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 2022

The Current Transcript for April 6, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

MALE SPEAKER: False allegations and accusations are circulating about the International Committee of the Red Cross. They have a huge potential to cause harm to the people we serve and to our Red Cross teams on the ground.

MG: In the middle of a war zone. It is humanitarian organizations that come to the rescue of civilians caught in the crossfire. As the conflict in Ukraine continues the International Committee of the Red Cross has faced fierce criticism for meeting with Russian officials in an attempt to create safe passage for those civilians. In an hour, the complicated business of neutrality in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. Also this morning, catastrophe awaits if governments don't take decisive action now to avert climate change so says the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The U.N. has asked Canada's former Environment Minister Catherine McKenna to assess whether we're on the right track. She's here later. Plus...

BILL HAYES: I was completely shocked, those workout videos. Yes. They're what, 40 years old. But they have not aged. They're great workouts. And she was an exceptional teacher. Never in a million years did I think she’d learn from my book.

MG: The leg warmer, friendly workout videos of Jane Fonda are just one facet of society's obsession with fitness over time. The author, Bill Hayes, is here in 30 minutes to talk about the history of why we work out, whether gyms are indeed the fast food of exercise, and what he learnt about the joy of swimming from his late partner, Oliver Sacks. We begin, though, with the backbone of Canada's food production sector, temporary foreign workers. Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Calls to improve conditions for temporary foreign workers

Guests: Marie-France MacKinnon, Syed Hussan and Carla Qualtrough

MG: The federal government is making it easier to hire temporary foreign workers. Some industries will be allowed to hire more employees from abroad, and in some cases those employees can stay longer. This in response to employers saying they can't find enough Canadians to fill positions. The changes apply to industries like tourism, food production and health care. Terry Lake is CEO of the BC Care Providers Association. He says the long term care sector has a critical shortage of workers and training Canadians is just not enough.

TERRY LAKE: SOUNDCLIP: [We simply won't be able to meet the demand of an ageing population just by looking at domestic solutions. So I think looking to offshore and potential immigration solutions is absolutely necessary for us to be able to meet that demand.]

MG: The food industry has long been lobbying for changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. Marie-France MacKinnon is vice president of the Canadian Meat Council. Good morning.

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: Good morning, Matt.

MG: How difficult has it been for members of your organization to find employees?

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: Well, there's been a significant change in our labour market here in Canada. I mean, the unemployment rate in Canada fell to 5.5 in February. There is nobody to hire. We've always had a systemic issue with labour shortage. But from meat processors that CMC represents over the past two or three years, we've gone from 17 hundred empty butcher stations. As you can imagine, pandemic made everything more critical, and we're now at over 10,000 empty butcher stations across the country.

MG: What does that mean for production?

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: I mean, the impact on meat processing has been, you know, severe we're shutting down production lines. In one instance, an entire plant had to shut down. But our labour shortage doesn't just impact us. We're part of a, you know, supply chain where everybody gets affected. And most importantly, the producers. So we're all in this together, and I think we're all very excited to see the changes to the program announced this week.

MG: I was going to say, how will those new rules affect the employers that you represent?

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: This temporary foreign worker cap, it's really been capping our processing capacity. So this announcement from the minister for a 30 percent will really help to stabilize the food supply chain by allowing us to hire more. I mean our Agri food sector has been faced with so many challenges these past few years, from pandemic, to rail strikes, to export markets closed. We've been hit from all sides in agri food. So it's time for some good news to come our way to really help support agriculture in Canada and our supply chain.

MG: Why do you think it's difficult to hire Canadians to fill these jobs?

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: Well, I think also right now, COVID has shifted everything, you know, we hear it from everywhere. People are making different life choices, choosing early retirement. We're seeing this everywhere and it's not just in our sector, but that's a good question. Actually, why can't we hire more Canadians? So some of the measures announced this week will provide, you know, necessary short term relief for our agri food companies and meat processors. But there's a longer term solution that we need to address, the systemic labour shortage. So a few months ago, we actually embarked the agri food sector on a two year project to develop a national workforce strategy to really address our chronic issues. And we're on the advisory committee and we're taking a deep dive into things like industry attractiveness, like why are Canadians not applying in our culture, skills development, automation and underrepresented groups. We have a lot of work to do, but we're working on it. And in the meantime, this announcement is a great Band-Aid to help us, you know, relieve a bit of our workforce who frankly, is quite tired of working so hard after this pandemic.

MG: Why not pay people more and improve the conditions in your workplaces to make the jobs more attractive to Canadians?

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: The majority of our meat processors are all unionised, so on our side and there's two different buckets if you want on the temporary foreign worker program, there's primary agriculture where they provide housing, these are the on farm workers. On our side, primary processing. We do not provide housing. So we're actually, like I said, just mainly unionised. So our union, UFCW, approves our wages. But you know, that's a good question. Are we as competitive as other companies fighting for the same labour pool? But what we do know is that we're in the same position as several other sectors. And in fact, that's clearly why the minister made the announcement earlier this week to allow seven sectors to have access to higher cap for a one year period.

MG: I mean, you mentioned COVID as well. What about workplace conditions? We know that there have been numerous outbreaks of COVID within meat processing plants. If you make the workplaces safer, will people not be more likely to take on those jobs?

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: 100 percent, completely agree and know the pandemic, I'll say meat processors dawned the front of all the headlines, when does this... Before anybody knew too much about COVID. We were front page of the newspaper before government even knew how to handle it. And what do you do? What do you do in a plant? How do you improve worker safety in the midst of a pandemic? But, you know, agri food sector invested over a billion dollars to protect workers. We learned we worked every step of the way in lockstep with government to ensure we would do everything we could to protect our, you know, our companies. And these companies... But these workers. Worker safety is like food safety. You know, that's just a strict priority for all of us in agri food. We need our workers. We need them to be safe the same way we produce safe food for Canadians.

MG: We'll talk more about this from the worker's perspective in just a moment. Marie- France it's good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

MARIE FRANCE MACKINNON: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Marie-France MacKinnon is Vice President, Public Affairs and Communications of the Canadian Meat Council. Syed Hussan is executive director of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. Hussan, good morning to you.

SYED HUSSAN: Good morning.

MG: As you know, industry has been lobbying to increase the number of temporary foreign workers, including in the meat processing sector. What's your reaction to the government allowing for more temporary foreign workers to enter this country?

SYED HUSSAN: I think it's clear that there is a need for low wage workers. COVID has taught us that essential workers are actually working class people who work in low wage conditions. The question is why are these people being brought in on closed work permits, tied to employer, rather than being given the same right as any other immigrant? And the answer to that is... is that there is no shortage of workers. There's a shortage of more exploitable workers. And that's what the... many of the employers have been calling for. And it seems that the government has agreed with them, allowing workers to come in with very few rights, unable to protect themselves, even in the face of a global health pandemic.

MG: What do you mean, there's not a shortage of workers, there's a shortage of more exploitable workers. We just heard from the representative of the Canadian Meat Council saying that they can't hire people, that there aren't enough Canadians who are willing to do this work. And so...

SYED HUSSAN: Of course, of course. But then why not bring them as immigrants? Why bring them in as temporary foreign workers? What's the difference? The difference is that the workers are tied to the employers. I mean, you brought up a good point when you talked about outbreaks in meat processing and these were... many of them were temporary foreign workers who faced the worst of it, including undocumented people. And you know, the meat packaging industries and processing industries are multi multibillion dollar industry. And yes, the wages are unionised, but the actual working conditions are not. And people are unable to protect themselves. Look, if you don't have permanent resident status, if you speak up, you get fired and you lose all your income. If you live in employer-provided housing, you're homeless. You can't get a new job, you can't get income assistance, you're kicked out of the country and you can't come back because employers decide who comes and goes. In such a condition tying workers to employers is actually throwing open the doors of exploitation. So what we say is bring in workers because clearly Canada needs low wage workers. The immigration system must adjust to give them permanent resident status rather than keeping them a second class or even third class workers and citizens.

MG: Marie-France MacKinnon talked about how when it came to those COVID outbreaks, the meat packing sector was in the headlines at the front of that story, in part because many of these low wage jobs and it's not just in meatpacking, it's also in health care, it's also in long term care. Were deemed to be essential jobs. These were essential jobs that had to stay filled during the pandemic. People couldn't work from home. People had to be there on site. What does it say to you about the value placed on this work?

SYED HUSSAN: I think, you know, migrants are going through a human rights catastrophe during COVID 19. There are 1.6 million people in the country without permanent resident status. That's one in 23 people. And so whether you talk about health care or food delivery or grocery stores or agriculture, long term care homes. It was migrants who kept working and who kept suffering and some which are dying. And despite that, the federal government didn't provide any benefits. There was some partial temporary programs that were introduced last year. I'm sure the minister will speak about them, but they were all ended and people are still in crisis. What we saw was that we were getting applause on porches, but not very much policy changes. And now the applause has died down. And it seems that the door has been changed to just continue to bring in more and more people on a temporary basis. Look, if one in 23 people in the country can be paid less, can be exploited more than the entire economy suffers. When one in 23 people don't have access to health care. When are you going to open the door for privatised health care, which has already happened? The entire economy has adjusted to a system of temporary migration. Businesses are addicted to a low wage exploitable workforce. We need to change the system by giving permanent resident status to everyone in the country now and permanent resident status to everyone who arrives in the future. That is the only way we can have a fair and equal society because fairness means everyone is the same. That means the same permanent resident status for everyone.

MG: Is that practical? To give everybody who's coming here permanent status?

SYED HUSSAN: Look, 20 years... In the last 20 years, just work permits have gone up 700 percent. Study permits are actually increased by even larger percent. People don't realise that we've shifted to a system of temporariness. And it's a revolving door so people are coming into... Right now postgraduate international student work permits are expiring, so they are going to be forced to leave unless their permits made renewable. And this new layer of workers are coming. So what we have is a revolving door system where people are coming into the country and they're becoming, either undocumented or they're being kicked out. So we have to fix this. Otherwise, you're going to have a continuous pool of exploitable people who are being brought in, chewed like gum and spit out when the country's done with them, and another layer that's becoming undocumented and that's not sustainable. It's not fair! It's not just! And it's not really something Canadians or migrants have chosen for. This is a decision made by a few people in bureaucracy and government and employers. I don't think anybody listening to you thinks it's a good idea that, you know, one in 23 people. And at this rate, it'll be one in 13 people, in less than a decade, are migrants.

MG: Hussan, good to speak with you about this. Thank you very much.

SYED HUSSAN: Thank you for having me.

MG: Syed Hussan, Executive Director of Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, Carla Qualtrough is the Federal Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Minister Qualtrough, good morning to you.

CARLA QUALTROUGH: Good morning.

MG: The federal government has said that Canada needs a strong workforce to support our growing economy. If that's the case, why not bring these workers into Canada as immigrants?

CQ: Well, I think we need to do a combination of both short and long term action and of course, the Minister of Immigration is working on options. You know, we're welcoming more immigrants this year than any other year in the history of our country. But the reality is, is that our recovery right now, our economic recovery is outpacing the ability for some employers to find workers. So we're basically at full employment and there's a lot of unmet demand, as you've heard from previous callers or speakers. Sorry, Matt. You know, and so what we're trying to do with this roadmap is adjust and improve the program now to meet labour market needs, while at the same time, you know, continuing our ongoing work to strengthen worker protections and without compromising Canadian jobs and working on more pathways to permanent residency and immigration options.

MG: But again, these people are coming as temporary foreign workers. They're not coming with any clear path to permanent residency.

CQ: For some of them, there absolutely are, in certain occupations and we've actually been doing a lot of work with source countries to strike the balance because of course, there are people who don't want to stay permanently. We've been working on a more open permit type arrangement. That's what they have in Quebec within a region, for example, and we've been working with migrant worker organisations to provide more support, more information in multiple languages. We've put new features on job banks. We strengthened our inspection regime. I would say that I, you know, I came to this job with a background in human rights that I am particularly focussed on worker protection and options for workers and more mobility for workers. And you know, these immediate temporary measures, some of them are, are part of this roadmap to really strike a balance between supporting employers and ensuring worker protection.

MG: Let me ask you about mobility. As you would well know, these temporary foreign workers are tied to the employer who brought them here. This has been called a captive exploitable workforce. If they try to advocate for change, better working conditions, better living conditions, they can be dismissed. And then being dismissed they can't look for another job. They are sent back to country of origin. Why is that?

CQ: They can actually move to a different job in those circumstances. So we've had workers who move to a different job. We work with workers. We've enhanced our tip line. We have live agents now. Of course, I would never say there isn't more to do, but there are options for workers to avail themselves of their rights, and we are working really hard to make sure that workers know what those rights are.

MG: I just guess the point is if the employees are tied to the employer, how can you ensure that the workers aren't being exploited?

CQ: Well, we have rigorous inspection regimes, we have accommodation standards, and listen, there's a lot of work to be done in this program, so I would never sugarcoat it and say that this solves all or even most of the challenges that your prior guest alluded to. But the reality is, is we're working closely with migrant worker support organisations where workers can move on to different employment opportunities if their working conditions are unfit. And we work with workers and try really hard to provide kind of optimal conditions. But in a lot of cases, we're not there yet.

MG: Why do you think Canadians aren't applying for these low wage jobs?

CQ: You know, that... As another one of your guests said, is a really good question. You know, temporary foreign workers make up about 0.5 percent of the Canadian workforce, so we're not talking about a lot of jobs. I think, you know, the last year we have, I think, was 2020, there was 84,000 temporary foreign workers in Canada. So we're not talking about a massive labour pool... A very, very important labour pool. But there's also just the discrepancy between the unemployment rate in some sectors and the job vacancy rate. So that's about skills development. So right now in healthcare, for example, we've got about a 2.4 percent unemployment rate and a job vacancy rate of 5.4 percent. And so Canadians are filling jobs, but there's still more jobs than we have Canadians to fill. And in construction at 3.7 unemployment, and I think it's just under over six. So we need to train, you know, in some cases, we need to invest in skills and training, which we're doing. But we also have to dig in, as Marie-France said, to kind of the culture of the nature of the type of work, the nature of the work. Is it a pure mathematical demographic thing or is there something more to it?

MG: Why... But that doesn't really answer the question of why Canadians aren't applying to work or going to work in meatpacking plants, in agriculture sectors. Sectors that have been lobbying your government to increase the number of temporary foreign workers who could come and fill those jobs? What's at the heart of that, do you think?

CQ: Well, I think a common... I think again, there's work to be done kind of unpacking that. But there are, you know, we've heard, quite frankly, from employers that Canadians don't want to do these jobs in a lot of cases. And we are, you know, working as again was said to ensure that as part of the process for being... getting a temporary foreign worker, you have to give them a median wage. You have to... in a unionised environment, you have to give them the same work terms and conditions, the same wages. So, you know, a lot of cases it isn't about wages. In some cases it is. These are hard jobs.

[cross talk]

MG: What about working conditions? Why aren't employers being encouraged... Well, why aren't employers being encouraged to improve working conditions for their employees in the context of this?

CQ: They absolutely are right and we have been working on a national accommodation standard. We've been working on occupational health and safety. We've made sure that our COVID benefits... that temporary foreign workers have access... Temporary foreign workers have access to EI, for example. So we are absolutely working on working conditions as well. And it's part of the reason we're having a national roundtable on this in June with all stakeholders, and we're going to have this now every three to four months to make sure we're talking about issues with all implicated stakeholders because historically that hasn't been the case, including the Migrant Worker Alliance, who I've met with as well to make sure that all the perspectives... And it's a complex file, which is not an excuse, but it is reason for the need to have these kind of conversations when everybody's at the table.

MG: We're just about out of time. Just the last question. What do you think it says about us as a country in that we have sectors like food production and health care and tourism that rely on workers from abroad who don't have the same employment protections as other Canadians and don't necessarily have a path to stay in this country. What does that say about us?

CQ: Well, you know, I guess I would argue a little bit the premise of that. I think that, like I said, these are hard jobs. I think we need to do better on improving the working conditions. But I think the reality is, is you know, Canada was built on immigration and we're always going to have immigration as a supply of labour in this country and as the population ages. We're going to more so rely on immigration. And you know, there will be people who want to stay and we need to make sure they can. And there will be people who want to go back home seasonally and we need to make sure that they can do that as well.

MG: Carla Qualtrough. It's good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

CQ: My pleasure. Nice to talk to you.

MG: Carla Qualtrough is the Federal Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Your thoughts on this? Welcome. If you are involved in this sector as an employer or an employee. Love to hear from you. You can email us thecurrent@cbc.ca. The CBC News is next. And then...

JANE FONDA: SOUNDCLIP: [Are you ready? We're going to start with stretches slowly ready, and up and down.]

MG: And up and down. OK, we don't have Jane Fonda, but in six minutes we will talk about the art of working out. And what comes from all that exercise. Why do we love to sweat? Answers coming up. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Bill Hayes on the history of exercise

Guest: Bill Hayes

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the perils of neutrality for aid agencies in a time of war. But first, let's get physical.

[Music: Theme]

MG: If you have already finished a workout or completed your run for today, give a thought to your sweat soaked clothes and just reflect on the fact that the sweat of athletes was so revered in ancient Greece and Rome that it was scraped off their bodies and sold in small pots for medicinal uses. That is just one of the curious details that the writer Bill Hayes chronicles in a new book called Sweat: A History of Exercise. Our conception of sweat and exercise has changed a lot since way back then. Bill Hayes, says his own relationship with exercise, has followed many twists and turns as well. Bill, good morning.

BILL HAYES: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MG: Sweat sold in small pots.

BH: [Laughter] That's right.

MG: What were people hoping to get out of the sweat of athletes?

BH: Well, it was believed at the time that the sweat of athletes contained the essence of arreté, the superiority of elite athletes. And they actually developed a kind of tool called a strigil shaped a little bit like a celery stalk with which they scraped the sweat and oil from their bodies and funnelled it into small pots and sold it. This mixture was called gloios, sold it at gymnasiums, but gloios was not used, as one might guess, for improving athletic performance, say, but for common dermatological problems like warts.

MG: People reading that in the book would get the understanding that this is not, as you say, a book about fitness fads. It's not about SoulCycle, it's not about CrossFit. What is this book?

BH: This book traces the evolution of exercise from antiquity to the present day, including the pandemic. But you're right, I decided not to focus on trends and fads of the last couple of decades. Things that I at 61 and someone who's exercised his whole life was already familiar with. You know, in writing the book, I wanted to learn about things I didn't know.

MG: You say you've been exercising your whole life. You write about how you aren't an athlete. And as a kid, you certainly weren't super athletic, but your father was.

BH: Right. I was the only son of a West Point cadet, very athletic guy, accompanying him to sports events and games, but also the local Athletic Club doing sparring in the garage with my dad. Exercise was very much a part of my boyhood and then I became very interested in exercise as a teenager, sort of inspired by Arnold Schwarzenegger, got into lifting weights, going to the gym, became a real gym rat and also, you know, a runner, swimmer, boxer. I have tried all kinds of things. So this book is both a chronicle of the history of exercise over time and a bit of a memoir, a chronicle of my own history of exercise.

MG: We'll talk about the boxing, and the running, and the swimming in a moment. You go back in time and you spent a lot of time in libraries looking through rare books about the history of exercise. There is one book from 1573 that stands out, tell me about this book.

BH: That's when I knew this book would really be a book. I began doing research about 10 years ago, visited a very beautiful, small, rare books room at the New York Academy of Medicine, a library. And it was the librarian herself who introduced me to Girolamo Mercuriale a sixteenth century physician who wrote what is considered the first comprehensive book on exercise, covering every form of exercise known at that time walking, running, swimming, boxing, wrestling. A man really ahead of his time in looking at exercise as sort of preventive medicine, but also a man of his time in that he, like everyone else, did not have an accurate scientific understanding of the workings of the human body. At that time, as it had been for centuries they believed in the concept of the four humours, which had to be kept in balance. So Mercuriale's book, while important and pivotal but also very obscure. So I first saw it at this library, was captivated by it, especially the illustrations, but dismayed to find it was written in mediaeval Latin. I couldn't read a word. And I tracked down an English translation, tracked down the translator himself, and that set me off on a quest to learn about Mercuriale and what led him to write this book.

MG: What did you learn from the book about why it is that we exercise?

BH: That it's beneficial to your health. You know, he was drawing on the thinkers, philosophers and physicians of antiquity, and he began translating, deciphering, reading ancient texts. And it was Hippocrates back in the fifth century B.C. who sort of articulated the tenets of exercise. Hippocrates wrote two treatises on health, including exercise, diet, hygiene, and it was Hippocrates who said eating alone will not keep a man well. He must also take exercise for food and exercise while possessing opposite qualities. Yet work together to produce health. So this idea that exercise is important to health was intuitive to these ancient physicians and philosophers. And that was really Mercuriale's perspective as well.

MG: Have you felt that in your own life? I mean, that idea that those of us who do various forms of exercise, you feel better at the end of it, even if you don't want to do it at the end of it, something has happened to you. There's some sort of transformation and that can extend over a lifetime. How have you gone through that?

BH: Absolutely. I mean, I think physically for sure, but also mentally, that exercise is beneficial to your mental health as well. A third component, of course, which is maybe more obvious and maybe more part of the recent interest in exercise is just, you know, pure vanity that it can make you look better. As a personal fitness trainer, put it to me when I was working on the book. People exercise to look good naked. Now, I don't think that was Hippocrates' ideas back in the back in the fifth century B.C. or Mercuriale's. But yes, beneficial to your health. These days, I'm more of a swimmer than a runner, say. I swam a mile yesterday and when I got out of the pool, I just felt great, you know, invigorated, but also with that sense of purpose. I'd swam a mile and that feels really good.

MG: Let me ask you about swimming. Your late partner was the neurologist and the writer, Oliver Sacks, and he exercised... You write about this so beautifully in the book and you wrote about it in your diaries as well. That he exercised and was swimming almost right until the end of his life.

BH: Yeah, it was really amazing.

MG: What did he get out of it later in life? What was it giving him?

BH: I can say it really simply. It made him feel good. It made him feel alive. And he did indeed exercise until really just weeks before he died. Oliver was diagnosed with terminal cancer in January 2015. He died in August, about eight months later, and we together continued to swim two or three times a week, swimming a mile. You know, eventually that became shorter as he became weaker or didn't feel as well, but also going to the gym or in his very last days, just striding up and down the corridor in our apartment building or even in bed. Just that sense of movement gives one, you know, a sense of vitality and vigour. He really was an inspiration and exercise was part of our relationship. You know, when we got together, I knew how to swim. I swam as a kid, but I wasn't really a lap swimmer. Oliver was a very experienced open water swimmer, lap swimmer. He was the kind of swimmer that lifeguards would actually have to stop him and say, Your time is up, you got to get out of the pool. [chuckle] Because you just put him in the water and he could swim and swim and swim. He also had a really beautiful stroke. So I remember that so well.

MG: After he died, you took an extended break from exercise. I mean, you said before you were in some ways obsessed with exercise, a gym rat and somebody who had spent a lot of time working out and being fit. And then you stopped. Why?

BH: Yeah. And by that point, I'd done a tremendous amount of research for this book. I was awarded a Guggenheim Foundation fellowship for Sweat, and I travelled around the world Italy, London, Paris, Rome, India, Kansas City. So I had accumulated all this research. But Oliver's death was shattering. You know, he was... He was my partner. It was a shattering time in my life. And along with the loss of Oliver, there was a kind of loss of interest in exercise. I would go to the pool and it just wasn't the same. You know, I missed him. You know, he should be in the lane next to me, and I just kind of let it go. And I put the manuscript aside, actually, I'd written about half the book. I just put it aside, didn't open that file on my computer for about four years. Now in the interim, I wrote other books. I wrote a memoir about my life in New York, in my life with Oliver Sacks called Insomniac City. And that also incorporated my street photography. When I moved to New York, I became sort of accidentally, really. A street photographer and I published a volume of street photography, and I did a short book of prose and photography about the first 100 days of the pandemic here in New York. But then this was one of the upsides of the pandemic I had all this time on my hands after I finished How We Live Now, my pandemic book. And I picked up the manuscript for Sweat and finished it. And in a lot of ways, I think that time away from the manuscript really benefited this book. I kind of suddenly like the puzzle pieces fell into place, and I knew how to interweave the actual history, the research, with my own chronicle of my own history of exercise in this story of Mercuriale.

MG: What was it like getting back into the pool after the lockdown ended in New York? I mean, one of the things that were closed. Restaurants closed, bars closed, libraries closed, bookstores closed, pools and gyms were closed. And then you go back, what was that like?

BH: Yeah. Before the lockdown, I had begun swimming again and really fell back in love with it. And then the lockdown and gyms closed. You know, like everyone who exercises, I had to adapt and I had my little home exercise routine of push ups and sit ups and pull ups and chin up bar and I'd go for walks. But swimming was missing from my life. And when gyms did reopen, I think it was about six months after the lockdown and the pools were allowed to reopen. On that day, I renewed my membership and swam, and I wondered if it would take me a while to sort of find my stroke again. If you know what I mean, find the rhythm. And it was wonderful because it just... The muscle memory was there, of course, and it came back right away and those first laps were joyful, really. Despite the kind of scariness of the situation, there were very strict rules about working out in gyms. You know, you had to wear a mask and even at the pool, you had to wear a mask until the moment you got into the water. One of the many benefits, though, was that they allowed only one person per lane. So you had your own lane, which was like a total luxury for a swimmer.

MG: People exercise in different ways for all sorts of different reasons, and you talk about being obsessed or at the very least, loving swimming. Mercuriale talked about how running is supreme. I'm a runner, so that was like "ding". Thank you very much. Are there different... Sort of a right or wrong way to approach exercise? Or is it all good no matter what you're doing?

BH: That's such a great question. I try to tell people, especially people who are discouraged about exercise or who dread it or haven't found a form of exercise they enjoy. I say think of exercise as synonymous with movement, any kind of movement. You don't have to join the gym. You don't have to go running. If you don't have time, maybe you have a very busy life, then get off the subway or the bus two or three stops early and walk the rest of the way home. And then when you get home, you can say to yourself, I exercised today. I walked. Walking is also a supreme form of exercise to use Mercuriale's word and try different things. You know, I... even in researching this book, I tried forms of exercise. I had never tried before, like boxing and yoga, they are sort of the opposite in some ways.

MG: What was boxing like?

BH: Oh, it was for me, very intense. I did a six week boxing bootcamp that was not like, you know, cardio kickboxing in a group fitness class at a gym. It was the real deal.

MG: They kicked your butt.

BH: They kicked my butt and I went into it thinking, Yeah, I'll be pretty good. You know, I'm in good shape. I'm pretty muscular and strong. But this was serious business and they kicked my butt. Yeah, I got knocked out, knocked down a lot. And you know, another major part of it was just pure, pure callisthenics. And I probably got in the best shape of my entire life.

MG: What did you learn from boxing? They used to call it the sweet science. And which meant that it was more than just punching somebody in the head, that there was an art and a craft to it.

BH: Oh, definitely. And our coaches really approached it almost like choreography. So there is a kind of beauty in the way they taught the most basic one two punch and emphasising the importance of it being done properly and almost with a kind of elegance to it. That is, until you got into the ring and knocked, you know, knocked back onto the floor. I was also surprised, I think, that defending oneself in the boxing ring was, at least for me, the hardest part and sort of the least intuitive. The natural inclination of someone who is, you know, fighting or punching you is that you just want to flee. You want to run the other direction, but to stay in the ring and to stay in the fight and to stay in the moment is part of what I learnt in boxing. And it's, you know, a life lesson as well to stay in the moment.

MG: You have an encounter in the book with Alice Waters, who is a legendary chef, somebody who has popularized driven the whole farm to table movement and is really about eating as local as possible, not somebody who spends a lot of time in the gym. She says that she goes for a long walk every morning, and she described gyms as the fast food of exercise. What did you take from that comment?

BH: Oh, it was such a great conversation. We met at the American Academy in Rome, where I was on a fellowship and doing research for this book on Mercuriale and I just happened to mention I'm working on a book on the history of exercise. And she was kind of horrified. Like a lot of people, she assumed at first that exercise is a purely modern construct like, let's say, 20th century phenomenon, whereas in fact it goes back to antiquity. But yeah, she called gyms an equivalent of fast food, and that she felt and feels that exercise should just be worked into one's daily life in an intuitive way. So for her, walking up and down the stairs at a restaurant, carrying boxes of produce, sweeping the front porch, working throughout the day is exercise. And you know, this is sort of like what I was saying with thinking of exercise as synonymous with movement, and that she does start her day every day with a walk, clears her head. It gets her thinking about the day ahead. And that exercise should be associated with a sense of play, not work. This is something that she disliked so much about the term exercise that people associate it with work, something they maybe dread that they have to go to a gym when in fact, it should just be part of one's daily life. And her favourite form of exercise, as I recall her saying, was dancing, which I, you know, I think that's fantastic. Of course, dancing is a form of exercise. You're moving. You sometimes really do work up a sweat, but there's a kind of beauty and just joy in it as well. And romance, sometimes too.

MG: Gyms are important for a bunch of reasons, though one of the things that people go to a gym for is a sense of community. I mean, you literally are with other people sweating in the same room. And you write in particular about one gym in San Francisco. And talk about the context that this gym was important in, in the mid 80s during the AIDS pandemic. This is a gym called Muscle System.

BH: Yeah, that's one of my favourite chapters in the book, it comes later in the book. I moved to San Francisco in 1985. I came out as a gay man, and at that time there were gay gyms, men's only gyms, a gym called Muscle System. This coincided with the... sort of the AIDS epidemic just exploding, especially in San Francisco. And gyms... Gay gyms like Muscle System were very important, almost as community centres where you worked out side by side with your gay brothers and there would be flyers taped or pinned to the wall for act up meetings and project informed meetings, but also poignantly often, often taped to the front desk announcements of gym members who had died, young men who had died of AIDS, and announcements of memorials for men who had died. I remember that so well. And if men disappeared from the gym, if you stopped seeing them like, maybe you hadn't seen them in a couple of months, it was often because they had passed away. But also, there was a sense that going to the gym and working out building up muscle was actually a way to stave off symptoms of HIV aids. There was a syndrome called wasting syndrome. I had a partner at the time who was HIV positive and had AIDS. I remained HIV negative, but he had wasting syndrome. So for him, going to the gym and building up muscle or keeping as much muscle on his body as he could was definitely part of remaining healthy. So there was this complex of gyms being sort of social centres, safe spaces, but also places where you really did try to strengthen your body to stave off symptoms of the illness.

MG: You write about this idea, and this is kind of goes back to the idea of what you get out of exercise. This concept of muscular gladness. What does that feel like for you?

BH: Yeah, I think it was Pavlov who said that, and this is one of many things that Oliver Sacks contributed to the book. It was he who said... Who sort of brought out the Pavlov quote, which I really love. Muscular gladness it's how your body feels after exercising. I think your body enjoys it, it's almost thanking you for using every possible muscle, pushing yourself to extremes, trying things. I mean, there is, of course, we all know the sense of a kind of neurochemical reward for exercising in the form of endorphins, which are a real thing. There is a kind of body high that you do get. You probably know this as a runner that. And that's sort of the equivalent of muscular gladness. I mean, that feeling of being pumped, even the feeling of being sore the next day after you've done a really heavy workout at the gym, there's a kind of pleasure in that soreness as well. That's muscular gladness.

MG: What would you say then, in light of that sensation that you can get to people who might have the same impression as Alice Waters? That you know this is work, going to the gym or exercising is work, that it's a burden that it's not enjoyable. Given, not just the research that you did, but you know the transformation that you went through in writing this book and all the things that you take on and who you become towards the end of it. For people who might be reluctant, be cautious. Be afraid of this. What would you say to them?

BH: I would say, I get it. I understand. I really do get it. I myself, who is very obsessed with exercise, went for, you know, three years, not exercising much at all and understanding why one would dread it, dislike it, sort of resent people who look great and are built and all that stuff. But again, I'd go back to that idea of thinking of exercise, not as related to the gym, let's say, or to running a marathon, but as synonymous with movement. So go to the park and play with your kids or with your dog. Go out dancing, take a long walk. You know, I really gained a new appreciation for walking during the pandemic, during the lockdown when we couldn't go to gyms and I made a point of going for long walks in a way that was different from before. You know, I live in New York where we walk all the time, but it was always before, like walking in a hurry to get from one place to another, walking as a form of transportation and getting out of the cab that’s stuck in traffic and just walking the rest of the way. I just sort of grimly to get to wherever my destination was. But this walking during the pandemic was different. It was getting out of my apartment where I felt isolated and lonely. I'm single. I live alone. Connecting in a certain way with people, you know, even just waving at people on the streets, maybe getting into conversations and just enjoying the peacefulness that can come with taking a nice walk.

MG: I have a friend who says movement is medicine.

BH: It's a great, great phrase. Absolutely. I think there's a sense in exercise too of community and of connection.

MG: This is a great book, and it's a real pleasure to talk to you about it. Bill, thank you very much.

BH: Thank you for having me.

MG: Bill Hayes is a photographer and author of several books, his latest Sweat: A History of Exercise. He was in New York City. Coming up after your regional update.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: It's really important, but you know you can't do all of this at once. And we have to be realistic. Canadians want us to have a plan that we're actually going to achieve, and that requires some time.

MG: The latest conclusion from climate experts is that time is quickly running out. In about 15 minutes, we'll ask Catherine McKenna, Canada's former minister of the environment, why the world isn't moving more quickly to deal with the climate crisis. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. We're back in 90 seconds. Stay with us.

Humanitarian work and the question of neutrality and Catherine McKenna on UN’s ‘now or never’ warning on climate change

Guests: Robert Mardini, Patricia McIlreavy and Catherine McKenna

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. The International Committee of the Red Cross is an organization that strives for neutrality in times of conflict. But a recent photo showing the president of the organization shaking hands with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been criticised by Ukrainians and others. The Red Cross has also confirmed it's considering opening an office in Russia to help get supplies into Ukraine, a decision that is not sitting well with many Ukrainians at home and abroad. Myroslava Pidhirnyj is with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress in Manitoba.

MYROSLAVA PIDHIRNYJ: SOUNDCLIP: [We were appalled. Frankly, we recognise that the Red Cross is non-aligned, that it's, you know, an organization that works everywhere, wherever there is a need, but the need is in Ukraine.]

MG: Robert Mardini is director general of the International Committee of the Red Cross. He's in Geneva. Robert, good morning.

ROBERT MARDINI: Good morning.

MG: How do you respond to the criticism that your organization has faced in the last few weeks?

ROBERT MARDINI: Well, my organization is doing what it's supposed to do. Our president was in... Three weeks ago he was in Ukraine, two weeks ago he was in Russia. It's part and parcel of the mandate that is given to us by states to speak to all sides of any conflict, including the one now playing out, the devastating one playing out in Ukraine. And this dialogue is about also reminding the sides about their obligations under the rules of war. It's about negotiating safe passage for civilians. It's about ensuring that the prisoners of war are being visited by the ICRC, and that aid can get in. This dialogue is allowing our teams today to do Life-Saving work in Ukraine. Our teams were in Bucha yesterday. They delivered aid there. They were in [inaudible] first of April. Yesterday also, our teams were able to evacuate and lead a convoy with 500 civilians who fled from Mariupol.

MG: In terms of optics, how do you think that picture of the ICRC's president shaking hands and smiling with the Russian foreign minister looks to the people of Ukraine?

ROBERT MARDINI: Well, there were also a picture of the same president, shaking hands and smiling with the officials from Ukraine. The prime minister, the deputy prime minister, a week earlier. And behind the diplomatic smile there is a robust, confidential dialogue where also we hold parties to the conflict to account about their respect or lack thereof of the rules of war, and this is part of what the ICRC does around the world.

MG: I just wonder whether, even in the wake of the images that are coming out of Bucha, you mentioned Bucha. In the wake of those images coming out whether that photo looks different now or the optics of that photo are different now.

ROBERT MARDINI: Well, what is happening today in Ukraine, in Bucha, in [inaudible], in Mariupol raises grave concerns with regards to the rules of war. There is no question about this. We are now concentrating on helping people on the ground, but this is no exaggeration. Vis a vis the parties to the conflict of their obligations and the respect, and we having also... We're raising those concerns to the authorities. This is part of our bilateral and confidential dialogue with the parties, but this is something that is happening. We are also in the private space, raising those very severe concerns.

MG: You have said that there is a misinformation campaign against the ICRC that's driving an inaccurate narrative. What is that misinformation campaign and who's behind it?

ROBERT MARDINI: Well, it's happening in the social media platform. There were disinformation being circulating. For instance, you mentioned this issue of the office in Russia. This is part and parcel of a traditional operational scaling up of ICRC operation that is happening in all neighbouring countries of Ukraine. And the purpose of these offices is really to get aid closer to people in need of aid. Nothing different. The ICRC, for instance, has never facilitated or been associated to any forced evacuation of civilians. This is contrary to international humanitarian law. Civilians have the right to flee. It has to be on their free will. If the free will is there, we are happy to facilitate any safe passage playing our role of neutral intermediary as we do it in many other conflict.

MG: Who do you think is behind the misinformation then around what that office would be doing?

ROBERT MARDINI: Well, I don't want now to speculate. What I can say is that this disinformation is a distraction. It's undermining our credibility. It's undermining the security of hundreds of Red Cross volunteers on the ground. Of hundreds of ICRC colleagues on the ground, and it has to stop.

MG: You talked about the private conversations that are happening in those meetings and it might be meetings with Russian officials or Ukrainian officials. There have been calls for the ICRC to be speaking out publicly about what's going on and publicly condemn Russia's actions. Why is it complicated for the ICRC to do that, given what we're seeing right now, the images coming out of Bucha and other towns and cities in Ukraine?

ROBERT MARDINI: Well, there are moments where the ICRC might raise... And we are saying many things publicly when it comes to the humanitarian consequences. We don't point fingers in the public domain unless all facts are established that we know that there is also a lot of manipulations and we want to be 100 percent sure of the facts and not being present on the ground is not putting us in a place where we can establish 100 percent facts. There are sides to this conflict. There are weaponry used in densely populated areas. So it's not that easy to now distribute the blame publicly. We need to concentrate on the needs. We need to concentrate on raising our concerns privately to establish facts, and then we decide whether or not and what to raise in the public domain.

MG: At its heart, how difficult is neutrality to maintain in a war like the one we're seeing now? When it comes to the role of the ICRC?

ROBERT MARDINI: Well, neutrality is not an end in itself. Neutrality is a means to an end, and the end is to save lives, to alleviate human suffering in the worst of circumstances. Of course, on a personal level, it's always... Neutrality is hard and neutrality is not a popular concept in armed conflict. But we need to keep this discipline at ICRC. We have been doing this for 160 years, and our experience shows that keeping this discipline, staying neutral, trying to move the boundaries of the possible in the best interests of civilians who are caught and trapped in the conflict is the best way forward to help and to have a humanitarian impact on the ground.

MG: I guess just finally, do you worry... In the context of what we've been talking about and then in the difficulty of neutrality in a social media sphere in a war in 2022 that the people who need help the most could lose trust in the organization that can help them?

ROBERT MARDINI: Of course, of course. And we do everything we can to maintain this trust. I mean, if you take what's happening in Mariupol, we have been trying since day one to negotiate to convince parties to the conflict for ceasefires to ensure the safe passage of civilians out of Mariupol. To ensure a safe passage of aid in Mariupol for those who choose to stay. And we never take no for an answer. The fact of the matter, it didn't happen yet. There is urgency here and we will do everything we can to continue our efforts.

MG: Robert Mardini, it's good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

ROBERT MARDINI: Thank you.

MG: Robert Mardini is director general of the International Committee of the Red Cross. He was in Geneva. Neutrality, my next guest says, is one of the fundamental core values of humanitarian aid work. Patricia McIlreavy has spent more than two and a half decades working in the field of humanitarian assistance. She's worked for NGOs alongside the United Nations and the International Red Cross. She's currently the president and CEO of the Centre for Disaster Philanthropy. Patricia, good morning to you.

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: Good morning, Matt. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thank you for being here. How do you understand what neutrality means when it comes to humanitarian aid in a war zone?

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: Well, I think Robert actually said it well. I mean humanity. Sorry, neutrality is so complicated within the principles. It is often misunderstood and used as an excuse for not speaking out or for, you know, choosing one side or another. And I think for neutrality, what's really important to understand is to work in these conflict environments. To help the people that are affected by the conflict. Organizations have to strive to not take a side. To not be seen as partisan within the conflict, and that's done for a lot of reasons; access, security. But also just to ensure that we are able to present ourselves as neutral actors in this setting. I think it can be misunderstood sometimes, neutrality from the political framing. People think of it as, Oh, you're just going to go off to the side and not say anything. Neutrality in conflict means you're actually going to say what needs to be said on behalf of the populations who expect you to be there for them, to have a voice for them. So that's the complication of it, is where is that line? When you start to speak out and what does that look like?

MG: One of the reasons why this is the subject of discussion now when it comes to the ICRC is the photo of the president of the international Red Cross shaking hands with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Again, an image they say is worth a thousand words. Do you see that image is problematic?

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: I think we all are navigating the new world of social media and misinformation and how things are presented. I also believe we have to recognize that to gain access to populations in need. Many organizations have probably been in a similar position as the president of the ICRC in terms of having to meet with those who are party to the conflict who are actually possibly the, you know, not for Russia, it’s not possibly the aggressor in the conflict. But to get to the populations, to get to the Ukrainians who are stuck behind the front lines, who are fleeing or being forced to flee into Russia. Organizations will need to work with the Russian authorities at some level. It doesn't mean that they are friends. It doesn't mean they have to be, you know, in agreement with the authorities. But it does mean they have to work with them.

MG: One of the reasons why it's complicated is because photos like that can lead to an accusation or an allegation that neutrality creates a false equivalency when it comes to victims and aggressors.

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: Yes, I mean, there is that. To be seen as being on the side of one or the other, I do think it is important, though, that we look at what is being said and versus the visual of it. Which is, is ICRC and other organizations working to get to those Ukrainians who are stuck behind those front lines. To speak out on behalf of those who are being impacted by the aggression. I think those are incredibly important narratives that also need to be alongside any photos. Which is to recognize that the humanitarian principles Matt, are very much like an optometrist. They... You know, you look at them and when you're at the eye doctor, the lens is sharpened. And can you see more clearly? Can you see more clearly? Can you see more clearly? And for the humanitarian principles, for the organizations on the ground, it is a constant recalibration. Can we see more clearly now? How do we do? How do we help the Ukrainians? How do we help the people of South Sudan? How do we help the people of Mali or Yemen or Syria, wherever we may be? What is the way that we can uphold our principles and be there for the people? And unfortunately, that sometimes means we have to shake hands with individuals we don't personally like, but organizationally the people of Ukraine, the people of Syria, the people of Yemen. They need us to swallow that personal dislike and personal opinions for the sake of reaching them. If you're a Ukrainian family and you've been separated by this conflict and half were forced towards Russia and half forced towards Poland, you would want to know that there were organizations on the other side of that conflict helping your family. And to do that, we must uphold our principles. We must explore how to work on all sides. It doesn't mean we agree with all sides. It doesn't mean we will be quiet when we see violence against populations. But there's an expression Matt, called protection by presence. You can't be present in those areas where these violations of international humanitarian law are happening. If you don't have the agreement of the individuals and military who control those areas.

MG: And that agreement can be jeopardised in part if you are speaking out publicly again. Robert Mardini talked about those backchannel conversations and backchannel pressure, but there is a public expectation in the face of war that people will speak out publicly. How complicated is that?

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: I think different organisations have different mandates of how they work. ICRC has traditionally been much more back office diplomacy. That is, you know, that is a large part of how they work. That's not the same for every organization. You're going to have non-governmental organizations who are much more outspoken who will call out attacks. There was actually a report just this morning of Doctors Without Borders calling out an attack on hospitals. There's been previous reports from other conflicts where organizations will call out those attacks and will name who they believe the perpetrator to be. So it's not impossible, but I think what's important to remember, it's a mosaic of organizations that actually result in the best response. So we don't want everyone to be exactly the same because they all serve different purposes and how they work. Different... Organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, have access to the highest levels of government. Non-governmental organizations don't necessarily have that access, but they can act as a pressure on those who do by being more outspoken. So it's about that balance is about that calibration and ensuring that it is occurring. And in my view, with the International Committee of the Red Cross, is they've been doing this for 160 years, they are part of the Geneva Conventions, the international humanitarian law that we are currently questioning in the violations in Ukraine at the moment. So we have to trust them to understand their mandate and to fulfil it, whether or not we see that as publicly as we would like. Well, that's where I think we again have that mosaic and we look at who are the other organizations that are going to keep the pressure on those actors that have the political power that can sit in the room with the foreign ministers and make sure that they're saying what needs to be said, even if we don't necessarily see that publicly as much as we'd like.

MG: Just finally, we live in a different world now than the ICRC has operated in for much of its history.

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: Right.

MG: Very politically polarized, full of hot takes on Twitter and social media. How does... Are you concerned about the future of humanitarian work, given the context that it operates in right now?

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: I'm definitely concerned. I mean, security is a huge, huge issue with misinformation of this sort. I mean the risks to the individuals on the ground providing the assistance it's grave. It has increased dramatically over the years, over the decades. And I think we do have a lot of attention we need to pay to how do we maintain access, how do we keep our people secure and how do we fight against some of this misinformation, this desire to politicise humanitarianism? There are no political... There are no humanitarian solutions to political problems. But we look to humanitarians too often as somehow being a player in that political arena. And that's dangerous. It's a dangerous space for humanitarians to be in because we don't have the power to sit at that table for that negotiation. We are there for the population, we are there for the people and our power's our voice and our power's our presence. And if that's taken away from us. We lose an incredibly valuable advocate for populations that are, you know, facing harm.

MG: And you're worried about that. I mean, again, you've been very explicit in not just talking about Ukraine, but the other crises that are unfolding in our world right now.

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: Yeah, I worry about that very much in a lot of places. And in some places, it's much worse even than in Ukraine in terms of the rhetoric against humanitarian workers and trying to paint them as a party to one side of the conflict or another.

MG: This is complicated. I really appreciate speaking with you about it. Thank you very much.

PATRICIA MCILREAVY: Thank you very much for having me.

MG: Patricia McIlreavy is president and CEO of the Centre for Disaster Philanthropy.

[Music: Piano instrumental]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway.

ANTONIO GUTERRES: The jury has reached the verdict and it is damning this report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a litany of broken climate promises. It is a file of shame cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world.

MG: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world is headed for catastrophe if we do not drastically cut emissions and do it soon. Amidst the doom and gloom, though, there is a sliver of good news, really. For more, I'm joined by Catherine McKenna. She's Canada's former environment minister, now the founder and principal of Climate and nature solutions. Catherine McKenna, good morning.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Good morning, Matt.

MG: This is being called a now or never report. How is this report different from past reports that have also said we need to get ourselves together or we're in big trouble?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, this is the third report that's been done this... in the recent past, and we had a report that said, OK, what are the causes? And we know the causes and that includes, you know, man made emissions and fossil fuels. Then there was the consequences if we don't, if we don't tackle climate change and the need to adapt. And this one, I mean, it's about solutions. But as you heard, the UN secretary general Antonio Guterres, say we're on track to totally overshoot 1.5 degrees. And in the good news, I mean, we know the solutions. And so I think the report is really saying it's a now or never moment in 2019... In 2015, countries around the world came together, said we had to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. And so now we actually need to do the hard work. And it says there's three things we need to do. So one, we need to stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure because the greatest source of emissions is from fossil fuels. The second is energy efficiency, and that's a huge opportunity that we really haven't capitalized on. And the third thing is you can do small removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. So you often hear about, you know, planting trees or carbon capture and storage. But it says that that can only be a small part of it. And if not, then we're making a decision as a planet to... As a world to live on a really unsustainable planet. And we've already seen the impacts. Everyone knows massive heat waves, terrifying storms, water shortages and we're losing species we're on track to lose a million species of plants and animals.

MG: So I'll ask you about carbon capture in a moment because it's fascinating and there's a lot that's been put into this. But one of the things that Antonio Guterres said is he called this a file of shame. And he said some government and business leaders are saying one thing, but doing another. Simply put, they are lying and the results will be catastrophic. You've been in government and you've worked on this file. Do you think politicians are lying to us about what they're promising to do and what they're actually doing?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, look, I think in Canada, there's been a ton of hard work that's been done since the Paris Agreement. And yes, I was part of that. But I really do think we have a climate plan. We've increased the target by 40 percent, which in a way is the easy part. But this time just last week you had the prime minister and the environment minister, that they were going to tackle emissions from the sector that needs to do the work. It's oil and gas. In Canada, oil and gas represents 26 percent of our emissions and only six percent of Canada's GDP and the emissions are going up. So I mean, it is... The biggest challenge I think for governments is just being captured in a way by oil and gas and fossil fuels.

MG: But is it also about telling people the truth? Is it also about actually saying this is why it's hard. This is why we are making these decisions and not saying we have these targets. But I mean, as we know in this country, not meeting those targets.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Yeah, I mean, I think it's actually confronting the elephant in the room. So, you know, we worked extremely hard on Canada's climate plan and we put out transparently where the emissions were coming from. But until you actually confront sectors like oil and gas and say your emissions need to go down, it's not good enough to say, you know, your emissions intensity has gone down because the planet doesn't really care about emissions intensity. It cares about overall emissions. So it's good if you're becoming more efficient. But it's terrible if you know you're adding more emissions, which is what's happening in the sector. So I mean, look, the sector has said that they want to be net zero by 2050. And so, you know, this is what they are going to have to do... And the Canadian government has said. And you are going to have to reduce your emissions by 40 percent from 2019 levels. And so I guess we will now see. But what the report said, and I think this is really important and I think you wanted to talk about it, but is carbon capture and storage.

MG: That's the question. I mean, again and the Canadian government put a lot of focus on this as well. Is there any evidence that this is going to work to scale?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, I mean, the IPCC report also included the need for carbon removal, including small part of carbon capture and storage. And I should say Canada's plan it is limited. The Minister of Natural Resources said, it's a small part of the plan, but the technology is not there and at scale it hasn't been proven and there's also cost implications. So there is no magic bullet. I mean, I think this is the thing that is irrational about climate change. We know what we need to do, but it is so hard to actually, you know, do... take the action that's needed. But if we don't do that, we know we're imperilling ourselves. And so you just I think you do have to be brave as a country. And look, we have a situation now with Russia's war, illegal war on Ukraine, which has in the short term, created havoc. But we need to use this as a reason to double down on investing in renewable energy in our future.

MG: Do you see that or in the plan, do you see an absence of, for example, a cap on oil and gas production that is hard to square with the urgency that's presented in the report?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, look, as I say, it's not a cap yet. So I think everyone you know that's watching this will be looking to see, is it actually going to be a cap on emissions from oil and gas? There's going to be a discussion with the industry about this 40 percent. But no, I mean, look, I think the Canadian government is doing the hard work that everyone needs to do. But so much focus is on governments and it's really, in this case, up to the sector to actually show that they can do what they need to do, which is reduce emissions because Canada cannot meet its target unless oil and gas does this. And it's interesting. I was just named last week, by the secretary general to this expert panel. And you know, he's pretty tired about the fact that folks, everyone who is making net zero by 2050 promises. I mean, it's kind of funny. My kids are like 2050. Come on. And so he wants to make sure that these pledges are real, that they're going to result in immediate action, that they're transparent, that you can actually measure them. There's accountability. And so that'll be the focus of some of my work with the rest of the panel in the coming months because governments can only do so much. At the end of the day, we need folks to step up. And I mean, to put it in context, I mean, it's kind of funny. I was reading… There's a great piece in an Australian publication about a pledge by some guy who says, I'm going to be ambitious and I'm going to stop drinking alcohol by 2050. I don't want to do anything drastic in the medium term, short term, but by the time I'm 101 years old at 2049, I'm going to do this. But because I didn't drink all the time, like I'm going to actually get some credits for the times I didn't drink, so maybe it's going to be 2060. And so I think this is, you know, I think, you know, that's to make light of it. But I think there's a real problem. We need to do things now and we have to do hard things and everyone needs to do them. And we actually know what we need to do. [cross talk] are important and the economy is important. But this report also shows that actually there's more economic opportunity, if you move to renewable energy, the prices have dropped. And so you need to do the work now, and you can't wait till 2049 because it's too late.

MG: Well, let's see whether we... As you say, we know what we need to do. Let's see whether we actually do it and we'll talk as well in future. I'm sure about the work that you're doing to ensure that people are actually hitting those targets in the meantime. Catherine McKenna, good to speak with you. Thank you.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Great to chat, Matt.

MG: Catherine McKenna, Canada's former environment minister, now the founder and principal of Climate and Nature Solutions and tasked by the secretary general of the United Nations to investigate non-state entities commitments to reducing emissions. That's The Current for this Wednesday. Q's up next on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Wednesday April 06, 2022 Full Text Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode