and a police officer who's been called by Susan complaining about the children, making allegations about them and Ajika. We'll listen to that. I see that smirk on your face. You say, you already know? That she called the police? Yeah, because I see you're on the phone that little smirk. Yeah, because this is, this is long ago, you know. It's funny because I'm the one that never comes outside and says anything to it. But today, I just happen to feel like. First of all, before she moved there, this big open space right here, all the kids, they like to play kickball, football, and the space she moves in. I don't want you to put it over it. I told her, don't know this. You can't tell them technically if they're not in your personal, personal space that they can't walk the dog or even throw their football open. Ojika is advocating for herself and her children in the whole neighborhood saying they're playing in a field, you know, as they always did next to where this woman was renting. You also get a sense as you watch the film, you know, police, including that one, others that come, all seem sympathetic to the children and this neighborhood. But what they do and don't do and who they respond to. is very telling as well because Susan clearly has the knowledge, the words, the agency to get police to pay attention and others don't. So I think you hit it right on the head without the police show up repeatedly. They become used to the situation. They get to know the community. They dismiss Susan as a nuisance as sort of like the crazy old lady on the block who's annoyed by children.

But what they don't see is the threat. They are kind to the community, but my Nekon Kuntu often says that we are bar for the police is so low that we mistake their kindness or their politeness for competence. And we don't think about them bringing their own biases to the scene. And I do think if Susan had not been who she was, she was able to weaponize her privilege as an older white woman. things might have gone very differently. If Susan had been a person of color, I'm not sure that this would have gone the way that it did. So this is something, I think, too, another layer to the film, is that the system failed everyone. The police, as well intentions as they may have been, absolutely failed the community because the worst outcome happened. We lost Ajika. But they also failed Susan. If they had seen her as a problem or a threat, Maybe they would have investigated the fact that she had guns. Even when she displayed erratic behavior, they didn't. All these years, three, almost four years now, if I'm remembering the timeline since Ajika was killed. You know, her children are featured in it. They're playing. But then also living through and reacting in those moments on that body cam footage to finding out their mother had been shot that night. How are her four children doing now? Her mother as well. So it's very challenging, to be honest. I think it's up and down. The children are some of the most resilient people that we know. Again, children are so brave in general. Pam always says, we say she's the bravest person we know and she says the kids are the bravest people she knows because they get up every day and go to school and do what they have to do in the face of such loss. They are loved. They are deeply loved. They have community. They have a wonderful grandmother. The father is in the picture who was in the film. So we'll get them through this together. I'm Neil Kokesl. You're listening to As It Happens. And my guest right now is Gita Ganbier, a director who was nominated for two Academy Awards at this weekend's Oscars. The second film you're nominated for is called The Devil Is Busy. It's a day in the life at an abortion clinic in Atlanta, Georgia. It takes us through the day from the moment it opens to the moment it closes. And we see the clinic in large part through the eyes of its head of security, a woman named Tracy. This is a very stressful, high-stress situation. Any day, you're not subject to go home from here. Because you never know once people get in the building what they may do. Tracy is so compelling right out of out of the gate, you know, as you see her opening up the clinic in the morning and telling us what she has to deal with. What were your first impressions of her? So Crystal and Hampton, who's my co-director and also my best friend from college, so this was a really wonderful experience for me because I got to make it both films. I got to make with family and chosen family. So Tracy, we both fell in love with Tracy. I have to say immediately when we met her. I mean, she is such a wonderful, loving, fierce, protective person.

who takes her job very seriously. And, you know, again, day in and day out, she's fearless. She's on the front line of this battle for women's reproductive health care. We also found her to be so fascinating because she lives at the intersection of a deeply Christian faith and the belief that health care for women, including abortion, is a fundamental human right. She is a rarity, honestly. People who, again, as religion, particularly Christianity, has been weaponized against women in this country to prevent us from accessing health care. I think that we really hoped that she might open some doors for people who are struggling with these issues themselves and show that there is a different way. There is a different way to think about this. And religion comes up more than once in the film, not just Tracy's perspective, but the men outside protesting, one in particular, Jason, that she talks about, Tracy talks about, and we see and hear from. Why was it important to you to show that juxtaposition or did it just come about naturally because of who Tracy is? So we wanted to show an organic day in the life. The film is meant to be representative of the day and the life and everything that the women at the clinic face. This is a women-led clinic and it's run mostly, actually entirely by women of color. majority black women. And outside, you have the men, it's all men protesting day in and day out. And the numbers vary, but they are there. And it is a constant backdrop of sound to hear them in the background. You cannot escape it in the clinic. And what is fascinating is that Tracy actually knows them after a while because they are there day in and day out. They know each other. And And they've learned about each other's backgrounds and there is dialogue. So it's, to me, that is fascinating too because, again, it's such a polarizing situation. But yet, you know, there is a little bit of humanity to it when Tracy, Tracy comes outside and says, oh, that sounds like Doug, you know, at one point what you hear is the protesters. And I think, and they know who, again, it's similar. They know who she is and they have conversations. Who knows, maybe one day they'll reach each other. But I think with these protesters, they are, again, weaponizing religion against women. They technically practice the same faith as Tracy, but Tracy's God is a forgiving God and a loving God. And we see her. again, choose a different path. So I felt it was so important. We wanted this to be a fly on the wall, Verite film, where the audience is just immersed in what these, the women who work at the clinic face day in and day out. But like, because you cannot escape.

the protesters, we had to have them in. They are an organic part of the story. Well, and they're one part of what Tracy and everyone who works at that clinic and clients of the clinic are up against every day, so many layers. That's right. And it was quite moving when she, when Tracy says, what she says to people who come up and she sees the tears in their eyes because of what those protesters have said to them and how they've painted them just in that stretch. for her to counsel them in those moments. Yes, and she uses, it's funny because she uses faith. She says, you know, don't let the devil get in your spirit because the devil is busy, you know, and it's interesting because on the way up the hill, the men are hurling. you know, hurling scripture. And I understood that later that the scripture, they sometimes quote it wrongly, like they make mistakes, but they hurl scripture at the women coming up the hill. And then Tracy's on the other side, using the same religion to comfort them, you know, and assure them that this is a health care and it's your right. So to me, that was absolutely fascinating. The Supreme Court overturning Roe versus Wade meant that for Georgians who, you know, abortion went from being legal up to 20 weeks gestation to being banned after a fetal heartbeat is present. And that's typically around the sixth week of pregnancy. So that means that women who want to get help at clinics like the one you're featuring in your film are terrified that, you know, because of one day. They might be turned away. You know, they're watching the ultrasounds, and there's one encounter that is featured in the film as a client has an ultrasound. We'll play that now. I'm going to put some cold stuff on your belly. So your last menstrual period was about five weeks ago. Yeah. Yes. All right. So there's a tiny, tiny little sack here. And it looks like it's about a five-week sack. I don't see anything inside of the sack. So there's no cardiac activity. No, that's a very normal reaction. Relief. Yes. That's quite a moment in her life, in the life of the clinic, but also to be able to capture it. I mean, I wonder how you talk to the clients to see if they'd be willing to take part. Sure. So we actually spent time there on the ground. Crystalin is local. So she spent time. on the ground in the clinic beforehand without cameras to get people used to, particularly the staff, because they're in day out, to get people used to what we were doing and just to build comfort. And we kept the footprint tiny. And then when clients would arrive, we would inform them.

of what we were doing and literally say you will not be on camera if you do not want to be on camera. I mean, we chose not to focus on the clients anyways or to reveal their identities. But if they were comfortable with us being around and again, maybe hearing their voices and then they would tell us. And what's interesting is that a lot of the women. who came to the clinic were of the mindset that, no, this film needs to be made. They were actually very supportive because they also believe that their access to health care is in jeopardy. Some of them had to travel for days because they had to come from out of state where abortion is banned. And They actually were incredibly supportive. So, for example, the scene in that room was one where she was like, no, you can be with me. And she didn't actually mind if we showed her face. But we didn't, we chose not to. It was important to us to protect the women who were coming in, the clients. And the staff, we were worried about them as well. But they, I mean, they are the most fearless people we know. They literally were like, we do this day in and day out. This story needs to be told. It's okay. There's the reality as well of the women. They can't help, you know, who call in and say, you know, they look at the dates and the math. And you see how crestfallen, the representative who takes those calls is to have to say, you know, we might have to, you might need to go to another, you probably will have to go to another state. No, it's heartbreaking. And I think that one of the things we really wanted to do in the film is showcase how all the women work together and the different pieces of this story. Essentially, there is almost an assembly of workers who, again, the first, the woman who takes the call to figure out if the person can come, the client can come in or not, then there's the, you know, the person, there's Tracy who's at the. front you know the front door welcoming people there's the doctors right there's it's there it's just everyone must work together and it has to be a well-oiled machine and that but they and they do it with such care and sensitivity and respect and love for the clients that come in that we also felt that it was an incredible model for health care Having two nominations is quite extraordinary, personally, professionally, I can imagine. But I wonder, and we know that nominations and wins can mean wonderful things for the filmmakers and also for the films they've made. But for these kinds of stories, what do these nominations do to making sure that these untold stories are seen and heard by even more people? So the nominations do give a bump? in viewership we've found. So that is really important for us. And the nominations are just firstly an incredible honor. These are our peers who nominate us. And these are the people we admire most, who we respect, who we're in community with, who inspire us, who, again, we work together. So huge honor in that sense and what I will never take for granted. But beyond that, what our peers have given us as a platform.

to talk about the issues, to talk about stand-your-ground laws, gun violence and racism, to talk about women's reproductive justice. And that is, to me, priceless because the goal of these films ultimately is to make impact and to ideally make change. So that is so meaningful to us. Gita, I'm glad we could speak. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. We reached director Gita Gundabir in Los Angeles. Her documentary films The Perfect Neighbor and The Devil Is Busy are both nominated for Academy Awards this weekend. The Ontario government says it's going to make some changes to the province's freedom of information laws. Changes that would mean many records from the offices of Premier Doug Ford and his cabinet members would become and remain totally secret. The government says it's all about modernizing the laws, but critics say it will significantly curtail public scrutiny. Stephen Crawford is Ontario's Minister of Public and Business Service delivery and procurement. We reached him in Oakville, Ontario. Minister, you've said that your government is, quote, very focused on transparency, unquote. This legislation seems like less transparency, not more. Why is this a good decision for Ontarians? How will this benefit Ontarians? Let's take a look at what we propose today. And the legislation on this will be forthcoming as we resume the legislature on March 23rd. First, in terms of what we're doing with this legislation, we're aligning legislation to other jurisdictions, and that's including the federal government, I would add as well. Other provincial jurisdictions, Quebec, Saskatchewan, in fact, the only province that didn't specifically have legislation in place for cabinet confidentiality is Nova Scotia. So we were the only province aligned with them in that. Secondly, it's an important time to update this legislation. It's been four decades. since this legislation was initiated. And there's been no major update. So four decades in perspective, that was, you know, 1988, the year of the Calgary Olympics and the Jamaican bobsled team. A lot's changed in the world since then. We didn't have... texts. We didn't have WhatsApp. We had no cloud computing, no smartphones. But how do all of those innovations? How do all of those innovations, Minister? I absolutely hear what you're saying. I'm getting to my point here. So the point is, you know, emails were rare at that time. So when this legislation was contemplated back almost four decades ago, it didn't take into account the way government operates today. So government, in terms of how we operate today, obviously there's a lot of communications between people within the ministry. They are being candid with evidence-based and carefully testing their solutions amongst each other as political staff. And, you know, there's a necessity in some cases to have Cabinet confidentiality. I mean, we've been through some very difficult times, as you're aware. We've been through COVID. We've had...

terrorist threats. We've got, you know, tariff situation with the United States. There's a lot of commercially sensitive and sensitive information that I think is best, you know, that that is not in the hands of people because potentially it could get into bad actors' hands as well. So in my view, it's very important to uphold the Westminster and parliamentary tradition of... parliamentary cabinet confidence. And I think that's what this legislation is doing. I might add as well, this is only one piece of legislation. We're enhancing cybersecurity. We're ensuring that... You know, certain public sector, broader public sector, hospitals, colleges, school boards that are required to implement robust cybersecurity programs, cyber maturity assessments, reporting cyber incidents within 72 hours. There's better oversight from the provincial government to ensure safety. And finally, in terms of additional transparency, where we are, you know, is protecting our children. Right now, we're going to be strengthening data protection for children. But so I completely understand, and we'll make sure our listeners know the breadth of the legislation, but we're speaking specifically about these changes to FOI requests. And records that would reveal cabinet deliberations or advice to government are already exempted under the current law as it stands. Why isn't that enough? Yeah, you know, I think, like I said, this is not about hiding decisions or shielding outcomes from scrutiny. The public will continue to have access to that. FOI access to public servant records remain fully intact. Oversight by the Information and Privacy Commissioner continues. Ontario's commitments to open data, auditor general oversight, and financial accountability remain unchanged. So that does not reduce access to outcomes, spending. or service performance. I think that's very key. So anything that is sent in terms of direction to the public service is that's reliable. So any decision that a government makes is fifiable. And of course we're subject to the legislature and the media as well. So I think it's critical to understand that, that this does not reduce access to outcomes. But it does reduce access to conversations, documents, emails, messages, as you've said, in the lead-up to those decisions. So what would you say to Ontarians who are wondering why they're not entitled? to find out that information. And as you know, FOIs don't happen overnight. So all those scenarios that you described that might be sensitive, people aren't finding them out right away. It will be later on as there is reporting an investigation. So why don't Ontarians have the right to know what their government is doing?

They have a right to know what their government's doing. They do. They do through the legislature and they do through the decisions that we make and they do through the FOI if they do request it through the public service to have and understand the outcomes of what government's making. But it must be clear. Ministers and their staff need to be able to have candid risk-aware discussions about policy ideas. They need to be able to test ideas and challenge assumptions openly. There is an ongoing RCMP investigation of the Ford government's dealings around the Green Belt. Your government also lost a recent court case that was initially launched by global news over Premier Ford's phone records. I believe there's an appeal in the offing on that front. Did those play into the timing of these changes? What's played into the timing is that this has been four decades and the cybersecurity threats are growing. We have... over one trillion cyber incidents that our cyber team sees every single year. So I want to give a shout out to our cybersecurity team. So it's critically important that we have, you know, cybersecurity regulations enforced, that we protect the confidential government. We all know what's happening with the United States right now and the tariff issue and there's many other commercially sensitive issues right now. And the world's changed a lot, obviously. So it's long overdue. It's not just journalists who would normally file these freedom of information or FOI requests that are concerned political opponents as well as you know, but also the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Noah Jarvis, who is the director of the Ontario Office of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in a statement, said, quote, Premier Doug Ford is trying to hide records from the public and roll back the ability of everyday taxpayers from holding the government accountable. And he asks, what is your government, quote, trying to hide, unquote? What would you say in response to taxpayers who agree with Noah Jarvis? Well, I would explain the fact that when our government was first elected in 2018, the first thing we did was order an independent audit of the books. We found a $15 billion liberal government deficit. Now, after we found that out, after the abnormal accounting, we brought in the Fiscal Transparency Act. What that does is ensure our budget, we deliver on time, explain the deficit, and is actually a penalty to the finance minister if it's not delivered on time in the proper explanation of the deficit. So we've brought in... an incredible amount of transparency to the taxpayers of the people of Ontario. And I think he should be aware of that. Why not apply that in this case as well? Can you see where people might be coming from on this? Minister, if this was a different government making this move, would you agree? Would you not feel that maybe the government is trying to hide something by doing this? That's the impression that it gives. I would understand that the government is probably aligning with the majority of the other provinces and the federal government in Canada. And, you know, when it gets to Premier, when we talk about Premier Ford, I would also add as well that he has been the most accessible political leader, I think, ever in the history of Ontario. He's regularly in contact with individuals right across the province. I get calls and text from him at maybe 11 o'clock at night, you know, asking me to contact somebody about a personal issue they're dealing with. And I don't think those people, you know, I think they respect the confidence in talking to the Premier, and they respect that and they value that.

Minister, I appreciate your time. Thank you. My pleasure. Thanks very much. Stephen Crawford is Ontario's Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement. We reached him in Oakville, Ontario. This year's Oscars ceremony will be number 98. For the 98th time, we'll see gobsmacked actors stammering out speeches and hopefully not forgetting to thank their spouses. And for the first time, we'll see the people who play a crucial role in getting those actors cast in those roles being recognized at last. And hopefully not forgetting to thank their spouses. On Sunday, the Academy will award its first ever Oscar for Best Casting to one of five nominated casting directors. Deirdre Bowen is a Canadian casting director, an academy member, who's worked on projects ranging from David Cronenberg's Oscar nominated A History of Violence to the TV series Kim's Convenience. We reached her in Toronto. Deirdre, what do you think it will be like to watch the Oscars this time around compared to years past for you? Obviously, I'll be more engaged. Very much so. Why do you think it took this long for this category to appear on the Oscars ballot? Well, for a number of reasons, in the early days of filmmaking, the head of the studio was famous for, you know, having strong opinions. And then there were clerks and just people in... the studio system who helped cast it all, but it wasn't formalized in any way. Directors had a small say. Then when the studio system fell apart, then independent film came up and people went, oh, my goodness, so we need somebody to do our castings. And they did. But it took a long time for that. positioned to be recognized as essential to the process. And I think the way that was done is that we weren't given credit. And so the big fight, I mean, Lynn Stallmaster, I think was the first person who actually got on screen, you know, in the main credits. Really, it's only been in the last 20 years that it's being, yes, automatic that if you're doing a major feature film, then you're getting credit. I mean, you should. It's an integral part of the process, even if the producers and director have a key role in all of it as well. But for people who, even if they love film and they can recognize, you know, I love those actors that were chosen, it's one of those things that might be hard for people to try to.

understand the craft of casting. Yes, yes, indeed. And so people say, oh, you're a casting director. Oh, well, did you pick Fiegel Mortensen? And I go, well, actually, no. I present choices and I am an integral part of making the choice. But I don't have soul say. I don't say, here's your cast, take it or leave it. It just doesn't work that way. What are you drawn to in the process? The kinds of people, you know, when you're looking at the, I'm sure you're looking at those headshots first, right? Yes, yes, of course. Ultimately, for me, it's really about the people. I love actors and I love stories. And so matching them becomes a really interesting process. And also I think everybody has their face and their bearing. They do have stories within themselves and how do we. tease that out. And that's, I think, The exciting thing there, I think it's really too about, I mean, everybody is a casting director in a sense in that we all love going to the movies and we all love seeing interesting faces and people were drawn to and people with great presence, people of mystery. I think those are the things that I like as well, but I just then apply it to the project in hand. When you were. casting your ballot for the Oscars. I know you're not going to reveal who you voted for. You can if you wish, but if not, understood. We'll wait for Sunday. But what, you know, these are all, you know, very popular movies, incredible movies, all in their own right. What were you looking for as you made your decision? I was really focusing on the supporting cast. And each of those movies is so different, but each of them had that truthfulness to their story. That sort of sounds pompous, but it's not meant to be because it really is what's important there, is that the style and the tenor were all... interpreted beautifully by the actors and even the tiny parts. And there was so much care for the tiny parts. And those parts, if they're not in keeping with the rest of the actors, they really, it's sounding like a bad note in a symphony. So that's what was most important for me. That's a great way to put it. Was it an easy decision given the slate of nominees? No, it wasn't because I think they were all done. equally well. It was really hard work casting all those movies. First of all, most of them had a huge cast. Hamnet, not as much, but they were casting children and they're the most difficult because you have to search and search and search until you find the perfect person. As you think back to the films you've worked on, the casts you've helped put together, is there one that you feel particularly proud of?

Well, I was being fortunate to work with David Kronenberg for many, many, many years. I do have very fond memories of casting a history of violence. The studio weren't sure about casting everything out of Toronto. And so it was a challenge. And I persuaded them along with David to cast some of our local people. Peter McNeil, who was the sheriff, was part they had earmarked for others, and then they had to admit he was wonderful. Stephen McCattie, Greg Brick, the roles at the very beginning of the film, who sort of initiate the violence. The studio said, well, we've never heard of these people. They knew of Stephen McCarty, but not Greg. And then they fell in love with them, and in fact... cast them in a couple of their other movies. Victories for you. It was. It was. And it was also, it spoke to the depth of the talent pool here in Canada. Now that this is an option that's on the table, would you want to win an Oscar? I don't know. I have won the Canadian Screen Award, and it was a very anxious making process, just going up on stage and in the spotlight, and that's not my fun thing. So having done it once, it was a thrill, it was a rush, but I don't know. I would... Let's just say it would be very anxious making. Not my idea of a good time at all. I like to applaud other people's work. Deirdre is so great to speak with you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Deirdre Bowen is a Canadian casting director. She's in Toronto.

You've been listening to the As It Happens podcast. Our show can be heard Monday to Friday on CBC Radio 1 after your world tonight. And you can, of course, also listen to our show online at cbc.ca.a slash AIH or on the CBC Listen app or of course wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Neil Keogsel. And I'm Chris Howden. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.