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 2016

The Current Transcript for April 7, 2016

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

If Canada actually shows that it's serious, that it's back, that we need to be taking action, I think that will send in the extraordinarily strong signal.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Catherine McKenna just days after being sworn in as the Minister responsible for the newly named department of Environment and Climate Change. And everyone from the industry to the environmentalists is anxious to read the signals she'll be sending today as she meets with the U.S. official responsible for bringing in change on the other side of the border. But before they get too far into those meetings, they will join me today to answer questions about areas of agreement, and where they expect obstacles. Catherine McKenna and Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the EPA, will be here in an hour. And here's an environmental puzzle that has more than one scientist worried the disease killing bats in the east is on the move.

SOUNDCLIP

I'd like to think that White Nose Syndrome, as it gets to the west, it may slow down. But the worst case scenario, and what we have to plan for, is that's not the case.

AMT: We first told you about White Nose Syndrome in 2008: so destructive that it brought researchers to tears. We will update that story in half an hour as we check in on the issues we've been tracking. But we're starting with a story about an issue that is all too common, and yet rarely discussed.

SOUNDCLIP

[Emotional] We were just so overjoyed, and then bam. It just hit us like a bomb, and those of you who have experienced miscarriage before, I can... I can relate now.

AMT: A preliminary finding of Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal has defined a miscarriage as a disability. We're looking at the implications for the workplace, and for health care. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current.

'We need to see miscarriage as an emotional emergency', says nurse

Guests: Christine Thomlinson, Andrea Paras, Wendy Moulsdale

[Music: Theme]

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: When Winnie Mou of Markham, Ontario, suffered a miscarriage in 2013, it was not solely a physically harrowing experience. She fell into a severe and disabling depression. So bad, in fact, that she was fired from her job. But after taking her case to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, it seems Winnie Mou's lost pregnancy, and all the emotional distress that followed, could create a significant precedent in Canada's most populous province. Last month, the Tribunal recognized her miscarriage as a disability. Its final ruling on the case is not in yet, but this interim decision has many women's health advocates hopeful that a long-taboo subject could be getting the recognition and the status it deserves. Christine Thomlinson is an Employment Lawyer and the co-managing partner of Rubin Thomlinson LLP. And she's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: Hello. Thank you for having me.

AMT: Give us a brief summary of this case.

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: Sure. I guess the one thing that's not unusual about this case is the fact that it deals with someone who was fired from their job and claims it was related to a disability. One of the first things that people have to prove when that's the case is that they do in fact have a disability, as it's defined under the human rights code. And again, there are cases where that's not controversial. You know, you talk about serious illnesses, mental health issues. But in this case, the matter of miscarriage was unusual, and it was something that the Human Rights Tribunal considered and determined was, in fact, a disability.

AMT: And how does it meet the test for being defined as a disability?

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: Well, one of the things that the employer in this case argued was that it should not be considered a disability, because it was not permanent and not persistent. And so that was something that the tribunal considered. And what they determined was that it was not common, which is perhaps, to a degree, ironic, because I know one of the things we're going to talk about is that it's much more common than we think. But also not transitory, so it's not akin to things like the flu or strep throat, which the human rights tribunal has determined not to be disabilities as defined under the code. And so in that sense, it was deemed to be protected.

AMT: And so is that the actual miscarriage that is ruled a disability, or is it the depression that came from the miscarriage?

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: Well, so that's a great question. So the decision appears to say that it's the miscarriage itself. And I think that's important, because the depression we know is a protected human rights disability. The miscarriage now being defined is a disability could mean therefore that there are circumstances where people are entitled to human rights protection, even where they don't suffer any kind of a mental health effect.

AMT: Okay, so what kind of precedent does this case set for employers?

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: What I think is really interesting about this case, because of course, we're only part way with this case. We know that it's allowed to continue, but the bigger question is going to be whether or not what happened in to Ms. Mou was as a result of, or at least partly determined by her own disability. And she had a number of things going on with her in this case. So if the employer ultimately takes some adverse step related to an employee who has a disability, or in this case, has had a miscarriage, then that invokes human rights liability. So what I think is interesting is, what happens when someone has a miscarriage? I know in my own case, I had one, and I certainly didn't tell my employer. But I absolutely know that I was, you know, I’ll say off, for a period of time of work. I didn't miss work, but I wasn't myself. It may very well have been that I was performing in a way that my employer took note of. And the question will be how do employers deal with that? Especially when, in many cases they won't even know what's going on with the employee.

AMT: And this is an interim decision, so why does that happen? Why does it come out before it actually makes a ruling and say this?

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: It's one of the things that parties can do so they can get these threshold issues dealt with preliminarily. Which makes some sense, because ultimately, it's a bit of an administration of justice issue. If this is not a proper case to proceed to a full hearing, the Human Rights Tribunal could dismiss it at an early stage and not incur the resources that would otherwise be expended.

AMT: So does recognizing miscarriage as a disability mean that a woman who miscarries now would have a right to time off, or a right to certain accommodation in the workplace?

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: It may absolutely mean that. So because it would be considered a disability, employers do have a duty to accommodate that. Which could mean that the terms of the conditions of the job, functions of the job, may need to be modified. So employers need to be conscious of that, and certainly if they're overtly aware that someone has had a miscarriage, they’ll want to have those conversations. In other probably far more common situations, they may not know. And I think what's interesting about this case, is that employers may find themselves in a situation where they see evidence of things that could be consistent with a miscarriage, without actually knowing. And they may therefore need to make some inquiries with the employee to determine what's happened.

AMT: Now this is happening in Ontario. Is there an implication on the national scale?

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: Human rights legislation is provincially regulated, so every jurisdiction will have its own human rights code or act. Miscarriage is not defined as a disability in any of them, but what we know is that that definition is very expansive. Human rights legislation is broad. And so I would say that this now means that in all likelihood, every jurisdiction will see this as a disability, as well.

AMT: And again, we have to see the final ruling on how they treat all of this, but the indications are now that a woman who then has an ongoing complications from a miscarriage that affect her job, that can't be, what this is signaling is it may not be, you actually have recourse if you're fired for that.

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: Correct, correct. The challenge for employees will be drawing a connection between those two things. So in this-- and this isn't a good example of a case. Ms. Mou had a variety of different things happening with her personal life. She only took two days off by virtue of the miscarriage. And so she's going to have to demonstrate, it's going to be her onus to show that there was some connection between those two days off that she took for the miscarriage, and the reason why she was fired.

AMT: Okay, well, thanks for coming in.

CHRISTINE THOMLINSON: My pleasure.

AMT: That is Christine Thomlinson; she's an Employment Lawyer and co-managing partner of Rubin Thomlinson LLP. She was in our Toronto studio. Now, we did request an interview with Ms. Mou's lawyer, but she declined. While employment lawyers wrestle with what this ruling means for the workplace, women's health advocates are hoping it will make us take a closer look at how miscarriages are treated overall. As many as 25 per cent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Many happen early on in a pregnancy, but the later on it happens, the more likely a woman is to require medical care. And some say their experiences with the health system have been inadequate and insensitive to their needs. Andrea Paras had a miscarriage in January. She's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

ANDREA PARAS: Hello, thanks for having me.

AMT: Well, we'll get your response to the ruling in a moment, this interim ruling. But first, tell me what happened to you when you experienced a miscarriage.

ANDREA PARAS: I knew that I was having a miscarriage because I met with my family doctor. But on January 17th, I experienced a lot of pain, and so I needed to go to the emergency room in the middle of the night. I went at around 1:30 in the morning. Saw a doctor, who gave me some Percocet to knock me out for the night, and waited for an ultrasound. At no point was there any follow up care after I received the Percocet. And there was no physical exam to see if there was something medically wrong, or if it was it was just part of a normal miscarriage. I waited close to 10 hours until I saw another doctor. And at that point, my pain had increased to the point where they put me on gluco morphine to manage the pain.

AMT: Until you saw another doctor. You actually had to go begging to find another doctor.

ANDREA PARAS: I had to go begging to find another doctor. So I hadn't seen a doctor, and when the pain started getting worse, I went to the nurse's station, and they said, well, we can't give you any medication because the doctor needs to come to tell you the results of the ultrasound. So I went back to my seat in the waiting room, and waited, and the pain got worse and worse to the point, I've never experienced pain like that. It was excruciating. I started losing control of my breathing. I could barely walk. So they put me onto a stretcher in the hallway. It took some time for them to find a vein that they could put the I.V. in, and then they put me on gluco morphine. So that knocked me out for a couple of hours, and then finally the two obstetric residents came down and took a history. And they confirmed that I was having a miscarriage, which I already knew, because my family doctor had confirmed that. They did not do a physical exam. And they said they needed to go and consult with the gynaecological surgeon to determine whether a D&C would be required. They told me they'd be back within a half an hour. It took them another two and a half hours to come back. At which point, my pain increased again and I asked the nurses for more pain medication. And at that point, the doctors had taken my chart, so nobody could find the chart. And nobody knew where it had gone. And so I waited again another 45 minutes, while they were kind of looking around for the chart. Finally they got the chart, they gave me more pain medication. So finally…

AMT: We're at what hour here by this point? You’re like, about 13, 14 hours in?

ANDREA PARAS: Right. So this was 13 hours in. Yeah, absolutely, 13 hours in. So finally, at 4:45 in the afternoon, the gynecology surgeon came down and said, well, she thought we should do a physical exam to just look inside and see what's going on, to see if they could determine what the problem was before doing the surgical procedure. And so they did just a speculum exam, which is, as every woman knows, is a very simple procedure, right. It's very fast. And so they looked inside and what they saw was that the fetus was just stuck at my cervix. And it took them about ten seconds to pull it out. No medication required, it was a very, very simple procedure. And I believe that if any, if the emergency room doctor had done a physical exam 15 hours earlier, he would have seen what the problem was. So they pulled the fetus out, and left the room and invited my husband back into the room. And when my husband entered the room, I could just see his eyes. And they had left everything on the side of the table, in the kidney shaped bowl on the side of the table. They hadn't even taken care to warn me that it was there, or remove it, or cover it. I've never seen my husband so distraught in his life. I've never seen that. And so I left the room, and went to the gynecology surgeon. And I was very calm, and I said, thank you for helping me. But in the future, next time, if you're going to leave it there, you should at least warn the family that it's there, because maybe not everybody wants to see that.

AMT: You wrote about this in the Toronto Star, and now you're talking about here. Why is it important for you to be public about this very personal experience?

ANDREA PARAS: Yeah, I thought long and hard about going public about this experience. But I’m a white, middle class university professor. I teach political science at the University of Guelph. And I'm Canadian, I know the system, I know how to advocate for myself. And so if this experience happens to me, I am absolutely sure that this happens to any number of other women around the city. New immigrants, women who don't speak English, women with mental health issues, women who are not in the same position to advocate for themselves. And if I don't take the responsibility to speak about what happened to me, when miscarriage for all women is such a taboo subject. Who's going to do that? And so I think, I feel I have a responsibility to talk about this.

AMT: Well Andrea Paras, stay with us. I want to bring one more person into this discussion. Wendy Moulsdale is a nurse practitioner at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in the neonatal intensive care unit. She's also the education lead at the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Network, as well. Welcome, you’re listening in on all of this.

WENDY MOULSDALE: Thank you, good morning.

AMT: How common are stories like the one we just heard from Andrea?

WENDY MOULSDALE: I wish I could say it was uncommon, but it's not. As I’ve traveled the province teaching on behalf of PAIL Network, I've unfortunately heard many stories like Andrea's.

AMT: And she didn't seem to get a lot of help or sympathy. Why do you-- is there a standard response to the way health care workers deal with pregnancy loss?

WENDY MOULSDALE: Unfortunately not, and that's one thing that we're hoping will improve after the passage of Bill 141, the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Research, Support and Care Act, led my Mike Colle, MPP, last fall. So we're hoping that the outcome from that bill is that we can advocate for standardized care across the province. And not just that title to it, but compassionate and knowledgeable and skillful care for women and their partners.

AMT: What do you make of the of the ruling, the interim ruling by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunals, then, that makes miscarriage, that labels it as a disability?

WENDY MOULSDALE: It certainly is a very interesting and monumental decision, I think, in terms of raising public awareness about this issue. As Andrea just mentioned, the taboo surrounding miscarriage. We need to break down the walls of silence and talk about this. If it's going to affect 20-25 per cent of women around us, we need to make sure that their needs are met, and that they are not felt to be alone and struggling with what could be deemed an invisible loss.

AMT: Andrea, what do you think of the ruling?

ANDREA PARAS: Oh I agree, it's absolutely a landmark ruling. And it, you know, I was lucky to have a supportive employer, but not every woman is lucky enough to have that. And the other thing I would add is that women experience miscarriage in individual ways. Not every experience is the same. In my own position, I don't feel the need to claim that I have a disability because of my miscarriage, but I'm not going to claim at all that another woman might not need to do that.

AMT: And Wendy, I’m wondering about, as you see women going through this, what are the most surprising things you see, in terms of how they're dealt with in the health care system?

WENDY MOULSDALE: Oh, well, certainly what surprises me are the casual remarks that are offered towards the woman and her partner that, you know, you could use the term cliché. You know, at least you never knew him or her. At least-- any phrase that starts with at least in this situation is probably a bad thing to say. There must have been something wrong with the baby. To have that said to you is hardly reassuring or caring, it's judgemental and painful to hear that there might have been something wrong with your baby. So what we need to see is skillful and compassionate care. We need to see miscarriage treated as an emotional emergency. It might not always be a medical emergency, certainly in Andrea's case, to go on for more than 14 or 15 hours without adequate pain relief. Andrea has not alluded to whether or not she received emotional care, it would sound like she did not. So for all those hours she and her partner were alone and struggling, when there could have been any number of health care disciplines who might have been called in, such as a social worker, a counselor a spiritual care provider or a chaplain. So there's many options where people could have been available, I believe, and PAIL Network believes, to have supported them in their moment, those hours. I'm sorry, not just one moment, but many hours.

AMT: And what do you think needs to happen then, to improve the care given to families going through this?

WENDY MOULSDALE: Well, that's certainly something that PAIL Network is working on. I think what needs to happen, as I’ve mentioned, is standardised care. And I think, seeing as maybe even as many as 70 percent of miscarriages happen in the emergency room setting, I think there's a call to emergency rooms to come up with protocols. And we would like to assist them with that, and have begun some early work on it.

AMT: Andrea, what would you like to see in the system?

ANDREA PARAS: So I had very good post-miscarriage care from the Early Pregnancy Clinic at Toronto East General Hospital. It's my belief that there are only three of these clinics in all of Toronto in three different hospitals. And the idea behind these clinics is that your family doctor would refer you to the clinic, and they would follow you through, and intervene if there's a medical intervention required. And prevent this kind of situation from happening, and provide the appropriate emotional support, as well. So I would like to see more of these clinics integrated into the Ontario health care system, throughout the province.

AMT: Okay, well thank you both for coming in and talking about this today.

WENDY MOULSDALE: Thank you.

ANDREA PARAS: Thank you.

AMT: I've been speaking with Wendy Moulsdale, she is a nurse practitioner at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in the neonatal intensive care unit. She's also the education lead with the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Network. Andrea Paras had a miscarriage in January. They both joined me here in our Toronto studio. We'd like know what you think about this issue. Do you agree that miscarriage should be considered a disability? And do workplaces and the health care system need a better way of working with women who have suffered miscarriages? You can find us to comment on this, we are on Facebook, we are on Twitter, @TheCurrentCBC. You can send us an email by going to our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link. I’m Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current on CBC Radio One.

Corporate America embraces gay rights in light of anti-LGBT legislation

Guests: Deena Fidus

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello, I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

AMT: Still to come, the environment knows no borders in the fight against climate change. It has to be fought alongside our closest national neighbor. With that in mind, I'll be joined by Catherine McKenna, Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, and her American counterpart, Gina McCarthy of the US Environmental Protection Agency. That's in half an hour. But first, it's time to check in on your feedback on the stories of the week.

SOUNDCLIP

[rhythmic clapping]

VOICE 1: Slam dunk results. Guaranteed results. Presumptions. That's not what a fair system is about.

VOICE 2: The issue is who are you working for? Me, as a patient or the drug company you're taking money from?

VOICE 3: One day we were down at the ACC at the Leafs game and I remember—did the robot call us? We pulled it up on our screen and we just started the robot again and watched the end of the game and came home again.

AMT: A taste of the week that was on The Current and now it's time to check in on some of your thoughts about those stories. Joining me today to read through your mail is our Executive Producer, Kathleen Goldhar. Hi.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: Hi Anna Maria. I'm still sort of reeling

from this morning.

AMT: That first set of interviews, yes. Very interesting, a miscarriage defined as a disability and what that means for employers and for women—

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: And the health system, absolutely.

AMT: So, we'll follow that, I guess when they come out with a final ruling, we’ll update that. But let's get to other updates now. In the days following the acquittal of former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi two weeks ago there were protesters on the streets and on social media saying the justice system had quote unquote “Failed women”. At the same time, others argue that the system had worked as it should, upholding the presumption of innocence including in cases of sexual assault. Monday we featured a panel of lawyers talking about how and how much the system needs to change. According to criminal lawyer, David Butt, the answer is a lot.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID BUTT: It's certainly my contention, Anna Maria, that the justice system is structurally incapable of responding to the deep degree of nuance that arises in sexual violence that incurs in the context of a pre-existing relationship, whether it be work colleagues or relationships and so on and that my feeling is, that there should be a range of options available for the survivors of that kind of violence.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: And here's what some of you had to say following that discussion. Grant Madison from Winnipeg wrote: We must preserve the presumption of innocence. We must maintain the right of the accused not to take the stand. They cannot be required to testify against themselves. I cannot conceive of anything we might be able to do to improve the current situation that would not wind up doing far more harm to the relationship between men and women specifically and society in general.

AMT: Tina Rader is a social worker from Courtenay, BC. She wrote to us about her dealings with the legal system on behalf of her clients:

I have spent hours trying to explain to lawyers sexual assault from a victim's and family's experience. I've tried to educate them on what evidence they might seek to convict. The intake process is problematic as is the way in which lawyers conduct prosecution.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: On Twitter, Doug Barr tweeted, humanity needs to deal with the cause to eliminate cases of sexual assault.

And, Wolf Kirchmeir of Blind River, Ontario, wrote to us to share these thoughts. The law assumes that memory is complete and detailed and that recall is consistent and complete. These assumptions are simply wrong. That is the main reason that rules of examination and guidelines to interpreting witness statements needs to be revised. Not only in sexual assault cases, but for all cases, criminal and civil.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: heavy beats]

Tracking the story.

AMT: The push for LGBTQ rights in the US is facing pushback with a series of new anti LGBTQ laws in some southern states.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRIS SGRO: This is been a difficult week for gay and transgender North Carolinians. We came under attack from the North Carolina general assembly and Governor McCrory when they hastily and without real consideration of consequences passed a dangerous house bill. And there are some people who deserve a lot of thanks for what they've done in the lead up to and over the course of this week to protect our brothers and sisters. I want to thank members of the transgender community who have courageously put themselves out there as spokespeople when that is not always easy in the face of vitriolic rhetoric.

AMT: Well, that is Chris Sgro, the Executive Director of Equality NC speaking about new legislation in North Carolina. The bill blocks local governments from enacting laws with anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people. It also requires transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex. That backlash has created a backlash of its own on the part of corporate America. Tuesday, PayPal President and CEO Dan Schulman cancelled plans to open a new operations center in North Carolina. It would have employed more than 400 people. And movie studio Lions Gate has just moved the filming of one of its new TV shows out of North Carolina and into British Columbia. Two of dozens of companies pushing back against discriminatory laws in states including North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Deena Fidus is the Director of the workplace equality program at Human Rights Campaign. She joins us from Washington DC. Hello.

DEENA FIDUS: Hi, good morning.

AMT: How surprised were you that PayPal would pull its new operation centre, plans out of North Carolina?

DEENA FIDUS: Well, it certainly was a bold move and at the same time really in step with the trends that we are seeing. Simply put, these laws are bad for business and they're getting a very, very strong reaction from a range of businesses, not just in the tech sector but today, you know we've seen Alcoa and Dow and PepsiCo and all kinds of businesses rise up to help to beat back some of these really terrible bills that are proliferating.

AMT: Yes, and I was just catching on the Lions Gate story that I just saw yesterday as well where they're taking a series called Crushed, it was supposed to be shot in Charlotte, they’re taking it out.

DEENA FIDUS: Indeed, indeed.

AMT: Now Monday, the Governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, vetoed a similar anti-LGBTQ bill after many companies including Disney and the NFL threatened to boycott the state. Do you think it was economic pressure that made the governor veto that bill?

DENNA FIDUS: I certainly do. I think that of the various constituent groups that are imploring lawmakers across this country to either veto these bills or not to push them forward in the first place, I definitely think that at this moment in time the business community has the most political capital, has the most weight behind them. These bills, quite simply, they're discriminatory. They undermine LGBTQ civil rights and in a very tangible way they're just bad for business. They also leave, you know, an indelible stain of discrimination on these states as we go forward.

AMT: You named a few companies. How many have you been able to count that have joined a boycott against doing business in places like North Carolina or Mississippi?

DEENA FIDUS: Well, while some are boycotting the states, we now have over 130 businesses that are voicing opposition to these bills. So, while they range state to state, for example in North Carolina we have an opportunity in the legislative session later this spring to repeal this bill so in some cases businesses are actually calling for repeal rather than divesting their entities right now as PayPal did.

AMT: And so, what's this about? Is this about optics, is there financial gain for supporting the community, what's going on here?

DEENA FIDUS: You know, it's a great question and certainly we're in this moment in time in which it seems like it's trendy or it's cool to be pro-LGBTQ and that may be the case and at the same time so many of these businesses have been quietly and deliberately enacting their own welcoming policies, benefits, and practices for the LGBT community. And so, when lawmakers enact these bills, it's simply flying in the face of how they have been doing business as usual which very squarely includes the LGBT community and having some basic principles of fairness and equality in the workplace.

AMT: Are there brands or companies that have anything to lose if they support LGBT rights?

DEENA FIDUS: Well, I think we're actually past that phase. That would have been a different answer maybe a decade ago, but at this moment in time just looking at the sheer diversity and critical mass of businesses that are pro-equality, if you want to boycott, for example, a tech business that's pro-equality, well you're not really going to be left with any options. You know, same thing when you go to look at popular food and beverage companies. There's almost nowhere to go if you want to latch onto a business that rejects fundamental principles of equality.

AMT: And yet we are seeing these states try to enact this legislation. What is behind that wave, that seeming wave of anti-LGBT legislation?

DEENA FIDUS: Well, probably a confluence of factors and certainly I'm not necessarily even the best to venture here because it's these lawmakers themselves. Well, some are saying well is this backlash to the marriage equality ruling? The reality is that this time last year we were fighting over 100 anti-LGBT bills and so now it seems to be sort of cheap political optics. These bills are having a very, very dangerous impact on the LGBT community and they're requiring a lot of resources and might to fight back.

AMT: It's interesting the way, so you have, you have people pushing for rights then you have the backlash and then you have the backlash against the backlash.

DEENA FIDUS: Indeed.

AMT: It must be very welcome for those of you fighting for these rights to see the weight of corporate America coming over on your side.

DEENA FIDUS: It is. It's tremendously heartening and you know, allies come from everywhere and while a lot of this conversation boils down to politics and the economics of fairness and equality, there is this perhaps less than tangible sense that you know, workplace to workplace those of us that are members of the LGBT community are living openly and by and large we're getting positive responses. For a lot of these CEOs, LGBT issues are no longer some abstract social issue. They have faces, they have voices, they’re colleagues, they’re friends, they’re neighbors and I think that at the end of the day that may be the greatest motivator here.

AMT: Okay, well Deena Fidus, thank you for speaking with us.

DEENA FIDUS: Thank you so much.

AMT: That is Deena Fidus, Director of the workplace equality program at the Human Rights Campaign. She joins us from Washington DC.

Scientists concerned for bats as white nose syndrome moves West

Guests: Craig Willis

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: Okay, on to another story. Monday we had a discussion about a new plan in Canada by ten drug companies to start disclosing overall totals of how much they pay doctors and medical associations every year. Innovative Medicines, the pharmaceutical association that represents these drug companies says its program will provide transparency on their industry's findings. But others are calling for Canada to follow the lead of the US and other countries which have brought in legislation to make it mandatory to divulge big pharma spending on each doctor. Dr. Dee Mangin from McMaster University talked about what happens after doctors attend seminars sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

SOUNDCLIP

DEE MANGIN: For doctors prescribing it for patients, what this means is that they write more prescriptions for that drug. For example, a physician attaining a single lecture by a sponsored physician will write on average an extra 600 or so dollars per year in prescriptions by the sponsor’s drug.

AMT: Well, we heard from you on all sides of this story. Leslie Turcotte of Ottawa writes: Of course they prescribe more after they learn about the new treatment. Education and information makes a difference. Julie Duerichen from Burnaby, BC, wrote in to say: Many Canadians trust their doctors and believe the medical system is looking out for their best interests, but when huge profits are being made, patients need to do their research and not be afraid to ask questions.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: Bailey Dyck from London, Ontario is a resident physician at an academic hospital and she writes, while having drug reps represent the newest products does engender potential bias, it's also a highly efficient way for physicians to get needed information. And free samples don't always have to be a bad thing. I've personally seen where the only way for a patient to get a non-drug plan covered medication has been through samples, as they simply haven't been able to handle the monetary burden. Stephen Samuel from Vancouver wrote in to say he feels the pharmaceutical industry program doesn't go far enough: The information that they are offering countries such as Canada provides little more than a PR opportunity and a statistical dead end. It is useless for pretty much anything other than as background for a media story.

AMT: Well, okay, moving on.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We would come out here in the middle of winter and during the day the bats were coming in and out, in and out and landing on the snow. You can see the remains of some of them along the rocks here.

VOICE 2: You can see here a dried wing, bits of wings. You can see here, here are the wings, the elbows the fingers, the bones.

AMT: Well, we first broadcast that scene back in 2008. Those were American biologists Scott Darling and Susi von Oettingen and they were standing just outside the Aeolis cave in Vermont. The bones carpeting the ground where the remains of bats killed by a fungus that causes something called White Nose Syndrome. Scientists estimate white nose syndrome has now killed between five and seven million bats in North America. Last week news broke that the disease has crossed the Rockies and spread to the west coast. Craig Willis is an Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Winnipeg. He and his students have been studying white nose syndrome since 2008. He's in our Winnipeg studio, hi.

CRAIG WILLIS: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: So, white nose, let's just remind everybody it's called that because they look like they've stuck their little noses in a sugar bowl or something, they're all white in their face?

CRAIG WILLIS: Well, a little bit. So, many of them have the white growth on their nose but I think when people find them and this bat that was found outside of Washington, the white stuff is gone. They groom it off pretty quickly once they're active. A better name would be white wings syndrome, the fungus grows into the skin of their wings and that's why it causes them problems.

AMT: How significant is it that they've found it on the west coast of the US?

CRAIG WILLIS: It's an alarming development, to say the least. We thought we had at least a decade, if not forever. The Rocky Mountains represents a significant barrier to bats and so it seems a bit unlikely. We don't know yet how it got there but it's possible that humans actually spread it. That's alarming and it means we need to sort of step up our surveillance. There's also a whole new community of hibernating bats in western North America that we're now probably going to see significant impacts for.

AMT: And how would humans spread it?

CRAIG WILLIS: Well, bats can spread it as well and that's how most of the spread has happened, but it can persist for long periods on people's boots, on climbing gear, on caving gear. We don't know where any caves for hibernating bats occur in Washington State so we don't really know where it might have first turned up, but people can spread it. And so that's something that people worried about in Eastern North America for a long time and certainly in western Canada as well and many of the western states. I think we need to step up how we sort of control that human spread.

AMT: You know, it's funny, well not funny but when we first talked about this it was mostly in the eastern US and it was just starting to come into Canada so the idea that it just keeps moving must be quite frightening.

CRAIG WILLIS: It's insidious. So, on average it's moved about 300 kilometres per year. We've thought it was going to slow down, some of us at least, in the west because the bats seem to occur in smaller numbers, they're not in massive caves with thousands and thousands of individuals. And many hibernacula, we don't even know where they are. We thought it was going to slow down, this is a significant jump that's probably not just from bats.

AMT: Have you seen it on the west coast of Canada yet?

AMT: No, it's not in Canada yet. This is one bat that's been discovered with advanced disease so it certainly was very sick, but it's only one individual so far. I think what this story highlights is how important the public can be for helping us deal with this disease. Most of the affected sites in Ontario for example, were discovered when people found sick bats on the ground too early in the winter. And that's the case here as well. This is a bat that a hiker found and then submitted and then some really sharp pathologists that picked up on this disease, not really expecting it. People are certainly on alert in BC and I’d urge the public to contact the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative if they see bats that seem sick. We have a citizen science web site for Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec called batwatch.ca where people can report observations. People in Alberta and BC can google batsbc or batsalberta and they'll find the right contacts.

AMT: What impact does global warming have on the spread?

CRAIG WILLIS: Well, we're not sure. We know that fungal diseases worldwide though are on the rise. Part of that is due to increasing human travel and trade and something we actually call pathogen pollution. We move these things more than we ever did before. But, there's some thinking that climate change may be exacerbating fungal diseases in general. There are many fungal wildlife diseases that are that are cropping up.

AMT: Remind us how important they are to the ecology of North America.

CRAIG WILLIS: Well, that's a fantastic question. Lots of people find bats a little creepy but they're ecologically and economically important. There's some great recent evidence from the States showing how important they are for corn crops. When you exclude bats above a corn field, there is a significant increase in insect damage to the corn and a significant increase in pathogens in the corn that can actually make it toxic to livestock. So, we know they save us billions of dollars in pesticide costs and crop damage.

AMT: How many insects does the average bat consume?

AMT: That's a good question. So, there are a lot of numbers out there. We only know that an average little brown bat can eat about 600 mosquito sized insects. They don't eat a lot of mosquitoes unfortunately, but mosquito sized insects an hour each little brown back can maybe eat a kilogram of insects per summer. So, if we're talking about millions of bats, that's millions of kilograms of insect consumption that's no longer happening.

AMT: So, what can and can be done to stop this white nose syndrome?

CRAIG WILLIS: Well, there are a couple of approaches that people are taking. One of them I refer to as the spray stuff on bats approaches that I think are maybe a little bit unlikely but which we and other folks have been testing. Antifungal bacteria or chemicals that do a great job of beating up on the fungus in a petri dish, those things are being tested in a number of places, but one of the most encouraging signs at least for some species is that there are populations that seem to be stabilizing. They've crashed, they are at much lower numbers but even if you squint at the data a little bit you can maybe see a little increase in some of those populations. That gives us hope that some individuals have heritable traits that help them survive the fungus and that they can pass on to their offspring.

AMT: Okay, well we'll stay in touch with you on this, Craig. Thank you.

CRAIG WILLIS: Thank you, Anna Maria.

AMT: Craig Willis is an Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Winnipeg. He was in our Winnipeg studio. I have to tell you, Kathleen, I was never crazy about bats but now I care about them.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR:[laughs] I've spent many summer nights watching the bats fly around my cottage lake and I love it. So, on Tuesday, we talked about robots on farms, not exactly the nostalgic image most people have of farmers working with their hands in the dirt. The world's first fully robotic farm is set to open in Japan next year and here in Canada, automation is increasingly popular in the dairy sector. The robotic milking machines that Rick Shantz and his family use on their Ontario farm doesn't need a person to lift a finger or even be in the barn. They’ll even notify the farmer of any problems through a smartphone app. So, The Current’s Julian Uzielli joined you to talk about where this technology is headed.

SOUNDCLIP

JULIAN UZIELLI: It seems there's actually about as many different kinds of automation as there are different kinds of agriculture because every type of farming is a little bit different, right? So, you've got machines that can tell when berries are ripe and then pick them faster than humans can. There are robots that can prune grapevines at vineyards. There are even attachments for tractors that can, as you're driving up and down the field, determine how much fertilizer each plant needs and then fertilize it all in real time.

AMT: After that we heard from Glenn Gary on Facebook who may have summed up the reaction best. Okay, I stopped myself from doing this but we’re going to do it [laughs]. He wrote: Udderly fascinating.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: But the story also moo-ved others to add their thoughts as well.[laughs]I can’t believe I just said that. Joshua Eaton wrote on our Facebook page: The automated tractor is amazing. I wish my Grandfather was alive to see it. He would have wanted one for sure.

AMT: Elaine Schweers, who grew up on a dairy farm, shared a different perspective: I would miss the personal connection you have with cows or farm animals period, as they do have feelings.

[Music: theme]

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: And now it's time to give credit where credit is due. The Week That Was on The Current was produced by Idella Sturino, Shannon Higgins, Howard Goldenthal, Ines Colabrese, Lara O'Brien, and Willow Smith.

AMT: Julian Uzielli, Sarah Grant, Pacinthe Mattar, Sujata Berry, Liz Hoath, Marc Apollonio, Karin Marley, Josh Bloch and our intern Paula Last. The Current's writer is Peter Mitton. Our web producer is Lisa Ayuso. Our technician is Gary Francis. Our senior documentary editor is Joan Webber. Our senior producers are Richard Goddard in Toronto and Cathy Simon in Vancouver.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: And before we go, I want to make sure that people know that congratulations are in order. The Current recently won two Gracie Awards. The awards recognize excellence in women’s programming and are presented by The Alliance for Women in Media Foundation.

AMT: Our Winnipeg network producer, Suzanne Dufresne won for her outstanding documentary, Being Jacqueline.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: And I know you won’t toot your own horn, Anna Maria, but you also won an award for Best Public Radio Host in the news category.

AMT: There you go.

KATHLEEN GOLDHAR: Very proud of you.

AMT: [laughs] To add to anything you hear on The Current, weigh in by tweeting us @thecurrentCBC. And if you want to join the conversation about our season-long project, Ripple Effect, make sure to use the hashtag @ripplecbc. You can find all our Ripple Effect stories by going to our website and clicking on Features. That's at cbc.ca/thecurrent. Kathleen Goldhar is the executive producer of The Current. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio 1.

Environment minister, U.S. EPA head share climate strategy

Guests: Catherine McKenna, Gina McCarthy

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

BARACK OBAMA: I'm especially pleased to say the United States and Canada are fully united in combating climate change. As the first US president to visit the Arctic, I saw how both of our nations are threatened by rising seas and so we are focusing on making sure the Paris agreement is fully implemented.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I want to assure the American people that they have a real partner in Canada. Canada and the US will stand side by side to confront the pressing needs that face not only our two countries but the entire planet.

AMT: Well, that was one of the highlights of last month's official visit to the White House. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and US President Barack Obama announced they were aiming high, rolling out a wide ranging joint statement on the environment. It was a commitment to work closely together on everything from curbing methane gas emissions to preserving the Arctic, aligning national emission standards and implementing the Paris agreement on climate change. Today, representatives of both governments meet in Ottawa to get to work on those commitments, hammering out the details of how to meet those expectations, and no doubt talking through some of the significant political obstacles to overcome on both sides of the border. Right now, I'm joined by two of the top officials taking part in those talks. Canada's minister of the Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna and the administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, Gina McCarthy. They are both in our Ottawa studio. Good morning and welcome.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Good morning.

GINA MCCARTHY: Good morning.

AMT: Catherine McKenna, let's begin with you. You have both identified reducing methane emissions as a top priority. Why methane?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, methane-- The agreement we reached with the US is very significant. A lot of people don't think of it immediately of methane, but the reductions that we're talking about would be equivalent, if we were able to make these reductions internationally, which I think is our goal - that what we do bilaterally, we would like see internationally - would be like closing one third of the coal-fired plants around the world, so very significant announcement and it's really great to be working so closely with the US. And I know we're working very closely with the administrator Gina looking at all the measures that we can take to do our part to tackle of climate change.

AMT: Gina McCarthy, what needs to happen to reduce methane emissions?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, I think we need to do exactly what these two countries are doing which is to partner together to take strong domestic action, to show the kind of technologies that are available to capture that methane so it can be used as an energy source in and of itself. It continues to grow jobs and keep our economy strong as we allow ourselves to reduce carbon pollution in ways that allow jobs to continue. And I think it's important for us to share that information. That's what the President and Prime Minister told us to do. I am excited beyond words to sit down and spend some time with Minister McKenna, share information, work together, and also bring other countries together because Canada is one of our strongest partners. It's stronger now than ever before. And we're looking forward to the leadership of both of our countries domestically and also to continue to provide leadership internationally. I have to tell you that Minister McKenna was terrific in Paris. As a as a new person coming in, it was tremendous to see Canada stepping up to the plate and I think the US and Canada provided significant leadership to get the Paris agreement over the finish line. And we're going to work together to make sure that it is implemented effectively. And we're continuing to do everything we can do to move new technologies forward and move towards a low carbon future, which we all know is necessary for ourselves and our kids.

AMT: Okay, well, Ms. McCarthy, you are meeting with Inuit and Indigenous leaders as well to talk about mitigation and adaptation to climate change today. When you talk about adaptation do you mean it’s too late to fight or slow climate change in the Arctic?

GINA MCCARTHY: No. What it means is we're going to look at both mitigation and adaptation because we know the climate is already changing. We can feel it, we can see it, we can measure it. This is not a dispute. So we have to take action to adapt but we also have to continue to focus on mitigation, because the longer we take to take action the more damage and the more results that are going to happen in the future and we have to take account of that. And I'm excited to meet with the Inuit and Indigenous populations. We meet with many of the tribal nations. They’re on the front lines of climate change. They can see it every day. They have traditional ecological knowledge that we can use and combine with our science-based efforts to really integrate their knowledge and understanding in them as part of the decision making on how we tackle climate moving forward.

AMT: It's interesting. In that clip that we heard of Mr. Obama - I didn't realize he was the first US president to ever go to the Arctic.

GINA MCCARTHY: It is true and he both enjoyed the trip. He was excited that we're in really a joint leadership position with Canada to address the arctic but he also came back even more fully committed to take action on climate, because you can you can really see it and feel it and you understand that there are Arctic communities at risk. And because of that, we need to be sensitive to having them at the table and we need to understand what they know about a changing climate that we need to know to effectively adapt.

AMT: Catherine McKenna, both governments are talking about using both Indigenous knowledge and the best science in developing Arctic policies. Sometimes those things don't match. How do you decide who's right?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: You know, we work with our Indigenous partners, our Inuit partners. Just the other day I was meeting with Natan Obed, who’s the head of the Inuit organization, and we were just talking about the real impacts of climate change and understanding how that's not just changing, you know, weather. It's changing their lifestyle. And it's having a major impact and we need to be working with Inuit. I think in the past, there's been a tendency to tell the Indigenous peoples what they should be doing. Now we need to understand what is the real impact and how do we work together, and absolutely looking at the science. And that's why, you know, with the Paris agreement, it's based on the science. We need to limit temperatures to below two degrees and striving for one point five and we see the impacts there. So that's what we have started. As you know, we're in discussions with the provinces and territories. And at the table we’re working with Indigenous leaders too to understand what we need to be doing together to move forward to both, as the administrator said, to look at mitigating the impacts of climate change, but also adapting to two very real changes to the climate that are impacting on their lives.

AMT: Your joint statement says you will take a science-based approach to Arctic oil exploration. Doesn't science suggest there should be none at all?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, I think we need to be thoughtful as we go forward and that's why if you read the declaration, we're very clear that if there is exploration, it needs to be done in a very delicate manner. We know that the Arctic is - the ecosystem - is very delicate we need to be making sure that whatever development happens is done in a way that has the, you know, minimizes any impact on the Arctic. And so that's something that we're looking at. We also talked about how can we expand the areas that are protected. But, once again, we need to be doing it with the people who live up there. We need to be working with very closely with the Indigenous peoples because it’s their land and we need to figure out what makes sense.

AMT: Gina McCarthy, you have a challenge of tackling climate change while at the same time a number of environmental organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, say it would be effectively impossible to clean up an oil spill in icy waters. Can you justify allowing any arctic oil exploration?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, I think they're raising good questions and I think that's why we're working together to make sure that we have the answers for those questions. Nobody wants to do anything that would affect the ecosystem there. And so we have to always do what we’ve done every time we're faced an environmental challenge and an economic challenge, is we have to make sure that we're taking the right steps to grow jobs in our economy and to make sure that the world has energy to run on. But we're doing it in a way that's going to be environmentally sensitive and protective. Look, the science is really good today. We know what the challenges are and we're going to look at those before we take any additional steps and that's the most important thing for everybody to understand. We're not going to be catching up. We're going to be designing a plan moving forward that ensures protection of those precious resources in communities that deserve everybody's protection.

AMT: And you do have this challenge of tackling climate change everywhere. At the same time, the US oil and gas industry has nearly doubled its increase by 88 percent under the Obama administration. How do you square a growing fossil fuel industry with the fight for climate change?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, you do what we're doing in talking about today. If you're going to explore for oil and gas, you have to capture the methane. You have to look at new technology choices. The US has become less dependent on foreign oil. We have a good relationship obviously with Canada in ensuring that we have the right energy mix. But climate change is about adapting to changes that are already happening, but it's also about strong mitigation, but doing it in a way that continues to provide the energy that people need. The great news today, that we have not had in the past, is ways of doing that. You can do oil and gas exploration and capture the methane that otherwise would be damaging the planet. We have to get those technologies and systems in place. But you can also move to renewable energy, you can look at energy efficiency. We have technology choices today that, in the US, are competing effectively against fossil fuel. In many cases, they're less expensive. So let people choose. Let the market capture those technologies that are most able to compete, which in the US today, is mostly renewables. That's what we're investing in, in energy efficiency technology so we can move towards a low carbon future and have an energy market that is secure, that provides jobs, that keeps energy costs low. There are all kinds of opportunities today that were not available yesterday and we know that if we continue to work together the future will be even brighter.

AMT: Catherine McKenna, do you support building new pipelines?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Look, I mean, it goes back to what Gina said, that whenever we look at any projects, major projects, we need to make sure that they're done in a sustainable way and that's why we are rebuilding trust in our environmental assessment process and ensuring that we're doing things based on science in looking at the impact on communities, that we hear from Indigenous communities, that we hear from local communities. And so it really depends. It's a project by project discussion. I think what Gina said is really interesting, that we right now have a huge opportunity-- When you look at the markets and market forces renewables are now at par in many cases with fossil fuels and so you're already seeing that there's a shift right now towards renewables and I think it's really exciting and I think-- You know, we were talking last night about opportunities for hydro from Canada to help be part of the solution for many US states that are looking at decarbonising, moving to a lower carbon future. So I'm pretty excited at the opportunities to work together. We understand the challenges. We understand the challenges here with the US and also globally and that's what we're working together to do. And at the same time, it's a huge opportunity to grow both our economies and create good jobs.

AMT: Well, I know and I hear what you're saying about the two different kinds, but it does take infrastructure. Is it counterproductive to build new fossil fuel infrastructure which will be used for decades while at the same time talking about the importance of moving toward renewables.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Look, you know what? The market will decide in this case.

AMT: But where’s the government? Where’s the government's responsibility in helping the market decide?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, our responsibility, my responsibility, as the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, is making sure whatever projects go ahead are done in a sustainable way. You know, we need to be doing that and that's what we are doing when it comes to pipelines. We review pipelines. Actually, that's the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources, who is absolutely on board with me, that the environment and the economy have to go together, so we have to look thoughtfully project by project. Do they make sense? Can we make sure that they're done in a sustainable way? And, yes, we need to get our resources to market, but the first thing we need to be doing is making sure that they can be done in a safe and responsible way.

AMT: Gina McCarthy, when the president rejected Keystone XL he pointed to concerns about climate change. Given the steps that the governments of Canada and Alberta are taking to price carbon and tackle the problem and, as you point out, the methane steps that you're taking. Would you be willing to support a pipeline carrying oil sands crude?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, the good news to me is that that's not my job. My job is really to make decisions on the basis and provide information on the basis of what I see as the environmental challenges with any project and how those might be tackled. So I'll leave it up to the President to make his own decisions on these issues as they move forward. But I have to join Catherine in saying that the challenge of climate change is an immediate one media; we have to take action on it. But, clearly, neither one of us feels that it's responsible for any government to move forward thinking that we can change the world in a moment's notice. We need to work with our constituents. We need to work within our economies. We need to continue to be sensitive to job growth. And we need to deliver the energy that people need. We're not going to make choices between clean air and having a reliable energy system. And I think people need to understand that those are not choices we need to make any more. We are better than that. We can drive new technologies to the table. If you don't think the world has changed dramatically in the last ten years, then you're closing your eyes to the incredible innovation that has happened and the opportunities that the US and Canada have to provide leadership moving forward, so that while now renewables are actually in the market, they're competitive, they're happening. That's where the investment is. We now know that if we continue to provide leadership the world can continue to innovate and we can have both a low carbon future that we need to protect our kids, while at the same time having those great jobs for our kids to take over. That's the challenge that's before us. It's not choosing between fossil or renewable. It's encouraging the kind of policies and growth moving forward that allows us to continue to grow economically no matter where those jobs are and to continue to allow fossil to be in the mix until it's no longer the one that's viable or cost effective. And we'll let the market decide as long as we send the right market signals about what we need to keep our kids' future healthy and safe. That’s what we do.

AMT: Well, and as you point out, that is a balance that - that environmental protection and the economy - it's a balance that is very real to both of you. Gina McCarthy, your organization faces fierce criticism from industry in the US. We called the National Mining Association for their thoughts on your agency. Listen to what spokesman Luke Popovich had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

EPA has bludgeoned this industry with regulatory edicts that circumvent our elected representatives, test the limits of its legislative authority, cost tens of thousands of high wage jobs, and then pays lip service to transparency. Basically, Gina McCarthy’s agency lacks both the legal authority and the competence to transform the nation's power grid. Led by EPA, this administration has arguably been tougher on American workers in coal communities than it has been on Assad, Putin, or ISIS.

AMT: Gina McCarthy, those are strong words. How do you operate in a political environment that is that polarized?

GINA MCCARTHY: Well, we certainly have been very effective for the past 45 years at EPA in figuring out how we reduce air pollution by 70 percent and allow the economy to triple during that period of time. So we have been able to manage these issues. You know, it's great to continue to see how transparent we are across the border, so I can listen to the coal mining industry while I'm here, but I will have to say, you know, the coal mining sector has been in decline since the eighties. The simple fact is that coal is now not competitive in the US as an energy source and they're struggling. And the President has done everything that he can to both say that coal can remain part of the mix and they can. They can compete, they can innovate and we’re actually providing significant resources to things like carbon capture and sequestration so that they can have an opportunity in the market moving forward. In everything we've already done with our regulations indicates they’re going to be part of the energy mix moving forward, but they have a reality that they need to face. And we have communities that are in coal country that deserve to be supported in any energy transition that's already happening. The President has offered a large package that he wants the Hill to take up, which would support those communities in a transition. So while Luke doesn't tell you or recognize is that coal is expensive now. It is not going to be able to compete in the market effectively unless it continues to innovate, to capture the pollution that is damaging our public health today and to capture the carbon that is damaging the planet for everyone. And they can do that, but they have to recognize their own responsibility to continue to innovate to find new ways to operate. And they have to successfully compete in the market, which, today, they simply are not. So it's not as much about EPA regulation, but it is about the industry themselves and whether they can remain competitive. That's a challenge for them. But the community should not have to suffer because they’re so interested in maintaining that as opposed to looking at the communities that have been suffering since the eighties, and figuring out how we can all work together to make sure that they can continue to have the schools and the jobs and the education that they really deserve in the United States.

AMT: Catherine McKenna, how does what you heard from that industry spokesman compare to the tenor of your discussions with industries in Canada?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: I think we have a really great relationship with industry, with environmental organizations, with Indigenous peoples. I have always said that climate change is not a partisan issue. And I will do everything to keep it from being a partisan issue, because we all know that we need to act. We need to move to a lower carbon future. We need to innovate. But we also need to create the jobs of the future and so there's a huge -I've always said this – there’s a huge opportunity. And I'm heartened because, you know, I often hear from business, they say, you know, we need to be putting a price on carbon. That's the most cost efficient way. It'll foster innovation. I hear from environmental NGOs. They understand the challenges that we face they understand that we need to be mindful of the tough economic situation that we have in Alberta, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan and we need to figure out a way forward. So I'm actually really excited because I think we have a very unique window right now, both in terms of the ability to work with the US under this administration, but also in Canada - the goodwill that we have, but I'm working very hard to keep that. And I am encouraging everyone to provide their solutions, because that's what we need now. We need solutions. We need to look at this as a real opportunity. How do we create jobs? There's a trillion-dollar market internationally, and we know that, with 195 countries signing on to the Paris agreement saying they're moving to a low carbon future. If we can find solutions here, as Gina said, then we can export those solutions. We are already doing that. We have great companies that are in wind, solar, hydro. But we now have the opportunity to be thoughtful about this and create the jobs that my kids will have.

AMT: And you make the point about not being partisan. I want to play you a clip from someone who has actually been very willing to compliment your government when she agrees, the Green Party leader Elizabeth May, but even Elizabeth May has some concerns about climate change in your first budget. Listen to her.

SOUNDCLIP

I did expect to see a follow through on the Liberal platform about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. And, instead, the only reference to subsidies is a commitment to continue the subsidies to liquefied natural gas, a new subsidy that was put in place in the last budget under the previous Conservative government. And that's preserved in the 2016 Liberal Budget and will run its course until it was going to expire anyway at the very end of 2024. So that's very concerning.

AMT: Catherine McKenna, you've made the point of letting the market decide. Why not cancel subsidies for fossil fuels right away?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: We're committed to removing subsidies for fossil fuels. In fact most of them at the federal level have been removed. And this is going to be part of the discussion in the next six months that we're having with the provinces and territories. You know, I've talked to the Finance Minister and you can't do everything at once. And what I was so proud of in our budget are all of the incentives that we have and all of the investment that we have in green infrastructure, in new technologies, in clean tech. So I think if you go through our budget, it would be very hard to make the argument that we are not committed to taking action into moving to a lower carbon future. I have many discussions with Elizabeth May. I think it's great that we have the opportunity to share our views, but in this one, I disagree. And we are looking at how we will remove remaining subsidies and I think it is really important to do that, because as you said, we want to create the right incentives, but we have to do this in a thoughtful way. So that is our plan and we will be doing it in a thoughtful way and I'm working hard with the Finance Minister on this.

AMT: And in Canada, you're working with the provinces toward putting a price on carbon.
Right now we have several different systems in different provinces at various stages of development. Will the government impose a uniform system across the country? How are you going to navigate that one?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, good news, when we had the meeting of the first Ministers, the Prime Minister, and the Premiers they all agreed that pricing carbon was an important part of the solution and they recognize that we need to meet our international obligations. And through the leadership of the provinces, because the federal government was not around in the past ten years on this, we have 80 percent of Canadians who live in a jurisdiction where there's a price on carbon. And so that's great, but we need to make that 100 percent. And we need to make sure that the price is actually creating the right incentives. So that's the discussion that I am having. We’re having it with all of the provinces and territories, to talk it through, because I have business saying to me, we have an internal price on carbon. We believe that this is the most cost effective and efficient way to foster innovation. And so there is, once again, a real opportunity here, but we need to understand we have different systems. And so, you know, in understanding how they work and how they reduce emissions, that is going to be a really important part of this conversation and at the end we’ll present a plan to the Prime Minister.

AMT: You are two very powerful people in powerful government positions overseeing staff that will arguably change the environmental landscape. And you have a lot to navigate. Gina McCarthy, the EPA faces a lot of political pressures. You're in the midst of-- We're watching. We can't not watch what's going on with the presidential nomination races in both parties right now. If Republicans win the White House come November, they're all saying they want to gut the EPA. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders are both talking about the EPA’s handling of the tainted water issue in Flint and talking about investigations. With those kinds of pressures, how do you move forward on issues like climate change when so much else is going on and so much is uncertain in this period before November?

GINA MCCARTHY: I think I'm where Catherine is, which is that the environment is really an issue that everybody cares about. It really is protecting our kids and keeping the world safe for future generations. Everybody cares about that. It is not a partisan issue. You know, EPA was created by Richard Nixon. The last clean air act, big revisions were under the Bush administration - the earlier Bush administration. And so it's really important for us to keep our eye on the ball. EPA's mission is to protect public health and the environment. That's what I am going to keep doing. We have a president who understands that and who cares about it. We have partners like Canada, who share our interest in protecting our ecosystems. You know, we live together and we're going to continue to work together to make sure that while all the politics - which they always will in a presidential election time. When push comes to shove and people sit in the job of the President they know that their job is to protect the people that got them there. And EPA has been doing well for 45 years. I'll expect us to continue to provide the leadership and the protections were supposed to provide in the years to come.

AMT: You've survived a lot of presidents. [laughs]

GINA MCCARTHY: I personally have as well.

AMT: Okay. Well, thank you both for speaking with me today. We look forward to hearing what more you have to say at the end of your meetings today and as your meetings continue. Thank you both.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Thanks, Anna Maria.

GINA MCCARTHY: Thanks.

AMT: Catherine McKenna, Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the US EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. They joined us from our Ottawa studio. If you want to weigh in on what you would like the Canadian and US governments to do on climate change and what you don't want them doing, let us know tweet us. We are @thecurrentCBC. Comment on our Facebook page. Email us from our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. And if you joined us partway through for that conversation, remember you can download the podcast or listen right online, cbc.ca/thecurrent. That is our program for today. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thank you for listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Apr. 7, 2016 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode