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 2018

The Current Transcript for April 17, 2018

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The whole world opened their eyes when they saw the image of the boy on the beach. There is something in that photo to wake up the world.

LAURA LYNCH: That boy on the beach, who on first glance appeared to be sleeping peacefully, was little Alan Kurdi. And that image of the three-year-old, drowned when he tried to reach Greece with his parents and brother, galvanized the debate in Canada about whether to accept more Syrian refugees. Tima Kurdi was Alan's aunt and the Vancouver woman became the unwitting voice for Syrians desperate to find refuge. She has now written a book detailing what happened to Alan and her wider family. My conversation with Tima Kurdi in about an half an hour from now. After that, what is water worth, and what is it really for?

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: What this investment would mean is a $10 billion facility. It's the biggest economic news in half a century.

LL: An electronics manufacturer wants to build a plant in Wisconsin, near Lake Michigan's western shore. The mayor of Racine, Cory Mason, says it will bring much needed work to the area. But opponents say the price is too high, the plant will draw millions of litres of water from the lake every day. While it's promising to treat most of the water and return it, there are skeptics who claim the plant shouldn't go ahead at all. But we start today with another side of the increasingly tense argument over the Kinder Morgan pipeline project.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Chanting in unison]

MANY VOICES: We say no ...got to go.

LL: The voices of protest against the pipeline include Indigenous people who vow it will never be built. But it's not just politicians who are split. First Nations in Alberta and British Columbia disagree too. We'll talk to leaders in each province this morning and from a lawyer specializing in Indigenous rights who believes the courts will have the last say on Kinder Morgan. I'm Laura Lynch sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current.

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion divides Indigenous communities

Guests: Bob Chamberlin, Stephen Buffalo, Jack Woodward

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We are working on the legislative options as we speak and as soon as we have something to present we will put it forward but it will be associated with ensuring that it is clear and certain that this pipeline will be built.

LL: As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to assert that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will not be stopped, those who oppose the project also want to be heard. Yesterday, a united front of Indigenous and civic leaders joined for a news conference in Vancouver reinforcing their joint opposition to the pipeline expansion, which would twin Kinder Morgan's existing pipeline that runs from outside Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., almost tripling its capacity. And Rueben George with the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation poked holes in Prime Minister Trudeau's confidence.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: What an exciting time, we could see the end of the tunnel and we could see that we're winning. We could see that the Albertan and Justin Trudeau are pretty desperate on what they're doing. I think they're trying to save their political lives…rumbling went on about the consultation that they didn't do that has gotten them in trouble.

LL: While B.C. and Alberta are divided over the project, so too are Indigenous communities. Some leaders see economic prosperity for their people. Others see environmental ruin, and warn that Trans Mountain could become Canada's own Standing Rock, another Indigenous-led protest of another controversial pipeline in the United States that stretched on for months. Chief Bob Chamberlin is the vice-president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. He is in Vancouver. Hello

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Good morning.

LL: How far are you willing to go to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion?

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Well the First Nations that are in clear opposition to this project are willing to do all that it takes to stop. And when I say "stop" what I'm what I'm referring to is having the expression of the title holders of the territory saying no. And this is what the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples hold for First Nations people in Canada is the free, prior and informed consent. And so if the answer "no" is what a First Nation arrives at that is what needs to be respected.

LL: And just to clarify, when you say title holders, just for all of our listeners, most of British Columbia has never been settled by treaty so it is still unceded territory for many Indigenous groups.

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Yes that's very correct and that's what makes British Columbia unique in this regard in many ways across Canada is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Aboriginal rights have not been extinguished, that there is Aboriginal title in Canada, and that its territorial in nature, and this is from the Supreme Court of Canada. So what we're witnessing is yet another government willing to run right over top of Supreme Court of Canada decisions and this should be a concern for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

LL: OK. I want to get into that some more, but I just want to clarify when you say "stop," do you mean only stop through the courts or are you also saying if push comes to shove it's also stopped through protest?

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Well we're witnessing now the activities that were going on in the Tsleil-Waututh First Nations territory in Burnaby and I'm also mindful of Chief Lee Spahan from Coldwater First Nation around Merritt where he was quoted in the media as talking about this being their Standing Rock, so there are many opportunities for First Nations because the pipeline covers so many different First Nations territories, every one of them the potential protest and blockade site.

LL: Now we spoke to the Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr yesterday and he said that this government has learned from the previous government of Stephen Harper that it's not making the same mistakes when it comes to consultation with First Nations groups and it had done extensive consultation. What do you say to that?

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Well when you consider this government has to the international community declared that Canada is unequivocally embracing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which I hope Canadians understand as a set of a bare minimum standard for human rights recognition, and so this is where the notion of consent comes in on our tidelands. But when the Crown continues to perpetuate this myth of authority and acting upon what Supreme Court of Canada has called presumed to Crown title, this is where they prop up consultation as the end all be all. But what it does though is it consolidated decision making within the Crown's authority and that decision making is based upon presumed title. So this is why the UN declaration is an important instrument for First Nations across Canada, recognizing our human rights, recognizing our authority over tidelands, and recognizing the fact that we can make decisions.

LL: Is there an agreement that can be made here with groups that are opposed to Kinder Morgan or is it simply stop now we are not going to talk about this anymore?

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Well this is going to take a completely new approach for Canada and I mean a 150 year history of willingly and wantingly running over Aboriginal rights in Canada and now they're faced with a situation where they recognize our peoples as human beings for crying out loud that have the authority to make decisions and this is a complex discussion. But it's not one where they can just pick favourites, divide, and conquer as they always have. It must be inclusive of all First Nations perspectives.

LL: We're going to be speaking to a First Nations community leader next who says that this project will result in jobs and economic advantages for many First Nations communities. What do you say to those communities if this pipeline isn't built?

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Every First Nation is seeking to close the socioeconomic gap for their peoples and every nation also weighs the benefits against the impacts of the one’s territories and the fact that this project spans so many different First Nations territories is the complicating factor. But the thing is every First Nation wants industry, every First Nation wants [unintelligible], but it has to be one that's consistent with their principles and values and vision that they have for their tidelands not to be imposed by the government and certainly not to be imposed by some company from Texas.

LL: Just briefly, Chief Chamberlin, do you think this pipeline will be built?

BOB CHAMBERLIN: I can't see that it's going to be built and I say that because the opposition that is present is very much committed to this, and so this is again a failing of the government. And this is going to happen again on a different project if the government does not act meaningfully to let First Nations or to let the government receive First Nations place in the governance of this country and the territories.

LL: Chief Chamberlin, I thank you for your time.

BOB CHAMBERLIN: Thank you very much.

LL: Bob Chamberlin is the vice-president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. He is in Vancouver. Not all Indigenous communities are opposed to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Kinder Morgan says it has reached agreements with 43 Indigenous groups in British Columbia and Alberta. Steven Buffalo is the president and chief executive of the Indian Resource Council, which represents oil and gas-producing Indigenous nations. He joins me from our Calgary studio. Hello.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Good morning.

LL: You heard Chief Chamberlin there, what do you think of what he had to say?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: You know we support that 100 per cent, you know, the approach of all of this is it has been kind of done backwards. You know, for years governments, and proponent's, industry have come to First Nations with decisions made, and you know an opportunity just happened on Sunday, you know where you had the premiers of B.C. and Alberta speaking with the prime minister with no First Nation inclusion. You know that's the difficult part. You know, again, emphasize what he said you know Canada has opened its arms to UNDRIP and yet we're still in this predicament here. You know but saying that you know I'm still optimistic about an opportunity here for our communities, not only oil and gas producing communities, but for all communities in Canada if we can find some resolve here. You know the approach needs to really change.

LL: When you say UNDRIP you're referring to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But you do disagree on one point, you are in favour of this pipeline, tell me why.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well again you know to emphasize the fact that you know Canada has failed tremendously with our contribution agreements that we get for programming. So we have to find a different way of sustainability and with oil and gas in our area all around us, you know, it's pretty hard not to be involved in it. So you know it has provided subsidizing for programs. It provides you know sufficient housing and it deals with water issues because that extra revenue coming to the community provides jobs, specific training areas, and you know we've seen First Nations community and peoples and entrepreneurs really step forward and take advantage and prosper, you know, and really the results are coming back to the community in some way. So it's been very beneficial. We've learned a lot. And we've been definitely moving more positively towards it so it's been good.

LL: Do you have any conditions though attached to your support of the pipeline project?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Oh absolutely. You know in 2016 we hosted a pipeline gridlock conference here and you know the government, industry leaders, and our First Nation leaders were all in attendance and it was agreed upon that you know four things. One is that the environment and economic has to strike a balance. The issue of consultation free, informed, prior consent obviously with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has to be thoroughly done properly. Thirdly you know the big one is the economic side of it is equity opportunity must be put forward in participation at all levels.

LL: So you want a piece of the action?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Absolutely. You know with all of the — fourthly let me just finish the point — we want to see the technology of the pipelines be world-class just as the regulations are. So you know seeing a big piece of the action that's the key component here and to me that's the saviour for all First Nations people. If we can find a way to be part owners and this issue we call revenue sharing be brought to the forefront with our Indigenous leaders to talk about it to the government and to the proponents I think that's a start.

LL: But there is such a split here when you speak to Chief Chamberlin and other Indigenous leaders who oppose the pipeline. Is there a way that these two opposite positions can be reconciled?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well you know it really begins with dialogue and sitting down and talking about the issues at hand. You know definitely we support the concerns that a lot of the people that aren't in support of and they’re primarily environmental concerns. But due to non-disclosure we don't know what was offered on the table. We don't know the compensation as to the risk of mitigation on the environmental concerns and is there a number? Can we get to that? I think we can. But it really takes that dialogue between the parties to come forward. And again if we can get that and then maybe we can come up with a plan, we can take to the different levels of government and industry to ensure that the project goes forward.

LL: Well what is at stake here? What will it mean for First Nations communities if this project doesn't go ahead?

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well you know it just makes things a lot difficult. Obviously you know if the price of oil stays where it’s at, you know, some of our producing nations you know will; I'm sure they'll find a way but it just won't be as prosperous as it could be. Again Canada needs First Nations and that's the real picture here. If we're not at those tables and we're not allowed to bring things forward it's difficult for all of this to move forward. You know Notley and Trudeau and the B.C. premier you know they really need to embrace that. You know I've reached out to Minister Carr, I've given him a linear project valuation where you know issues of trend...

LL: What does that mean? A linear project valuation.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Well it's just a way to help these linear projects go through; be it a railway, a highway, transmission line and pipeline, and it really comes up to the valuation. What does access cost? And it’s set up to not defer the project but it's really in support of that all parties are satisfied, especially First Nations rights.

LL: We will leave it there. Steven Buffalo, thank you.

STEPHEN BUFFALO: Yes, thank you very much.

LL: Steven Buffalo is the president and chief executive of the Indian Resource Council, which represents oil and gas-producing Indigenous nations. He was in our Calgary studio. My next guest is a lawyer who specializes in Aboriginal rights and constitutional cases. Jack Woodward drafted part of Canada's Constitution; specifically section 35, which recognizes and affirms the rights of Indigenous people. We reached him in Campbell River, British Columbia. Hello.

JACK WOODWARD: Good morning, Laura.

LL: What court cases are underway right now around the planned expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

JACK WOODWARD: My count is 14 court cases, might be a couple more actually. And there are several different aspects of it. There are cases brought by First Nations. There are cases brought by municipal governments and by provincial governments. There are a lot of different approaches to this pipeline in the courts that have been going on for quite a while now actually.

LL: So what are the core legal arguments when it comes to Aboriginal rights in this case?

LL: Well the Aboriginal rights arguments — there are two. There are the people that already have recognized Aboriginal rights and they say their rights are going to be infringed and then there's the First Nations who don't have court declarations of their Aboriginal rights who say they haven't been properly consulted. And in both cases they're fundamentally about environmental impacts that affect them, either you know fish or wildlife or birds or plants or water supply. One of the important cases is the Coldwater case that's the name of the First Nation Coldwater and it's a case about water.

LL: Where is the band?

JACK WOODWARD: Well Coldwater is near Merritt in central British Columbia so it's not a coastal case. The price has to go down the Coldwater valley. And so it either has to go through the reserve or to the east or the west of the reserve. And in that case Kinder Morgan decided to put it to the eastern side of the reserve and unfortunately that's right over the aquifer where the Coldwater First Nation gets its water supply and so the danger there is that if there was a leak of this bitumen — diluted bitumen as a chemical substance that is going to be in one of the pipes — and if there was a leak of that into the earth it would permanently pollute that aquifer and destroy the water supply for this community. So they're concerned about that. That's a local water supply concern and then the other kinds of concerns have to do with fish, wildlife, that type of thing.

LL: And so courts pay attention to precedent. What precedent setting cases are the courts possibly looking to when they're making the decision in these cases?

JACK WOODWARD: Well there's been tons of litigation. You know the most recent there was a… case. But before that you know there was a there was already a case about a pipeline. This is all déjà vu. The case about the Northern Gateway pipeline was decided by a judge and in that case it was Justice Marvin Koenigsberg in British Columbia Supreme Court she pointed out that nobody gets to call the constitutional shots in Canada anymore. It's called co-operative federalism. It's actually a name for it. And under co-operative federalism neither the province, nor Canada, nor the First Nations get to decide the way they want it. Everybody has to work together. It's different than it was 50 or 100 years ago when people understood the Constitution to mean that one party or the other had exclusive jurisdiction. Well it's not like that anymore.

LL: If that's the case then can this pipeline be built without buy in from all First Nations?

JACK WOODWARD: Well it would be very difficult. You know in theory there's the possibility of expropriation and that kind of thing but it's virtually impossible in Canada to do that. You hear some bluster coming from Ottawa about you know this pipeline will be built. I think you played that clip a few minutes ago. It's not that easy. In Canada now you need to get people into a consensus. They have to agree. And there's no bullying allowed. You have to get people on board and into agreement. That's what's kind of silly about Kinder Morgan imposing this May 31 deadline. You know it can't be done by May 31, there's just no way. So people just have to calm down and let this thing take its time.

LL: When you say it can’t be done, you're referring to what, I suppose both consultations and also court cases. When is a decision expected in the cases that you've been talking about?

JACK WOODWARD: Well in some of the cases like I say there are 14 cases so you can't really generalize and these are serious cases where litigants have gone to court and made arguments. In some cases the judges have reserved decision and we’re waiting for their decisions. In other cases they haven't yet been argued. They've been filed.

LL: So we're months from hearing the end of these legal cases.

JACK WOODWARD: That's right. And it's going to be decided by judges, it's not going to be decided by politicians making speeches. You know you can't make a sort of a magic wand decision about this. Nobody can do that, whether it's the prime minister or premier or anybody else.

LL: Jack I'm sorry we've only got about 15 seconds left. I just want to ask you, do you think this pipeline will be built?

JACK WOODWARD: I don't think there's a chance.

LL: Alright. I guess we'll leave it there with that blunt assessment. Jack Woodward, thank you.

JACK WOODWARD: You bet, anytime.

LL: Jack Woodward is a lawyer specializing in Aboriginal rights and constitutional cases. We reached him in Campbell River, B.C. The CBC News is next. Then I'll speak with Tima Kurdi about the photograph that has come to define the Syrian refugee crisis, a photo of her three-year-old nephew's body on a Turkish beach. She has written about Alan Kurdi's tragic death in her book, The Boy on the Beach. I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Boy on the beach: How Alan Kurdi's family are turning their grief into a fight to help refugees

Guest: Tima Kurdi,

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer wants to open up shop in rural Wisconsin, creating thousands of jobs. Business and political leaders are over the moon, but environmentalists warn that the plant's water needs could threaten the Great Lakes and Canada should be concerned — that story in half an hour. But first, the boy on the beach.

[Music]

LL: Somewhere in Turkey, a few years ago, you might have heard this music playing on a tinny cellphone, from the sparsely-furnished apartment housing a family of Syrian refugees. You might have heard a father, a mother, and their two young sons clapping, dancing and singing along to the boys' favourite song. That family was the Kurdi family, one of the millions of Syrians who left home when a revolution that began in 2011 morphed into a war with no end in sight. Abdullah, his wife Rehanna, and their two boys, Ghalib and Alan, left their families and everything they knew behind to try to make a new life in Turkey when it became too dangerous to stay in Syria. No one knew this family's name then, but a year later, the body of one of these children, three-year-old Alan Kurdi's body, washed up on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea on Sept. 2, 2015. He became an immediate symbol of the human cost of war and a global refugee crisis. As that photo spread around the world, one woman was especially shattered to see it from her home in British Columbia. Her name is Tima Kurdi and she realized with horror that that boy was her nephew, Alan. The boy's father, Abdullah, is her brother. It wasn't long after that she faced the cameras to speak of her brother's ordeal.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: He text me he said "We’re leaving now.” And he said "The water was so calm, crystal clear, and that's what I know it's safe to do it, put the life jacket on them." And Alan was so excited, so happy before that trip. “We're going to have fun daddy.” He said "Where are we going?" He said "To Europe." There were 12 of them. He was upset with this smuggler. He said "I'm paying you the double what the rubber boats will pay for. You can't put 12 with us. It's too heavy.” The smuggler said "Don't worry about it, we did it 100 times and it's very safe. So when the big wave hit the boat and flipped it upside down, so Abdullah right away can't catch those boys. He tried so hard from as much power as he can to take them up from the water and screamed "Breathe, breathe. I don't want you to die.”

LL: Now, in her new book, The Boy on The Beach, Tima Kurdi tells the story of how her family's lives were shattered by the war and how she became an unwitting advocate for refugees after suffering the loss of her nephews and sister-in-law at sea while they attempted to flee to Europe. Tima Kurdi is in Vancouver. Tima, I can see that this brings back a lot of memories for you as has writing this book. What was your reaction to hearing the music and that tape of yourself?

TIMA KURDI: It's heartbreaking to go back to this memory because that music, to be honest, I never heard that after the tragedy because I can't until now, two years after. I just went back, imagining them, jumping on the couch, clapping their hands, happy like any child could be, and his family and everybody. It's very emotional.

LL: I'm sorry that this is raising strong emotions for you, but I know you've written the book because you do want people to understand and remember and one of the things that you say about little Alan was that he was always a really happy boy. Tell me what you remember about him.

TIMA KURDI: I always when I used to video chat with him and his brother Ghalib I can always see him in the background, you know, always laughing, loud. And I remember Rehanna sometimes - the mother - she would say to me, even them; they are surprised how this boy is happy. She said "I went to the grocery store and he always waved to people goodbye or hi." And she said "The grocery store some time if I buy anything from the grocery, by kilo, they always give them even more, like to add more, and they thought she was [unintelligible]. And they say in Turkish, I don't know the word, but its meaning for a beautiful angel. You know his words always in my mind no matter what every single moment. Their voices for me give me so much guilt that those voices disappear. And it's real. They won't come back. I try so much to let it go because it's hurting me so much; hurting my brother also so much.

LL: What was it that drove your brother and his family to leave Syria in the first place?

TIMA KURDI: I was in Turkey in September 2014 and all of a sudden we heard in the news that ISIS is going to invade Kobanî and so we got the phone call Rehanna and she's panicking and her father. Most of the Kobanî people they have to flee as soon as possible. I remember exactly how we were very stressed out. Every few minutes she will tell us it just to update us she's alive, the boys are alive. So finally they managed to flee and I come to Canada. I miss them for just a few hours when they enter the border.

LL: Right, you had to leave Turkey before they actually arrive.

TIMA KURDI: Yes.

LL: So they were they were living very difficult lives there. They had no job security. They probably didn't have enough money to live on. At one point you're trying to help your family, you send the money from Canada all the time. But at one point you offer Abdullah money to get his teeth fixed. Tell me what happened.

TIMA KURDI: In 2012 he was captured by some group of rebels or gang. Back then nobody know about ISIS or anybody. So when he told me the story in 2014 I cannot take it off my head. I said to myself I promise I want to give him his teeth back because watching him, cannot eat or chew food. Even a cucumber, when he was joking with my dad, he can’t even...

LL: He couldn't eat a cucumber.

TIMA KURDI: He can't. How he going to chew it? It's the gum. Only gum. So I decide I really want to get him help, like even dental, even implant, whatever. Abdullah always, as a father, you don't put yourself first. You know you want to look to give something better for your own children and the family. So after many times talking about it I want to send you money and I want you to eat like everybody else. He kept rejecting it and said like “You know are you crazy? I'm not even worth a $1,000. Honestly if you want to help me help me with something else.” So my family again like thousands of other people their hope was they had enough of struggle. Their hope was in the other side of the world in what they call it Europe.

LL: Europe.

TIMA KURDI: Europe.

LL: Yeah.

TIMA KURDI: And all the Syrian refugee or the refugee themselves always talk in a circle. You know the only option everybody's doing to go there. So one day Abdullah said to me “If you can give me just $2,000 and I can go to Europe and then eventually I can bring my family with me.” But again after talking together with my family, you know, he has a small kids and Rehanna, how's she going to survive in Turkey? I'm not a rich person. I can send her the rent, but I cannot — this is another guilt you know. I could've. I could've. So I thought about it. I talked to my husband about it and I said to him “How much the smuggler wants?” And he said “Because my kids goes for free, if you could send me $5,000.”

LL: Then the whole family could go.

TIMA KURDI: For the whole family can go instead he can leave her or send her back to the refugee camp where her family is. And this is what happened.

LL: But at the same time you were starting some efforts to try to get Abdullah and his family and other siblings of yours and their families to Canada. What happened? Because it didn't work out. Something went wrong. What was the holdup?

TIMA KURDI: You know the restriction Canada has for refugees almost impossible. Every turn, every turn, I went through. It's just a block front for me.

LL: At one point you get in touch with your local Member of Parliament, Fin Donnelly, from the NDP and he offers to take a personal letter that you write to the then-Immigration Minister Chris Alexander. He does that. He delivers your letter. What response did you get from the minister?

TIMA KURDI: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The funny part is that Chris Alexander he knows about the letter. He knows the Kurdi last name because I'm sure he read it. But the excuse is was that there is too many letters — thousands of them. But at least something they could do, right? Something. Respond. No we can't. The response I get from the official, from the immigration, it was like almost a slap in your face. They will send me to response what is exactly on the website. But why do you even bother to refer me to the same road what I know for months every single day?

LL: Such frustration. And by this time Abdullah is telling you that he knows you're doing your best. But he's given up on Canada. He's decided Canada doesn't want him so he's got the money; the family goes to try to make this crossing. It took many attempts. I didn't realize how many times until I read the book to finally make the trip across the Mediterranean. What was he telling you about what was going on in the lead up to their actual departure?

TIMA KURDI: So imagine for the whole months almost if it’s not every day, every second day, you pack your stuff, your kids, their sleeping, and you run to that hope and you come back. So that's the challenge was like everybody else. My family, it's not the only story. It's still thousands of other family stories.

LL: So after all of these attempts he texts you August 31, 2015 to tell you he's making the journey that night and we heard you in the tape earlier describing those harrowing details. He was worried about that boat before he left, wasn’t he?

TIMA KURDI: Of course, everybody.

LL: Tell me about how you found out what happened?

TIMA KURDI: I would never forget moment when I found out about that tragic news. I remember of course after that text message I could not sleep. We didn't hear from him. I was so tired I almost fell asleep. And the minute I opened my eyes it was 4 a.m. I am in bed and I'm just thinking like I want to go to help and stuff; it took me a while to get up. But everything almost like a butterfly in your heart that you have to run to your loved one and something's happening. I was panicking. When I opened that cellphone, when I saw a dozen phone calls, not text messages, phone calls that gave me the sign that I just I want to bury myself almost because definitely there is something wrong.

LL: Who were the phone calls from?

TIMA KURDI: It was from my sister Shireen in Damascus, my father in Damascus; from my family, Maha and… in Turkey.

LL: So what did you do?

TIMA KURDI: I phoned Shireen. The first thing, I'm shaking, and she sounded crying, and to make it even harder the phone line was so not clear. All what I heard from her Abdullah and the sound like she's crying. And I screamed as loud as I could "What's wrong with Abdullah? Tell me what's wrong. I can't hear you. I can't understand you. What's wrong with Abdullah?” And so I was shaking. I dropped the phone and I was screaming. My husband came running into the kitchen, my son came from the basement, imagine how loud I was. And I just dropped to the floor and start pulling my head and I said “What's happening? Something’s wrong with Abdullah.” And he said "Well call somebody else.” And I said “I can't. Find me their number. I can't. I'm shaking. The minute I called Mohammad's wife. She was crying and she said to me “Abdullah's kids and his wife, they drowned.” I said “What? [Sobbing] I will never forget that moment, never in my life. When I talk about it, I just want to scream to the world that it's not fair. It's not fair that the people who suffer so much that the world denied them and we almost don't even want to help them. [Sobbing].

LL: The next hours for you, the next couple of days, they go by in a bit of a blur. I know you spoke to Abdullah and he was having a very difficult time and you could tell that. And then I think it was your son who showed you a photograph. And that's the photo the whole world saw of Alan washed up on the shore. When you saw that photo, what did you do?

TIMA KURDI: I honestly, that moment — sorry my husband Rocco he has that photo. When he showed me, “Do you know anything about this photo?” I looked at it even though it was facedown. I don't know why I had that feeling that boy belongs to us. I said “I think this is Alan, Abdullah's son.” I wasn't sure to be honest. I just remember that t-shirt, the shoes I bought him a year before, exactly, when I wasn't 100 per cent sure I sent it back and she's still crying. And she said “Alan. This is Alan.”

LL: What you didn't realize was how that became such an astonishingly powerful image. It became a momentum for a shift. Germany agreed to take in another 50,000 refugees. You were invited to meet with the UN Human Rights body with the European Union. Your brother Abdullah was given a flight back home a place to stay. He had police escorts. Suddenly the lack of papers wasn't a problem anymore. What do you make of that belated goodwill and resources that came to you and your family because of that photograph?

TIMA KURDI: Yeah, honestly, the photo, I don't know what to tell you exactly. All of a sudden the whole world opened their eyes when they saw the image of the boy on the beach. There is something in that photo to wake up the world. Everybody was touched by it, moved them to help the others, finally, and everyone promised to do more. And well how long did it take? What? A few months, two months, or three months. This is how politics works. They show you they are, you know, all of a sudden they feel sorry for the people who struggle. They're trying to help. They want to show the world they are good people. After two months everybody went back to sleep, went back to business, and they forget. So these images continue to today, for example, people are still drowning, people still dying, innocent children dying. But it doesn't move them anymore.

LL: And yet you and Abdullah both in the midst of all of your grief decide there's something that you need to do. Tell me what you decided to do?

TIMA KURDI: To me, I felt there are thousands of other people going through what my family is going through. So I want to speak up.

LL: What you and Abdullah are doing started with a very simple gesture of taking diapers to a refugee camp. Tell me about that.

TIMA KURDI: The diaper, his idea, I was like "Why you want to buy diapers?" And he said "Because I don't want any baby, any baby, in the world to go through what I couldn't buy for my own son, Alan. I could not afford that for him." Rehanna used to use a cloth and plastic wrap around it and he was had a rash. So that's what Abdullah, it mean a lot. And I remember I give him $500 for diapers. We bought a van full of diapers and the minute we went to the refugee camp and all what I see is Abdullah smiling when he see those babies, the family, and they have babies, and he just hands it to them. It means the world to him. That’s why we opened the Kurdi Foundation actually. To Abdullah that’s what he wants the rest of his life. The Kurdi foundation to focus those affected by war and hopefully he can help, he really wants to do it. He wants to deliver everything by his hand.

LL: In terms of hope when you look at what's happening now in Syria the situation seems to be escalating. What do you see as a way forward for your own country?

TIMA KURDI: It's very sad that I think Syria for the last almost eight years have suffered enough. There is nothing left there. And the dying continues, the bloodshed, like how much more can the world can see? We need enough voices, enough people, to actually talk about peace, to bring peace to Syria. You know we're looking now about the military action in Syria, I honestly, it's a big mistake. We are not helping the people themself. I think the only thing we should focus on is political solution to bring peace to Syria. Syria has suffered enough.

LL: And just to be clear your family throughout this conflict has refused to align themselves with any group, is that still the case?

TIMA KURDI: Absolutely we are not any sides. I am with the people. I witnessed so many stuff and stories from refugee camp from people on the street. I heard both sides story. I cannot rely on one side of the story. So I am with my people. I am with those people who suffer in the middle of this conflict.

LL: Tima Kurdi, thank you very much.

TIMA KURDI: Thank you for having me.

LL: Tima Kurdi is the author of The Boy on The Beach. She and her brother Abdullah now run the Kurdi Foundation to bring aid to children in refugee camps. Tima Kurdi was in our Vancouver studio. Coming up it is the biggest thing to happen to Wisconsin in generations: a $10 billion electronics plant that will employ 13,000 people once it's up and running. But Foxconn's proposed facility comes with a catch. It'll use tens of millions of litres of water every day from Lake Michigan, and that has environmentalists on both sides of the border crying foul. We'll dive in, in our next half hour. I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti this week and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Why a water-gulping Wisconsin plant is a wake-up call for Canada

Guests: Ezra Meyer, Cory Mason, Bob Sandford

LL: I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti, and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I put down in my paper that I was kind of in between, looking for an answer and the answer that I got tonight made it really clear that I am terribly opposed to Foxconn and the diversion.

VOICE 2: We have been presented with a great opportunity to expand development in Mount Pleasant along the I-94 corridor.

VOICE 3: The water of the great lakes is not an infinite resource. Rain and streams replenish only one per cent of the lakes water each year.

VOICE 4: Foxconn gives people from Milwaukee to Chicago, some hope and a chance for security. This has the potential of being a game changer for us all.

LL: Those are just a few of the voices at a recent public meeting in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. Local residents weighed in on an enormous industrial plant planned in Wisconsin by Taiwan-based Foxconn International, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer. The $10 billion plant will manufacture primarily LCD panels. It will create 11,000 construction jobs and employ another 13,000 people once operations begin, an economic boon for the rural region of Wisconsin along Lake Michigan's western shore. But it's not without controversy. In addition to creating all those jobs, the Foxconn plant would be a major suck on Lake Michigan requiring nearly 22 million litres of water per day. Much of the water would be treated and returned to the Great Lake but not all of it. And that's led some to argue the Foxconn plant would contravene the Great Lakes Compact, signed by the lakes' eight neighbouring U.S. states, along with Ontario and Quebec. They say the compact was created to guard against just this kind of large-scale industrial water diversion. Meanwhile, environmentalists north of the border are demanding more leadership from Ottawa to protect Canada's own water interests. I'll be speaking with one of Canada's foremost leaders in water management and conservation. But first, to Wisconsin. Ezra Meyer is the Water Resources Specialist of the environmental group, Clean Wisconsin. He is in Madison, Wisconsin. Hello.

ERZA MEYER: Hello.

LL: What are you most concerned about with the potential opening of this Foxconn plant?

ERZA MEYER: The main thing I've been focused on as a water resources specialist at Clean Wisconsin is that the diversion issue in particular we're worried about the Great Lakes Compact provision that requires that water use like this where the water is to be taken across the divide in this case the Mississippi River Basin is to be used for public purposes only. In this case the water to be diverted is for private purposes. It's for Foxconn and spinoff industrial development exclusively. No residential water usage at all in the diversion area. And to us that's a threshold issue in the Great Lakes Compact and an important one that makes the present proposal at least something not pass muster under the compact.

LL: What about the amount of water Foxconn will need daily?

ERZA MEYER: On the water quantity dimension of the issue here we're concerned about the amount of water that's used consumptively everyday under the proposal. Nearly 40 per cent of the water that would be pumped out of Lake Michigan everyday would not be able to return back to the lake due to evaporative losses. The amount of water that moves through the Great Lakes every year even though they’re a vast resource is really a small percentage of the volume there.

LL: But for the amount of water that would be treated and returned do you feel that you have assurances about it being effectively treated?

ERZA MEYER: That's another consideration that we're definitely paying attention to. I know the mayor is as well. But we want to be sure that the water that gets returned back to the lake is clean. Everyone who uses that water on both sides of the border as drinking water source and for recreation and myriad other uses want to be sure that's clean water going back into the lake.

LL: Ok you’ve set out your concerns. I'd like to bring someone else into the conversation. Cory Mason is the mayor of Racine, Wisconsin, which provides water and waste water treatment in the area, and made the water diversion application for the Foxconn project. We've reached Mayor Mason in Racine. Hello.

CORY MASON: Hello.

LL: What do you say to the concerns Mr. Meyer has raised?

CORY MASON: It's really separating them in two different camps right. First is the water quantity issue and then it is the water quality issue. Certainly adhering to the Great Lakes Compact is something that's very important to me as a previous state legislator, I was actually involved in drafting Wisconsin's Great Lakes Compact statute. And so what you have before you is that community of Mount Pleasant to whom the city of Racine provides water. More than 90 per cent of which is in the Great Lakes basin and so there's this small portion of Mount Pleasant near our interstate that is outside of the basin. And so they're asking for water to be provided to that small area of Mount Pleasant. Here's what the compact actually says: Public water supply purposes means water distributed to the public through a physically connected system of treatment serving a group of largely residential customers that may also serve industrial, commercial, and other institutional operators. So my opinion is, number one, the compact was never intended to stop industrial use within the Great Lakes Basin. That not what its purpose was. It was really to stop large scale diversions outside of the basin with these narrow exceptions like Mount Pleasant whose borders don't follow perfectly the Great Lakes Basin line because it's sort of squiggles like a river. And so the intention was always to let straddling communities square that boundary out if they were already getting their water from a provider that was tied into the Great Lakes.

LL: Mr. Meyer what do you say to that? He says this is clearly within the boundaries of the compact.

ERZA MEYER: I mean obviously what the compact says is with the compact says. But the emphasis on public water supply purposes is where we're hung up as we evaluate this proposal against the compact's requirements. And the exclusive use for private purposes here and for private industrial purposes specifically is what just doesn't quite meet the specific requirement there on the letter of the law nor the intent.

LL: So you two obviously disagree on this point. Mayor Mason can you tell us what the plant would mean to the regional economy in southeastern Wisconsin?

CORY MASON: It would be the largest economic development certainly in my lifetime, certainly something bigger than we've seen in half a century. I mean look our community Racine is not that different from you know places like Hamilton and Brantford and others that have deindustrialized in recent years and are trying to position themselves for the 21st century economy. So we're still a manufacturing town. We make things. But what this investment would mean is a $10 billion facility, 11,000 construction jobs to build it, and then 13,000 permanent jobs for people to work there, plus whatever additional residential customers would move to the area or other industrial users that would come to the area. It's the biggest economic news literally for this community in half a century. And so as the mayor of the city that has unfortunately led the state in unemployment for a quarter century the opportunity to get people back to work to family supporting wages is a very important consideration in this.

LL: Mr. Meyer you hear him saying how important this is to the economy in the area, to the people in the area, are you outright opposed to the plant?

ERZA MEYER: We are not. Clean Wisconsin is not opposed to the Foxconn project. We've had you know concerns over the state's headlong approach to encouraging this project with rollbacks of environmental standards. In the instance of the compact thankfully the majority of the standards anyway that are shared by all the states and by the provinces are to be met. But there are some local state level environmental standards that were waved through legislation so that Foxconn wouldn't have to meet wetland requirements and stream filling requirements some of these sorts of things so that legislation that passed last year to sort of pave the way for the Foxconn project is definitely something we were opposed to. The project as a whole though we're not opposed to.

LL: OK we will get to the wetlands question in a second because it is important. But first Mayor Mason I just want you to address some of the other concerns that were outlined by Mr. Meyer. Foxconn is planning to consume up to 5.8 million gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan which sounds like an awful lot of water. How does that compare to the water that was being pulled from the lake when the region's manufacturing industries were still in their heyday in the 1980s?

CORY MASON: Not even close. And so they would take in 5.8 million gallons a day but they would return 4.3 of it right. But even if they consumed all seven million gallons that's being proposed here, and they're not, but even if they did it would put the Racine water utility nowhere near the capacity of water we were providing to manufacturers in our community in the 1980s. So if you're worried about you know how sustainable it is for Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes itself it really wouldn't have an impact on the lake sustainability. I'm a strong proponent of the compact. I believe in what it does but it was really meant to do two important things: stop large scale diversions outside of the basin and then within the basin when we're using it begin to cumulatively count how much water is being used to ensure that we're sustainably using the resource. And clearly this application wouldn't jeopardize that sustainable use of Lake Michigan water.

LL: And Mr. Meyer you hear him saying that this is nowhere near what it used to be like and it still protects the water basin.

ERZA MEYER: That's right. You know if this proposed project were located in the city of Racine we'd be in a fundamentally different place.

LL: OK. Can you describe that specifically for our audience to understand this idea of a straddling community and what it means?

ERZA MEYER: Sure. A Racine is a community located along Lake Michigan's coast. But Mount Pleasant which is a neighbor to Racine is a community that lies on both sides of the Great Lakes Mississippi River basin divide and in this case they seek to divert water to at least a portion of the community that's outside of the Great Lakes Basin divide. So there's where you have a diversion and these special exceptions to the general ban on diversions that the compact set forth across you know both countries and all of the states and provinces.

LL: But the point that Mayor Mason is making is that the basin is still going to be protected no matter what because the amount of water that's being taken out he contends is relatively minimal compared to what used to be and most of it's going to go back in and be treated. Why is that not good enough for you?

ERZA MEYER: Right. The concern we've got is about the precedent this sets and the potential for other similar projects to happen and to contravene this one important provision of the compact that relatively few standards that a straddling community diversion has to meet include this one about public water supply purposes and so if those kinds of diversions meet the public water supply purposes tests and all the other tests we would have no beef with. That's the way the compact was crafted. But in this case we've got this proposal not meeting the public water supply test and if it's to be approved by Wisconsin which in this case is the only decision maker, will we see more of those across the states across the jurisdictions in Canada? And that precedent setting cumulative impact on the basin is actually more concerned than the specifics of this one here.

LL: And we know that Mayor Mason disagrees with you on the interpretation of the compact legislation. But mayor I want you to get you to address one other point and that is whether you are satisfied that the water that's going to be sent back, will be treated properly and safely?

CORY MASON: Well that's the Racine wastewater utilities job right. And that is separate from this diversion application processor.

LL: Still you must be paying attention to that.

CORY MASON: Very close attention. So we already have 40 industrial users at the Racine wastewater utility that we require under state and federal law to pre-treat their water on site and then send it to our wastewater utility for treatment. But it is Racine wastewater utility that would ultimately give the discharge permit to Foxconn to ensure that Lake Michigan is protected and as the mayor of the city that runs that wastewater utility and a firm believer in protecting Lake Michigan I'm here to assure everybody we're going to make sure we meet or beat every standard in place to make sure that there's nothing that they would be putting into Lake Michigan that would jeopardize the water quality.

LL: All right let's get back to this question of the wetlands. The Wisconsin government did relax some environmental protection provisions in order to entice Foxconn to invest in the state in the first place. Mayor Mason what do those exemptions entail?

CORY MASON: So to be clear there's no exemption for Foxconn in following the compact rules. No exemption on the Clean Water Act or their discharge but they did get exemptions on when and how they get to permit as they're building the facility.

LL: What does that mean?

CORY MASON: It basically makes them easier for them to relocate and remediate wetlands in other areas to build the facility faster.

LL: So that means that they will be building their facility into areas where wetlands exist and then actually covering over those wetlands so they would have to build a new wetland in place, is that what I am understanding?

CORY MASON: Yes and so they get a faster timeline but instead of replacing every wetland with 1.2 Acres of wetland somewhere else they have to replace them with two acres somewhere else. Now I was in the legislature still when we approved this, I was not a fan of these environmental exemptions. But nonetheless, those are the exemptions.

LL: Mr. Meyer what do you think of that?

ERZA MEYER: We were strongly opposed to that legislation. Just thinking that across the board and in this instance there's no need to waive Wisconsin's important environmental protections in order to enable economic development that makes sense.

LL: All right let's pull it back a bit because the reason we want to talk to you about this is because of course there are two Canadian provinces the border on the Great Lakes and are part of the compact. Mr. Meyer do you think the Great Lakes water compact is adequately protecting the Great Lakes.

ERZA MEYER: I think so. It's early. And Wisconsin interestingly enough has been the epicenter of a lot of activity since the compact was passed. This is the third diversion proposal that has come forth from Wisconsin since 2008. But I think on the whole we're doing those two goals that Mayor Mason alluded to earlier that we’re really the bedrock of the compact. We're managing this water in a sustainable way together and we're ensuring that the water in the Great Lakes generally speaking stays in the Great Lakes.

LL: Last word to you Mayor Mason. What do you think is the compact working?

CORY MASON: Well it is much that we have people in Ontario who are part of the eight states and the two provinces that call the Great Lakes home inquiring about the sustainable use of Great Lakes water in Wisconsin and that we're all working on this together in that regard. It's a real success. The tougher question is whether or not this effort to do this compact on a bi-national basis is going to work politically to protect the Great Lakes. And really if we don't protect it together no one else will. So it's great to see this collective interest in protecting the Great Lakes.

LL: Gentlemen, I thank both of you for making the time.

CORY MASON: Thank you.

ERZA MEYER: Thank you Laura.

LL: Bye bye.

CORY MASON: Bye bye.

ERZA MEYER: Goodbye.

LL: Cory Mason is the mayor of Racine, Wisconsin, which provides water and waste water treatment in the region where the proposed Foxconn plant would be built. He joined us from Racine. And Ezra Meyer is the Water Resources Specialist of Clean Wisconsin. He was in Madison, Wisconsin. Bob Sandford has been listening in. He's the Epcor Chair for Water and Climate Security at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health and one of Canada's leading voices on water management and conservation. We've reached him in Nanaimo, B.C. Hello.

BOB SANDFORD: Hello Laura.

LL: How concerned do you think Canadians should be about the proposed Foxconn plant in Wisconsin?

BOB SANDFORD: The immediate issue is whether or not that withdrawal meets the exception standard in the compact and it's the integrity of the compact that matters here. And what we're seeing is a general weakening of environmental standards in the United States and a general desire to strengthen the same standards in Canada. But there's a larger issue here and I think many people sense that if two countries sharing precious water resources abandoned bilateral decision making in dispute resolution that favours larger shared national interests and instead gives into policy determined by accidental or not so accidental local precedent, it's only a matter of time before you end up with serious tension if not conflict over water.

LL: Well hang on — relate what you're saying to this particular project.

BOB SANDFORD: What you're seeing here is compromises are clearly being made. We're in a period right now which even the historically exemplary relations between Canada and the United States overshared waters could go backwards rather than forward.

LL: Well if I understand you correctly you're saying that this plant, this project, should not go forward without the agreement of all states and all provinces?

BOB SANDFORD: I think it means it's a real test of the compact and it's also a test of our willingness to truly cooperate over matters that are perhaps questionable if not certainly controversial. We go back to the compact and how important it is because we noted that the deteriorating condition of the Great Lakes became a bi-national issue in the 1960s when Lake Erie became so polluted that many scientists feared it was near ecological death. And it took a Herculean international effort, a joint effort, not unlike the compact, but it proved that we could work together to restore the health if the two countries cooperated. And it's really important to note from an international perspective that the rest of the world would give their to have the legacy of the co-operative collaboration between neighbours over water that we're allowing to lapse in some ways.

LL: This plant is going to mean 13,000 permanent jobs. Are the water needs a reasonable cost for that kind of an economic opportunity?

BOB SANDFORD: As long as it's done on a proper basis of science and understanding. It has to be recognized to that the hydrology of both countries is changing so when you're saying that the water requirements that may have existed in the 1980s were adequately satisfied and that those same standards could apply today may not be applicable at all. We need to be very careful to use the best knowledge and not to use precedent as a way of establishing policy for the future.

LL: 5.8 million gallons a day does sound like a lot of water but Lake Michigan is made up of 1.3 quadrillion gallons of water plus there are the other four Great Lakes. It does seem like an almost infinite water supply, is it?

BOB SANDFORD: No it's not an infinite water supply. And I think the key point about this issue is not so much about the quantity of water that is going to be used. It's how many precedents will be set by doing this. By establishing this as a standard does this mean that boundary related proposals like this will automatically see approval? Are we being diligent enough? And are we allowing the standards of environmental concern on both sides of the border to be met?

LL: Last week, the U.S. ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft spoke in Toronto and praised the U.S. and Canada's cooperation around the Great Lakes, let's listen to that.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Natural resources have to be protected and made available for everyone to use. Often these issues cross international borders. There is no better example anywhere in the world of two countries working together than on the preservation and supervision of our Great Lakes.

LL: So she is praising the cooperation on the Great Lakes. In this case Ontario and Quebec have a say as part of the Great Lakes Compact but they don't have a veto. Neither could stop this proposed plant in Wisconsin if either wanted to. How do you view that?

BOB SANDFORD: I view that this is a test also for how Canadians manage their own water and I think it's really important to understand that we need to get our own house in order before we can worry about the growing needs of our increasingly thirsty neighbours. Oftentimes we consider water commodity and don't understand its larger values. So I think that this really does cause us to reflect on our need for a new national water ethic in this country.

LL: OK you want a national water strategy which is obviously Ottawa taking leadership on the water file. Give me a sense in concrete fashion how that would look.

BOB SANDFORD: The federal governments largely relinquished control of water to the provinces and territories and as a result we've got 13 different atomize systems for managing water. Each had different expression of local self-interest and this doesn't always result in decisions that serve the larger common good. And what I'm suggesting here is that there are other models such as the European Water Framework Directive which mandates common water quality standards and Trans boundary Water management practices and my view is if 500 million people in 18 countries speaking a dozen different languages can cooperate more effectively than we do over water well then surely we can emulate that.

LL: You mentioned Europe, is there any province or territory that has developed a strategy that you think should be emulated?

BOB SANDFORD: I think the Northwest Territories has developed an outstanding water strategy and I think it's an example we want to use in application to shared waters in this country.

LL: Can you outline the Northwest Territories strategy?

BOB SANDFORD: The strategy first of all is founded an Indigenous consultation and incorporates traditional knowledge and values. It extends upward not just to include apportionment or the amount of water that should be permitted to be passed downstream from one jurisdiction to the other, but deals with quality issues and also ecosystem issues with the goal of protecting systems like wetlands and others in perpetuity so as to allow traditional ways of life to continue to exist in the entire Mackenzie Basin.

LL: What do you think at the end of the day the consequences if Canada doesn't have what you want which is a more robust national strategy?

BOB SANDFORD: At the moment in my view the water communities of our two great countries are a really important historic juncture. Right now we're sliding backwards in our joint protection on water. In my view it's either Canada or the United States really wants a sustainable future. We have to recognize that water really is a continental asset of great value to both countries. And if we want continued prosperity and remain good neighbours we have to keep treating it as such.

LL: For most Canadians though listening to this their only way they're conscious of water is if they take some of the tap of a glass of water or they have a shower. What is at risk in terms of the way most Canadians use water?

BOB SANDFORD: I think it's more a matter not just of use but of perception of the value of water. In Canada we have to transcend the myth of limitless abundance our surface waters are not our only wealth. We tend to think of it as just water we can see. Canada enjoys prosperity in part because many of the regions of the country have adequate water supplies and it can't be viewed as a mere commodity. Surface water, groundwater, water for nature, water for growing food are all linked. All the major resource sectors that drive the Canadian economy rely critically on water: forestry, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and tourism. Our future depends on how we manage the water we see in our rivers and lakes but also the water we don't see in nature and forests in the soils of our farms and we need to see water in a different light. Our prosperity depends on that.

LL: Mr. Sandford, I thank you for your time.

BOB SANDFORD: Thank you very much, Laura.

LL: Bye bye.

BOB SANDFORD: Bye.

LL: Bob Sandford is the Epcor Chair of Water and Climate Security at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health. He was in Nanaimo, B.C. We requested an interview with Catherine McKenna, Canada's Minister of Environment and Climate Change. She was not available. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for q. Tom Power talks to Canadian filmmaker Barry Avrich about his new documentary on disgraced Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein. And yesterday, just to mention this, both the New York Times and The New Yorker magazine shared a Pulitzer Prize for their work in exposing Weinstein's assaults on women and the growth of the #MeToo movement. And remember you can always take The Current with you to go on the CBC Radio app. It lets you browse through past episodes of our show and start listening in just a few seconds. It's free from the App Store or Google Play. I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

April 17, 2018 Full Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode