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 February 21, 2017

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Here's a severely disabled little boy with another responsible adult willing to take financial, emotional responsibility for him. But no, she can't because the two parents aren't in a sexual relationship. I mean it just makes no sense whatsoever.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: They are two women—best friends, coworkers, confidants. One has a baby born with special needs. The other is there for her and the little boy. So they make a decision to create a new kind of family where they are both his mom. But they aren't same-sex partners and there is no place for their kind of family in the law. Except now there is—a new definition of family—a first in Ontario law. In half an hour, Julie Ireton brings us their story. And then we're on the prairie where control over Canada's last great grasslands is shifting with the winds of political change.

SOUNDCLIP

Conservative and Liberal governments have downloaded responsibility for Saskatchewan's environmentally critical grassland. Will the minister of environment commit today to create a national wildlife area to preserve these ecosystems for future generations?

AMT: The grasslands that stretch across Alberta through Saskatchewan and into Manitoba used to be monitored and managed by federally funded cowboys. We'll hear from a man who was the longest serving federal cowboy and hear his concerns over conservation in an hour. But we're starting here.

SOUNDCLIP

Kill her and be done with it. We will burn down your mosques, draper head Muslim.

AMT: Liberal MP Iqra Khalid reading out a note sent to her after she brought in the motion known as M-103. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Anti-Islamophobia motion could stifle free speech, say critics

Guests: Faisal Kutty, Lorne Gunter

SOUNDCLIP

In recent times, we have seen disturbing acts of intolerance across Canada, including racist graffiti found across Ottawa and posters encouraging hate posted in number of our cities. And of course the attack that occurred in Quebec City on January 29th which shook us deeply.

AMT: Federal Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly speaking last week in support of a motion calling on the government to condemn discrimination and Islamophobia. Known as M-103, the motion was first tabled in December by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid. Among other things, the motion calls on parliamentarians to study hate crimes and propose ways to reduce systemic racism and religious discrimination in Canada. While it is non-binding and would not change existing law, the motion has set off a firestorm of debate in the House of Commons and across the country. Critics, including some federal Conservatives, argue the Liberal motion fails to define Islamophobia and could suppress free speech. MPs are expected to vote on this motion in April. Today we've got two people on both sides of the debate to share their thoughts on M-103. Faisal Kutty is an associate professor of law at Valparaiso University in Indiana. He’s also an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall in Toronto and he also serves as counsel to KSM Law. He is in Valparaiso, Indiana. Lorne Gunter is a senior political columnist with the Edmonton Sun and he is in Edmonton. Hello gentlemen.

BOTH: Good morning.

AMT: Faisal Kutty, let's start with you. What do you think of this motion? Why do you think M-103 is a good idea?

FAISAL KUTTY: M-103 is a good idea because of the growing hate that we see towards Muslims. Just the debate here we see what is elicited. In terms of the response that we're seeing, there's a lot of confusion, conflation, misrepresentation, obfuscation which is being done by the opponents to confuse people. Most Canadians would have no objection to this simple, straight-forward motion. But now they're confused because why? Because people are making it when they're introducing it, it's a bill. It's a law. It's changing Canadian values, et cetera, et cetera. Now why do we need this? Well, statistics were released last year which showed that that anti-Islam, anti-Muslim hate has increased, has doubled in a two-year period. The Canadian Press and the Toronto Star obtained documents from CSIS, where CSIS indicates that there is a growing anti-Islam movement in Canada. We had the shootings in Quebec where six people are slaughtered in a mosque. And so this was a motion, a symbolic motion, for the Canadian public in a pluralistic multicultural society to say look, we stand with you people. We feel that there is a problem. We need to investigate this. We need to study this—not to pass any laws, not to restrict any speech—but to study this to see how we can handle this so that we can continue to be a coexisting society.

AMT: Okay. And before I go to Lorne Gunter, just one clarification—so why in the Heritage Committee are they studying this? Why isn't this injustice in the Justice Department? If you're talking about hate and CSIS, why isn’tthis under public safety or justice?

FAISAL KUTTY: can't comment for why and how this was introduced but from the perspective—you know initially when this came out, I didn't think this was even a big deal. I wasn't even interested in this issue. I only became interested in this issue when I saw the reaction, the response, the hysteria, the alarmism that was created. And you know when it comes from the alt-right, when you know at the rally this is introduced as a law, he says this is a law introduced by a Muslim woman from Pakistan. Right? This is not a law introduced by a Muslim woman from Pakistan. This was a Canadian MP role model who happens to be Muslim and a woman who is concerned about increasing hate in this country.

AMT: Okay.

FAISAL KUTTY: And to study how to deal with it. And it wouldn't be an issue other than for the fact that you had four candidates who are running for the Conservative Party. So they're not the fringe. These are individuals who should have stepped up and said this is not a law. Don't create fear. Don't divide our country on ridiculous nonsense that you're saying that we are Islamizing Canada, which is completely ridiculous.

AMT: Okay, let’s let Lorne Gunter get in here. Lorne Gunter, what are your concerns about this motion?

LORNE GUNTER: Basically what's called mission creep. I wouldn't worry that when this is passed, that the next day there are going to be speech police wandering around trying to sanitize Canadian public debate from anything that offends you know anyone of the Muslim faith. But because Islamophobia is a very broadly defined term, you can fly a plane through it. I mean it’s huge. I've been called Islamophobic for simply pointing out that the people who carried out the bombings in Paris or the shootings in Paris, the terrorist attacks in Nice and Brussels and Berlin were radical Muslims because you know there are people who believe that they can't possibly be Muslims if they're doing what they're doing. So if you're saying that they're Muslim, then you're Islamophobic. And over time, without a better definition of what is meant, because this motion also calls for government action—which is very odd for a motion—I mean it's wrong to call this a bill and to call it a law. It's also not wrong to worry that because this calls for government action, it goes beyond where most motions go. And so that over time, you'll get this into the government where the government needs to—according to this motion—identify and root out Islamophobia wherever it's found. Oh and by the way, also other forms of religious discrimination as sort of a throwaway tag line at the end.

AMT: So Lorne Gunter, if this had a definition of Islamophobia, would you be more comfortable with it?

LORNE GUNTER: The Montreal MP Irwin Cotler, who of course used to be justice minister and is no slacker when it comes to—

AMT: Liberal justice minister. Keep going.

LORNE GUNTER: Liberal justice minister and a very passionate advocate for civil rights—always has been—said well, why not take out Islamophobia and put in anti-Muslim bigotry? That's a much better definition I think of what the authors are trying to get at and that basically—

AMT: And you’d be okay with that?

LORNE GUNTER: I would prefer that to Islamophobia because the definition is better. I would have preferred even more the opposition amendments that were suggested where it said well, let's put in discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other faith communities because that then also gets at what the authors of this, the supporters of this, say they're trying to do. But they refuse to make those amendments.

AMT: Faisal Kutty, to what extent do you think the Liberals should have included a definition of Islamophobia or something like anti-Muslim bigotry? Would that have helped?

FAISAL KUTTY: It's a contested term. There's a lot of debate and discussion in academia, in human rights discourse as to what this term means.

AMT: Well, how do you define it? How do you define it?

FAISAL KUTTY: I define it as, I defined it in my article which is basically it's a prejudice and bigotry towards Muslims and the irrational and exaggerated fear of an assumed but non-existent monolithic Islam represented by the Sharia bogeyman. Okay? And it's exaggerated and irrational because it takes the interpretations of an extreme fringe and then applies it to the entire Muslim community. And what Mr. Gunter was saying is really, you're suspecting this legislation, people are suspecting this legislation and distrusting this legislation because why? There's a Muslim involved. There's Muslims involved in this.

LORNE GUNTER: Nope. Nope. Not true at all.

[Crosstalk]

FAISAL KUTTY: If this was a motion to define Islamophobia, I would agree with you. But this is not a motion to define Islamophobia. This is the motion to study systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, to see. And why do you think the study would lead to a law? It could lead to people, to the government asking why is there hate? Is there hate first of all? Is there increased hate? Why is this happening? Because these have national security implications. For instance, if you start targeting things against a community, we could have national security concerns when people feel marginalized and pushed into a corner. When Iqra Khalid is receiving 50,000 e-mails telling Muslims to leave, I'm receiving hundreds of e-mails and communication sent to me after I write an op-ed trying to explain this. They don't read the article but they say take your Islam and get the F out of here. This is the kind of thing that young people will see and say Muslims are not wanted here. So the government should study this. This is all this is saying.

AMT: Okay. Let's get Lorne Gunter to respond. How do you respond to what Faisal Kutty is saying?

LORNE GUNTER: Well, many of the things that Ms. Khalid has read aloud in the Commons, things that we know are happening—messages that are being sent and actions. What CSIS was talking about for instance, were real organizations that they believe are now beginning to take extra legal action or forming extralegal plots against mosques or against Islamic community centres. Those are crimes. Those should be prosecuted. Those should be dealt with harshly. You know and what happened in Quebec City was disgusting. It's a crime. It needs to be dealt with. Many of the statements made or messages sent to Iqra Khalid are crimes. They should be looked at. But Islamophobia is a term that's thrown around whenever someone decides they don't care for where a debate is going and I have been told I'm Islamophobic simply because I mentioned that radical Muslims are often behind terrorist attacks. I’ve condemned the person who did the terror attack in Quebec City. And there is no question that people were simply at prayer. Professors, civil servants, fathers, brothers, small business people, have every right no matter what their religious affiliation—or no religious affiliation at all—to be safe to do that. There's no question. But what we're talking about here is answering a wrong with a wrong. I remember talking to Alan Borovoy, who was with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and was one of the principal authors of Canada’s human rights legislation. And he said the one thing he regretted about it was that what had started off as a wonderful, sort of non-controversial statement about human rights had been twisted in a matter of a few years by crusading bureaucrats to become anti-speech police.

AMT: Well, I'm glad you bring up a Canadian Civil Liberties Association because it says it sees no restrictions on free speech in this motion, M-103. And Bernie Farber, who's the former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress—he's now the head of the Mosaic Institute—also spoke about the way the debate over the proposal is unfolding. Listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

I think at a time when the Muslim community is facing such unrest, fear, intimidation—especially after the tragic murders in Quebec City—this motion is absolutely necessary. It's similar almost in every respect to a motion that was passed unanimously by parliament in 2015 condemning anti-Semitism. This is a motion. It has no legislation attached to it. It has no law attached to it. The kind of debate that I see going on in social media and elsewhere where people are perseverating on the word “Islamophobia” is completely inappropriate.

AMT: Okay. So Lorne Gunter, he talks about 2015 motion and many critics have wondered why the conservatives would back emotion about anti-Semitism but then take issue with the word Islamophobia.

LORNE GUNTER: Well, politics for one, and not discrimination. I mean they were going to back this one too until it became an issue brought more broadly with a lot of analysts and critics.

AMT: Did you have concerns about the anti-Semitism motion in 2015?

LORNE GUNTER: No.

AMT: So why?

LORNE GUNTER: The reason for that is that it doesn't also call for government action. It didn't call for the government to identify and eliminate anti-Semitism wherever it was founded. This goes beyond—

[Crosstalk]

FAISAL KUTTY: The title of it was the inquiry panel to combat anti-Semitism. But that doesn't call on the government to take action?

LORNE GUNTER: It didn’t require—

[Crosstalk]

FAISAL KUTTY: To combat anti-Semitism.

LORNE GUNTER: It didn’t require, just a report.

[Crosstalk]

FAISAL KUTTY: An inquiry panel—

LORNE GUNTER: M-103 does not require—

FAISAL KUTTY: I’m reading the title of the inquiry panel to combat anti-Semitism. And where was this concern about free speech when the conservatives pushed through the BDS movement? Where was the concern about free speech? Where are all these leaders saying oh, what about free speech restrictions there? And to get back on this point about what you are talking about is hate laws. We are not talking about hate laws. We have Section 318 and Section 319 of the Criminal Code which talk about hate. Alan Borovoy was talking about Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which has been repealed. It no longer exists and this piece, this is a motion, as Bernie said, just to condemn this. And let me just talk about Islamophobia. Islamophobia—the definition of arachnophobia is people with arachnophobia tend to feel uneasy in areas they believe could harbour spiders or that has visible signs of their presence, such as webs. Okay? And it’s irrational because yes, some spiders might bite you, but you're afraid of all spiders. So let me substitute: people with Islamophobia tend to feel uneasy in areas where they believe Muslims who harbour Islamic ideas or there are visible signs where Muslims exist such as mosques or other main areas where Muslims hang out. That is why Islamophobia is the right term here because this knee-jerk reaction that happens as soon as you hear the word Islamophobia or Sharia, there is no longer rational debate. There is no longer discussion. There's no longer analysis. It's hate, hate, hate. But this motion—I want to make it clear—does not require any laws. It only could possibly mean that we study, we look at, we question and maybe the study may come out and say there is no such thing as anti-Muslim hate.

AMT: So Lorne Gunter. Lorne Gunter. Lorne. Let me ask you: what are you afraid of? What are you afraid of?

LORNE GUNTER: I'm afraid of over five to 10 years, this sentiment that also calls on the government to identify and root out Islamophobia—oh and by the way, some others—wherever it's found, is going to create a bureaucracy that will over time start to say well, you know if you disagree with the imposition of Sharia law, that could be seen by some people as Islamophobia. If you identify—

AMT: Okay. But who's talking about the imposition of Sharia law in Canada? Like seriously.

LORNE GUNTER: There are certain people. It's part of the debate and it's okay to have a debate. The reason that Bernie Farber gets to say what he said and he's welcome to say it and I'm welcome to disagree with it. I'm welcome to see something different from this motion than he is, is because there is an open debate and you know we have seen examples with Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn who were taken to the Human Rights Commission because one had published cartoons from Denmark that were unflattering to the Prophet Muhammad and the other had written things that some people in the Muslim community found to be offensive. Until there was a lot of public outrage that stopped the commissions in BC, in Alberta and in Ottawa, from taking action against them, both—

AMT: Well, actually, let me just correct you on that. The BC Human Rights Tribunal heard the complaint and issued a ruling and dismissed the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint without ever referring it to a tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. So in fact, their rights to speak were upheld.

LORNE GUNTER: And none of them had done that if the people against whom the complaints were brought were not public figures, who were not well known.

FAISAL KUTTY: That's not true. I have full confidence in our legal system to uphold and respect our laws. You know in order to charge somebody with hate, we have incitement or we have propaganda. That’s 318 and 319. You need to have the consent of the attorney general to bring charges. You can't just go lay charges. You wrote a column where you talked about the individual who was charged in Montreal—Padula. He was charged for saying on Twitter: “I need you to tell me how do we stop Sharia law? I can only think of killing innocent Muslims while praying. You?”

LORNE GUNTER: He was clumsy but he was trying to be ironic.

[Crosstalk]

FAISAL KUTTY: Not under—not under—not under. Excuse me. Can I finish? He’s charged under the Criminal Code. Not under—as you say in the column—Quebec human rights laws. There's no charge about Quebec human rights laws. This is under the Criminal Code. And I have full confidence in the justice system that they’ll evaluate the evidence. And he said this in jest or sarcastically and didn’t have no intention to do this. He would be not convicted. I have confidence in our system. You seem to fear that all of a sudden, a few Muslims or a few members of parliament and a few individuals who happen to be Muslim have infiltrated the system and now Sharia is taking over.

AMT: Okay. We're almost out of time so let's hear Lorne Gunter on this one point. A man makes a tweet, jokes about—

[Crosstalk]

LORNE GUNTER: I have no fear. I have no fear of Muslims. I have fear of the politically correct bureaucracies that take issues like this and run with them to the extreme.

AMT: Well, okay. So Lorne Gunter, a man makes a tweet and makes a joke about killing Muslims and gets picked up by police. You have a problem with that?

LORNE GUNTER: Yes, I have a real problem with that.

AMT: Why? Right after six people are killed in a mosque.

LORNE GUNTER: Because it should have been obvious even to police that he was attempting clumsily to be ironic. You shouldn't have to worry—

AMT: Well, Lorne, can I just ask you—like try to attempt to clumsily make a joke about a bomb at an airport and see what happens. I mean don't we have some rules about what you can say?

LORNE GUNTER: Yes, we do. But you're at an airport where you are posing perhaps an immediate security threat. You're not saying—

[Crosstalk]

AMT: But a man who makes a joke a day after six people are gunned down, don't you think that the police would have an obligation to check that out?

LORNE GUNTER: No. Maybe to check it out, maybe to go and ask him what he meant to. But there were three cruisers sent to his house. He was perp walked out and spent the night in jail. This is what I’m talking about.

[Crosstalk]

FAISAL KUTTY: And the cops cannot take action here until they have attorney general's permission which is very difficult to get.

AMT: Okay. You know what, gentlemen, we're really out of time here but we've moved away from the motion and we're again talking about things under the Justice Department. So we're going to have to end it there. I don't know if either one is satisfied that you've impressed anything on the other but we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

FAISAL KUTTY: Thank you.

LORNE GUNTER: Thank you.

AMT: Faisal Kutty, associate professor of law at Valparaiso University in Indiana, adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall in Toronto. Also coauthoring a forthcoming legal casebook on global legal traditions and that will include Islamic law. Lorne Gunter, senior political columnist with the Edmonton Sun. He joined us from Edmonton. Let us know what you think. Tweet us. We are @thecurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. We are also online: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. The news is next and then we go inside the life of a Canadian family that's redefining legal and cultural ideas about parenthood. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

How two friends fought to be legal 'co-mommas' to a 7-year-old boy — and won

Guests: Julie Ireton, Natasha Bakht, Lynda Collins

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

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Well, still to come, the fight over the future of Canada's grasslands. But first, when best friends become parents—a love story with a twist. We're going introduce you to two people, Lynda Collins and Natasha Bakht. They’re best friends, colleagues and neighbours. They are also co-parents—mothers to a seven-year-old boy named Elaan who is Natasha's biological son. Now Elaan was born with severe disabilities and Lynda and Natasha share all the parental responsibilities that keep him healthy and happy. It is a remarkable relationship, even more so because the two women are not and never have been lovers—a fact that became a problem under the law in Ontario when the friends decided they wanted Lynda to be recognized as Elaan’s legal mother as well. So they took their case to court and in the process questioned the definition of what a family is and who can be parents. CBC's Julie Ireton brings us their story in her documentary, Elaan’s Two Mommas.

JULIE IRETON: Lynda Collins describes it as one of the best days of her life.

SOUNDCLIP

LYNDA COLLINS: It was one of the best days of my life. It was incredible.

JULIE IRETON: That day, she went to the hospital as birth coach to help her friend.

SOUNDCLIP

LYNDA COLLINS: So I was lucky enough to be the first person to hold him. It was a really surprising tidal wave of love really that hit me.

JULIE IRETON: Lynda sits in her funky, loft-style condo in Ottawa's ByWard Market. This 42 year old has her slippered feet tucked up underneath her, a law book open on her lap. This is her solitary space—fit for a single, urban professional—complete with the hip furniture and unique art.It's where she relaxes, sleeps. But sometimes she has company. Over by the window sits a chair with straps and snaps, built to accommodate a little boy with profound disabilities. The boy's bedroom is in the apartment directly below.

[Sound: Footsteps]

JULIE IRETON: That's actually where Lynda spends most of her time. It's where she's heading now. Lynda moved into this building to be closer to Elaan and help her friend Natasha. Seven-year-old Elaan lies on a big, blue gym mat with his physiotherapist. He has short brown hair and big brown eyes with long lashes. He wears the features of his biological mom Natasha's South Asian family. He smiles a lot. It's a typical, toothless seven-year-old's smile. Elaan's therapist stretches his legs and massages his feet. His breathing is awkward but it’s normal for him. Lynda joins Elaan's other momma at the kitchen counter. Natasha Bakht is 44. She's petite and fit—a South Asian contemporary dancer—that is, in her spare time. The women are eager to tell me their story. Natasha grabs a small album they recently prepared for the court.

SOUNDCLIP

NATASHA BAKHT: This is actually a little photo book that Lynda put together. So this is Elaan the day he was born. I think. Right? But Lynda was there literally from the moment of his birth.

LYNDA COLLINS: Yeah. So Elaan's birth came as a surprise to me.

JULIE IRETON: So did the relationship that has ensued. Lynda and Natasha, both lawyers, started out as colleagues at the University of Ottawa law school where they're both profs. This is Lynda.

LYNDA COLLINS: I’m an environmental laywer, so I teach toxic torts like Erin Brockovich and tort law.

NATASHA BAKHT: I teach family law and criminal law, but my research interests are in religious freedom and women's equality.

JULIE IRETON: They're obviously close. In some ways they're like an old married couple, finishing each other's sentences. It's not a relationship of romance or intimacy. But Natasha says Lynda is her person.

NATASHA BAKHT: who I turn for any kind of problems. I have a partner in this journey. You know, the joys are happier and I feel much more supported through the more difficult times.

JULIE IRETON: This shared path started several years ago, after Natasha decided to have a baby.

[Sound: Phone ringing]

NATASHA BAKHT: People were having children with anonymous donor sperm and I did get pregnant on my second try. She said well, you're going to need a birth coach. Thought about it and I thought yes. You know, makes sense. She's a friend. She’s a good friend. So we decided to do, what are they called?

LYNDA COLLINS: Prenatal.

NATASHA BAKHT: Prenatal classes together.

LYNDA COLLINS: One, I thought it would be just an amazing life experience, to see someone born.

NATASHA BAKHT: But I don't think either of us thought that she was going to become as involved and as committed as she is.

[Music: Guitar]

LYNDA COLLINS: There was some panic certainly because Elaan was in distress in utero and it was an emergency C-section.

NATASHA BAKHT: So she was with me right from the beginning and she even stayed in the hospital, wheeling me around the neonatal intensive care unit to see Elaan. And one of the best things about it is being able to look back at old photos and recall old memories and I love that I can do that with her.

SOUNDCLIP

NATASHA BAKHT: So these are photos, as you can see, of Elaan when he was like a tiny, tiny little munchkin, sitting in Lynda's lap.

LYNDA COLLINS: He was so tiny.

JULIE IRETON: What was he born at? What was his weight at born?

NATASHA BAKHT: Four pounds, 13 ounces.

JULIE IRETON: Was he early?

NATASHA BAKHT: He actually wasn’t early. I had a true knot in the umbilical cord. They suspect that it was the knot in the umbilical cord that was having him lose oxygen and probably not getting as much nutrients.

LYNDA COLLINS: So we were in hospital in total about four days and you know I would say that love just kind of grew more and more as we were caring for him.

[Sound: Breathing]

[Music]

JULIE IRETON: Elaan's breathing is strained and sometimes he gags, throwing us all off a little.

SOUNDCLIP

NATASHA BAKHT: You okay over there?

JULIE IRETON: Natasha says it was months after she gave birth that they realized the impact of that so-called "true knot" in the umbilical cord.

NATASHA BAKHT: So I certainly left the hospital thinking we had a healthy child. But it was all very subtle and maybe it was also just all of the emotions at the time that I didn't register that. And about six months into his life, he had a lot of cerebral irritability which was sort of manifesting itself as a lot of crying. I did begin to notice some small repetitive eye movements, with the help of Lynda and Lynda's mom who's a physician, recognized that as seizures.

LYNDA COLLINS: He wasn't holding his head up. And at six months, babies are holding their heads up.

NATASHA BAKHT: Once we realized there were seizures, that started A whole process of tests that then revealed there was probably a brain injury.

LYNDA COLLINS: Then he underwent an MRI and we went to see a neurologist in Toronto who diagnosed him with what's called paraventricular leukomalacia, which is basically the death of portions of the brain. He described it to us as being like a Swiss cheese brain. At that point he said, you know, you're looking at very significant disabilities going forward.

JULIE IRETON: For Natasha, the news was crushing. It’s Lynda who's able to describe what happened next.

LYNDA COLLINS: You know, I remember as we left that neurologist appointment she said to me, what kind of life is he going to have? And I said he's going to have a wonderful life. We're going to make sure of that. You know?

JULIE IRETON: Tears flow easily and quickly down Natasha's cheeks. There are no words. I witness the yin and yang of a healthy partnership.

NATASHA BAKHT: Yeah. Lynda is insistently positive. And I mean it's just such a godsend, you know. Certainly I didn't expect to have a child with disabilities and it just changes what you think your path with respect to motherhood is going to be. It's incredibly wonderful. You know, I wouldn't change a thing. But I needed Lynda to remind me of that and she did, you know over and over again. We just make a very good team. We're real partners in parenting.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Gagging]

NATASHA BAKHT: What’s up?

JULIE IRETON: What's his respiratory issues?

LYNDA COLLINS: He breathes with what's called a strider, which is the name they give to a sound on the in-breath. And that's because of just an extra flap of tissue in his throat.

JULIE IRETON: This also affects his ability to eat by mouth. Over at the kitchen counter, Natasha fills a syringe with Elaan's liquid meal. He sits quietly, strapped into his chair. Lynda rests her hand on his arm.

SOUNDCLIP

LYNDA COLLINS: Deep breath.

JULIE IRETON: Natasha lifts up his plaid shirt, exposing his torso and a little capped tube that leads to his stomach. She empties the syringe into the tube—a quick process they're all used to.

SOUNDCLIP

NATASHA BAKHT: Okay, one second. I’m going to get you half a syringe more.

[Sound: Burp]

NATASHA BAKHT: Good burp.

LYNDA COLLINS: Good boy. Okay. We’re going to do more music. We are going to do more music.

NATASHA BAKHT: Do you want to do more music?

JULIE IRETON: Lynda sings to relax him.

[Sound: Guitar and singing a nursery rhyme]

JULIE IRETON: Elaan has been tube-fed since he was two.

LYNDA COLLINS: They suspect he was aspirating the food into his lungs and so he was really terrified of eating and it was really hard on him, really traumatizing for him.

JULIE IRETON: Figuring out what's wrong with Elaan can be difficult. He has cerebral palsy and is non-verbal.

LYNDA COLLINS: He has what's called spastic quadriplegia which basically means he doesn't have independent, fully functional use of any of his limbs. He does have epilepsy. We've been fortunate that it's been well-controlled. He did have a life threatening seizure last fall that lasted two and a half hours. and he has chronic gastric reflux, so he throws up quite a bit. I think pretty much every day he'll throw up at least once. So he's visually impaired.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Lynda Collins and Natasha Bakht singing to Elaan]

LYNDA COLLINS: He does have some sight. It's hard to know how much since we’re not able to talk about it.

JULIE IRETON: When it comes to his cognitive abilities, doctors believe Elaan understands well, likely close to an average seven year old. He goes to a specialized school where he's being taught in both English and French. His birth mom Natasha speaks to him in Urdu.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Natasha Bakht speaking to Elaan in Urdu]

[Music: Guitar]

LYNDA COLLINS: In a society that really fears disability, when we enumerate the disabilities the way we did, that might sound to some people very grim. But Elaan is one of the happiest people I've ever met, and you know, Natasha would be the second happiest! It's really a lot of fun to share my life with them.

SOUNDCLIP

NATASHA BAKHT: Show me how you use a puzzle.

JULIE IRETON: His eyes brighten up when his moms bring out the sound puzzle. He carefully picks up each piece, reacting to the music.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Heavy breathing]

LYNDA COLLINS: Oh, you got the guitar. The best instrument.

[Sound: Puzzle]

JULIE IRETON: A few years after Elaan was born, Lynda started thinking about having a child of her own. At the time, she was helping Natasha, but there was no formal relationship.

LYNDA COLLINS: I got to an age in my late thirties where I was thinking about whether to have kids and one of the things I contemplated was adoption. And I suddenly had this feeling like why am I adopting a stranger when I have Elaan? So after thinking it through, I realized that's the child I want to adopt. And I wasn't sure how Natasha would feel about it, so I came to her very gently, like no pressure and was very grateful for what we had. But would she consider that? And she thought about it for about two minutes.

NATASHA BAKHT: It's certainly not what I imagined. I thought I was going to be a single mother by choice. But I didn’t have a sense of the joy that it would bring to have another parent involved.

SOUNDCLIP

Can we have the tuba?

[Sound: Sound puzzle]

Oh, you got the tuba.

JULIE IRETON: Lynda sold her house and moved into the same condo building as Natasha and Elaan.

NATASHA BAKHT: We divide up parenting duties, so I'm sort of responsible for the mornings and getting Elaan off to school and after Elaan's caregiver goes home, we spend all of our evenings together. And then Lynda's responsible for all of the kind of nighttime duties, just before bed. So he's got a whole host of things that need done, several medications that need to be given. He has to have his meal. And then at around eight-thirty, Lynda leaves us and I put Elaan to sleep and she's back down here in the morning saying good morning at seven o’clock.

JULIE IRETON: Lynda took on a huge commitment and a responsibility she had no obligation to take on.

NATASHA BAKHT: She's often pulling out the guitar and singing for him to entertain him.

[Sound: Guitar playing]

LYNDA COLLINS: I mean the thing is by the time I made the decision to adopt him, I was already past the point of no return in terms of what he meant to me. And we were already living as a family.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Guitar playing]

[Singing] My son is a teacher. He has shown us what life is for. And looking into his brilliant brown eyes, I chose him to be my own.

LYNDA COLLINS: It's true that I didn't have to take this on, but for me it was just something that I wanted badly—to be a mother and to be his mother. You know a lot of times when people see a child with complex disabilities, there's an assumption that it's maybe a sad life. But our life is actually very joyful and there's a lot of laughter and a lot of fun.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Guitar playing]

[Singing] Because I could rule over millions and not change a thing. I could fall. I could fall in love. I could fall and change everything.

JULIE IRETON: So they decided to make it legal.

NATASHA BAKHT: We are legal people. [laughs]

JULIE IRETON: It was fine for Lynda to say she was Elaan's co-momma. But they wanted it to be true under the law.

NATASHA BAKHT: You just don’t know what’s going to happen to you as a parent and Elaan has medical decisions that need to be made that cannot be made by anybody but me at this point. It was comforting to me to know that he had another parent who is able to financially contribute, not just able, but legally required to. I guess about two years ago?

LYNDA COLLINS: Two years ago we started preparing the application.

NATASHA BAKHT: But once we got in touch with my good friend, Marta Siemiarczuk—

JULIE IRETON: She’s a family lawyer.

MARTA SIEMIARCZUK: Yes. I’m Marta Siemiarczuk. It was funny actually, because I had gone to law school with Natasha and I knew about Elaan, I knew about her and Lynda. But my first question to them was why not adoption? And it didn’t even occur to me that they weren't a couple. That they weren’t in a conjugal relationship.

JULIE IRETON: As Marta explains it, Lynda and Natasha couldn't legally adopt because they aren't sexual partners. The other option was to launch a charter challenge.

MARTA SIEMIARCZUK: Mounting a charter or constitutional challenge is a long process. It can be very trying and it can be very expensive. When you're in a situation where you have a child that has such high needs, it can be very prohibitive.

LYNDA COLLINS: So what we ultimately relied on was actually this ancient, unwritten jurisdiction of the court that goes back into the myths of time.

MARTA SIEMIARCZUK: So our first approach was to proceed with a declaration of parentage in the hopes that the court would allow that to happen, despite the lack of them being in a conjugal relationship.

JULIE IRETON: Affidavits were collected from Lynda, Natasha, their family members, the principal of Elaan's school.

SOUNDCLIP

They are remarkable individuals and an even stronger team.

JULIE IRETON: Testimonials like this one from his pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

SOUNDCLIP

I have learned more from Natasha, Lynda and Elaan about humanity, loyalty and devotion than they will ever appreciate.

JULIE IRETON: Here’s Natasha.

NATASHA BAKHT: I guess we made good facts. The judge looked at the affidavits in front of him and what we got was an order that simply states that Lynda Margaret Collins is declared a parent of Elaan.

SOUNDCLIP

LYNDA COLLINS: So we're going to have a big party and celebrate our family, but also our friends and all our family members and our community that have been so wonderful to us. It's kind of human nature to make a big deal about the bad things, but we think it's important to make a big deal about the good things.

JULIE IRETON: Their lawyer, Marta.

MARTA SIEMIARCZUK: Lynda has the same obligations and responsibilities now as any other parent, adoptive or natural. If something happens, if Natasha is incapacitated, she's able to take care of him as any other parent would with all the same rights as well. She will forever, for the rest of her life, have a financial obligation to him and she does this voluntarily, which is huge in my view.

JULIE IRETON: That's coming from a family lawyer who too often fights to get biological parents to pay their share.

MARTA SIEMIARCZUK: It's the uniqueness of this one that I think is so special and I'm so glad I was able to be part of it for them.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Guitar playing]

[Singing] Are you a smart boy? You are a smart boy. Are you a gorgeous boy? You are a gorgeous boy. And everybody loves you.

JULIE IRETON: The women had set legal precedent. They had created a new kind of family sanctioned under the law. But that achievement was short lived. Natasha puts on her family law prof hat.

NATASHA BAKHT: It’s precedent in the sense that the word is now getting out there, that this has existed. But it looks to me as though legislation, as it currently stands, forecloses the possibility of this happening again, unless there's an amendment to the legislation, or as I said, we have a constitutional challenge to the adoption act, which may very well be coming now given that families are becoming much more diverse.

JULIE IRETON: It's all about timing and their timing was lucky. In January, around the same time they received the new birth certificate, a new law came into force in Ontario. Under the All Families are Equal Act, Ontarians must now enter into a "parentage agreement" before conception.

LYNDA COLLINS: I’m very grateful that we brought the application when we did and I'm hopeful that there's more space in the new legislation than we think. I can't think that the legislature meant to preclude a situation like this. Here’s a severely disabled little boy with another responsible adult willing to take financial, emotional responsibility for him. But no, she can't because the two parents aren't in a sexual relationship. I mean it just makes no sense whatsoever.

JULIE IRETON: Lynda and Natasha still plan to write about their victory and talk about it with their law students.

NATASHA BAKHT: I'm always trying to get them to think outside their own understanding of family relationships. I'm getting them to think about non-conjugal relationships, plural unions, multiple parents. And they’re not always the nuclear mom and dad with the requisite two children.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Elaan gags]

What’s up?

JULIE IRETON: At home, these moms are looking towards their family's future. There is still room for each woman to have their own romantic partners. Both Lynda and Natasha say the family could expand. But their new, legal status doesn't make life with Elaan any less daunting. They're hopeful, but the future is uncertain.

LYNDA COLLINS: It's not that it's easy. Of course, it's scary sometimes to think about his future and the medical difficulties that we sometimes have had. Last year we were in the emergency room four times, all with potentially life-threatening. That's scary. Natasha is the centre of his life and his momma and I think he perceives me also as a parent.

NATASHA BAKHT: This is my co-momma.

LYNDA COLLINS: I mean it's a privilege to be his parent. I always wanted to be a parent and I'm really grateful for Natasha that she gave me that. She didn't have to do that either. She could have just maintained sort of the privileged position of being the only legal parent. I wasn't going to walk away. There is no condition on this. So it's a give and take with all three of us.

[Music]

AMT: We have been listening to Elaan’s Two Mommas, a documentary produced by CBC's Julie Ireton and The Current’s documentary editor Josh Bloch. For more on Lynda, Natasha and their son, go to our website, www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM and online on www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. The statistics around cancer in this country can be alarming. It's the leading cause of death in Canada. It's responsible for 30 per cent of all deaths. More than 40 per cent of Canadians are expected to develop cancer during their lifetime and that number is on the rise. And so it's no wonder that researchers are trying to come up with new ways to treat cancers. Now an experimental clinical trial in Vancouver is getting attention for some of the results it's been achieving in its very early stages. It's called personal onco-genomics or POG, and it's mapping the genome of stage four cancer patients in the hope of finding out the genetic driver of each individual cancer. Trish Keating was referred to this POG trial in 2014. She'd been diagnosed with colorectal cancer four years earlier. She thought she was close to dying. Her genetic analysis suggested the cancer might be blocked by a blood pressure drug—a drug that has had some success in shrinking her tumours now. The process hasn't been easy. Here is Trish Keating talking about this with her doctor.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Why did that drug that they gave me in POG kill the cancer that had metastasized to my lymph nodes? Why did it not get that one that was in my spinal column? I'm so tired of living this cancer. I feel like I'm on a roller coaster and that's not even, like John said it better the other day. It's like every three months, just pretend that you're going get in front of a jury who's going to decide if you get the death sentence or not.

VOICE 2: Right. Fortunately though, the remainder of your PET scan is still very quiet. So there's no cancer anywhere else. The best way to look at it is they are more tests. Don't look at it as a death sentence. Look at it as I’m getting more information so that we can help you live as long as possible. The best quality as possible.

VOICE 3: It’s a life sentence.

VOICE 2: It’s a life sentence. Exactly.

VOICE 1: Thanks, dear.

VOICE 2: It's about maintaining your life.

AMT: Well, Trish Keating is part of a clinical trial at the BC Cancer Agency and that is the subject of a documentary on the Nature of Things this week. Tomorrow on The Current, we'll speak to Dr. Janessa Laskin. She's one of the founders of this trial. We'll hear about people who have been helped by this experimental clinical trial and some of the ones who have not. Dr. Janessa Laskin tomorrow on The Current. Coming up on our next half hour, a former federal cowboy makes the case for protection of Canada's grasslands. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Sting]

Canada's grasslands: 'most endangered, least protected ecosystems'

Guests: Trevor Herriot, Mert Taylor

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

[Sound: Birds chirping]

AMT: Well, that’s a morning greeting from birds in Canada's grasslands. Savannah sparrows, meadowlarks, other birds you're hearing are just one part of a very rich ecosystem. Canada's grasslands stretch across the southern parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and they're home to dozens of threatened species, species such as the greater sage grouse, the burrowing owl, the swift fox. For 80 years, large swaths of the prairie grasslands have been managed by the federal government. It goes back to the dirty thirties, as they call them. In the midst of the Dust Bowl years, the government stepped in to reclaim land that was eroded by severe drought. It was back in 1935 that parliament created the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Association and that was to build up the fragile grasslands through something called a community pastures program. The federal government hired what it called pasture managers—essentially cowboys—to protect the native grasses, to monitor the grazing and erosion, to track down invasive species and to manage the water. And according to the government, 140,000 hectares of poor quality lands were reclaimed because of the program. Now in 2012, the ruling Conservative government decided to phase out the program. Today, most of the grasslands are no longer federally protected. Last week in the House of Commons, the issue was raised by Wayne Stetski, who is the NDP MP for Kootenay-Columbia and the party's national parks critic.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Mr. Speaker, both Conservative and Liberal governments have downloaded responsibility for Saskatchewan's environmentally critical grasslands without any concern for their future. These grasslands are unique ecological heritage sites. They act as important carbon sinks and are home to rare and threatened species. Now the government is considering giving away the last of these grasslands in southwestern Saskatchewan and ending the environmental protection they receive. Will the minister of environment commit today to create a new national wildlife area to preserve these ecosystems for future generations?

[Sound: Applause]

VOICE 2: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I take very seriously the obligation to protect our natural environment. I have worked—I'm committed to working with the member on this issue to find a resolution.

AMT: Okay. The last voice there, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna. Well, we have a long-time cowboy from those grasslands waiting in the wings. But first, I'm joined by Trevor Herriot, who is a naturalist, writer and co-chair of an organization dedicated to protecting the grasslands. It's called Public Pastures—Public Interest. Trevor Herriot is also the author of Towards a Prairie Atonement and he joins us from our Regina studio. Hello.

TREVOR HERRIOT: Hello. Thanks for having me here. It's a pleasure to be here, Anna Maria.

AMT: What do you think of a new national wildlife area like Mr. Stetski is asking for?

TREVOR HERRIOT: Well, it's certainly one concept we've been looking at and talking to the cattle producers and Indigenous people and others about here in the prairie and it would be one way forward. There seems to be a roadblock to that though. It doesn't seem to be actually coming about, although it's been discussed for a couple of years.

AMT: What makes the grasslands so important?

TREVOR HERRIOT: Well, you know this is our old growth prairie. It's as important as any other old growth you know on the planet. Temperate grasslands are the most endangered, least protected ecosystems on the planet right now. They've been here for 8,000 years here on the Canadian plains and you know there's 30 species at risk—the highest concentrations of species at risk in Canada. Here in Saskatchewan, we used to have 190,000 square kilometres of native grassland 150 years ago. Today we have roughly 33,000 square kilometres. So 80 per cent of it's gone. And if you look at places like where I live here in Regina, on the Regina plains eco-district, 99 per cent’s gone. So you know it's an ecologically important landscape just like all and we need to protect it in as many ways as we can. And when I say protect it, I'm not talking about protecting it from the cattle ranchers. Cattle ranching is an important ecological substitution and our traditional ranching families are really the first line of defense. But they're going to need some help in the modern economy that is you know pushing everything towards the sort of highest profitable use of any kind of land.

AMT: Not everyone knows what the grasslands look like. Describe them for me.

TREVOR HERRIOT: When I go out on a native prairie in the morning, you know the sounds that you led this story off with are really important. It's an incredible aural landscape. Birdsong is all around you. It's overhead. It's in the grass. The birds are singing on the wing because there are no trees to perch from. So it has a beautiful and unique kind of aural experience for you. But because you're up on the top of the open plains, it's kind of a mountaintop experience. You can see forever of course and just seeing that original grassy plains that was always there for thousands of years that the buffalo and Indigenous people maintained you know from time out of mind, it's a unique experience in Canada that many people don't get. And the only places they can go to get right now is Grasslands National Park and that's just one type of grassland in that park. There are many other subsets of different land forms. They're very rich and it's full of birdlife. I see far more birdlife when I'm out an open prairie, native prairie, a big piece of native prairie than when I go into our northern forests or alpine forests.

AMT: So what went through your mind when you heard in 2012 that the previous government was going to turn over the administration of the land?

TREVOR HERRIOT: Well, I kind of groaned. I mean I had just written this book in grassland birds a couple of years earlier so I was already starting to be a bit of a grassland advocate. And then I went to open my mailbox one day and there was a brown envelope for me from a federal employee, at the time anonymous, just telling me that this is happening and the person was very concerned and was asking me to take some steps and get involved. So later that year, I was with a group of people. We formed Public Pastures—Public Interest. We had our very first public forum and we were delighted to have Indigenous people as well as people from the ranching communities and we had a couple of pasture managers there, including Mert Taylor, who you will be speaking to later. And you know I have such respect for the cowboy conservationists who worked in the system for decades. And it's heartbreaking to think that the investment of time and love they put into the land, it was just being squandered and handed over to the provinces without very much thought or environmental consideration. And I have equal respect for the cattle producers and grazers who use the land. Most of them really want to do a good job of managing the land too. But they know—and we talk about this all the time—that they're going to need some assistance and support to do that, whereas the federal government more or less cut them loose in Saskatchewan hasn't picked up the ball. They've said we can't afford to really give any kind of conservation programming to the land. The cattlemen will have to be stewards on their own, which I think is just completely unfair to expect them to be looking after long-term ecological and community interests in this land. I mean there's archaeological sites—thousands of archaeological sites—on these lands. There's the carbon sequestration value, you know. On the planet, between 10 and 30 per cent of our organic soil carbon is in grasslands.

AMT: Is that right, huh? Okay.

TREVOR HERRIOT: And grasslands, when it’s managed well, it can be as good as forest in sequestering carbon and if we don't continue to do that, we're just going to be throwing more carbon up into the atmosphere.

AMT: And archaeological sites First Nations? Indigenous sites? What’s there?

TREVOR HERRIOT: Absolutely. There are many, many tipi rings, ceremonial circles. There's bison kill sites. There's Metis sites on several of them. My last book was about a Metis community that was moved off of the land to make a community pasture.

AMT: So these community pastures were created what? After the drought in the thirties? The Dust Bowl years? The land was so destroyed?

TREVOR HERRIOT: We were reaping the benefits of the first 50 to 75 years of mismanagement of grassland by just giving it over to private homesteaders and saying go ahead and plough all the land you can. And then especially with early tillage systems, the first drought that came along, the soil was up in the air. My grandfather settled on the edge of the great sand hills near Cabri, Saskatchewan. First few years did really well. By 1930 to ’33, he was virtually [unintelligible] out of there and you know he'd plant potatoes in the spring and harvest fewer of them in the fall. So he eventually moved and that was happening all over the plains. And so the governor did the right thing and stepped in and started establishing these pastures. But Mert can tell you a lot more about that history too.

AMT: Well, okay. And in fact let's talk to Mert because Mert is sitting right beside you. Mert Taylor is a retired pasture manager with the community pastures program. Hello, Mert. Can I call you a cowboy?

MERT TAYLOR: Well, I’ve been called a lot worse. That’s for sure, Anna Maria.

AMT: [Laughs] You live in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan. You've come all the way to Regina to speak with us today.

MERT TAYLOR: That's correct. Yes.

AMT: Well, thank you for doing that. This clearly means a lot to you. So you were one of the longest, if not the longest serving pasture manager in Canada. What does that mean? What were you doing?

MERT TAYLOR: Well, that's true, Anna Maria. I was there in total 43 years—12 years as a rider and 31 years as a manager. So I've basically seen half, you know with the 80-year term, I’ve seen half of it working for them. So I’ve seen quite a few changes from start, you know to the divestiture.

AMT: So you started when? In the sixties, I guess?

MERT TAYLOR: Late sixties. ’69 was the first year. Yup.

AMT: Right. Okay, so tell me what would a day be like? What would you be doing? How would you live?

MERT TAYLOR: Well, at that time, you know basically you would catch your horse in the morning and either go out and you’re either moving cows you know or checking on cows to make sure that the grass was you know being utilized properly. That we weren't overgrazing and moving them so they had fresh grass to you know keep their health issues up.

AMT: And these would be cattle owned by whom?

MERT TAYLOR: By the clients of the pasture system. Like there would probably be normal pasture, there’d probably 40-some owners and we would have all them cattle in there.

AMT: Okay. Did the federal government own any of them?

MERT TAYLOR: The federal government owned the bulls. The program was at that time smaller groups of cattle so they wanted you know to supply a better, improve the livestock industry by supplying the bulls because most of the patrons wouldn't have the facilities to keep the bulls or maybe the money to buy the bulls, the proper bulls.

AMT: So this was a program basically to bring that land back from drought and then allow cattle to graze on it to just to keep it going.

MERT TAYLOR: Exactly. Stabilize it.

AMT: So it was mutually beneficial for both getting the land back and for the cattle owners.

MERT TAYLOR: Oh, exactly. And you know it’d give a little stability to the community because a lot of the patrons maybe wouldn't have the land base to run them cattle. But this gave them the opportunity to you know to run 40 or 50 head of cattle and just pay a grazing fee at the end of the year and without having to spend the money for a land base [unintelligible] purchase.

AMT: And so what was your first job when you were managing? Where was it?

MERT TAYLOR: My first job as a manager was at Lone Tree. It’s right on the US border.

AMT: Uh-huh. And where did you live?

MERT TAYLOR: I lived right on—it was on. It was on-site residence. That was part of the terms and conditions of employment.

AMT: Was it a lifestyle you loved?

MERT TAYLOR: Oh, exactly. Yup. Yup.

AMT: You had a couple of kids. Like you lived there a long time. Like out on the grasslands.

MERT TAYLOR: Yeah. We were there six years and then moved to Maple Creek and we were there for 25.

AMT: And so you would be looking after the cattle but you'd also be like checking the grassland and the erosion. Like what would your day be like? Where would you go? What would you do?

MERT TAYLOR: Well, and you know it evolved over time, Anna Maria. Like you know at first we were probably spending 80 per cent of the time on horseback. The last 10 or 15 years, 60 per cent of that was maybe horseback and the other 40 per cent would be you know invasive weed control and oil and gas issues. You know major pipeline rupture.

AMT: You’d be essentially literally riding through and checking things out.

MERT TAYLOR: Yes. Constantly.

AMT: And Mert, I have to tell you. You realize you were speaking right now to a whole bunch of people stuck in traffic in their cars in cities across this country just like loving what you were doing for a living. [laughs]

MERT TAYLOR: Well, quite a few years ago, a friend of mine said, he said his dad told him the secret to life was to find a job you enjoy. You enjoy it so much you'd do it for nothing and you find somebody to pay you for doing it. And that's exactly what I was doing. But adding to that, there's you know along with assessing the range condition you know and doing invasive weeds, you know there's species at risk monitoring too. You know like with different grasses and plants and the animals and part of having a healthy wildlife habitat, you have to have a good range. The wildlife don't respect fences so they go wherever the best grass is. So if you've got a healthy ecosystem and a healthy range habitat for them, you're going to have lots of wildlife. And that was one of those things was with this program, in the fall it was a major place people go and hunt.

AMT: You talk about the grasses. How would you know which grasses were healthy, which grasses belonged?

MERT TAYLOR: Well, we had a staff of probably five or six range management. You know they had specialized in that at university. So they would hold you know every year or two, we’d have a range assessment field day where we'd have to identify different plants and there's various plants when you have known as increases, decreases. And an increase is a plant that increases as grazing pressure increases and it decreases the more favourable plants that decreases when it takes pressure. So you'd have to assess what your plant makeup was and make a judgment call from there whether to move the cattle or whether to put more cattle on.

AMT: You talk about other environmental protection like pipelines. Like what's running through that land?

MERT TAYLOR: Oh. I don't follow you.

AMT: Are there pipelines going through that land as well?

MERT TAYLOR: Oh, for sure. Yeah.

TREVOR HERRIOT: Lots of them, yeah.

MERT TAYLOR: The one that I was on had two major pipelines like Foothills and then Keystone was another proposed one to go through. And while I was there, I did have a rupture—a big rupture—a 48- inch pipeline blew. And you know the gas thing is pretty good because it's not affecting the water table or the ground as much. It just goes up into the atmosphere. But you know when you start talking bitumen, when you've got a water table that's three feet from the surface and you have a leak with oil, it’s quite a possibility for contamination. It's not if it happens. It's when it happens.

AMT: And so if you're out there you'll spot it before they do, I guess.

MERT TAYLOR: Well, maybe not necessarily.

AMT: It depends on what it is.

MERT TAYLOR: Yeah. Like they fly over it or they did fly over it with a helicopter once a week and the gas leak would be, you know the grass would die around it. But an oil leak, like what's proposed with Keystone won't happen. Like you won't see that until it's leached in there for Lord knows how long.

AMT: How many—I guess Trevor you kind of looked at the overall thing—how many pasture managers were employed by the federal government at one point?

TREVOR HERRIOT: Well, I guess we'd have to say there was roughly 80 pastures in Saskatchewan and Manitoba—20 in Manitoba, 60 in Saskatchewan—and there would have been a manager for each pasture. I think there were a couple of small pastures where one manager managed both. Was that right, Mert?

MERT TAYLOR: Right, right. Yeah.

TREVOR HERRIOT: But what's important here is to look at the shift and the difference in management that could happen and it would be interesting to hear what Mert would have to say about that. I mean some places will be managed well in this transition but not all of them will be.

AMT: Who owns the land now then?

TREVOR HERRIOT: Well, in Manitoba, the Manitoba government has made a commitment to retain ownership, public ownership of the land. They haven't really put in much conservation programming in place to replace what the PFRA system did. In Saskatchewan however, the provincial government immediately said well, we'll sell this land. We don't want to have it on our books. And there was a bit of a hue and cry about that so they said okay, hold on. We'll only sell it to the cattle grazing patrons themselves who are now taking over management of the land. That's who the grazing clients are sometimes called patrons and now they're like businessmen who are managing the pastures as they transition. And so they're being expected to look after all these ecological, long-term ecological and community benefits and values in the land that really all Canadians benefit from.

AMT: So most of this is in Saskatchewan, right?

TREVOR HERRIOT: It Is.

[Crosstalk]

AMT: Like the huge swaths of land.

TREVOR HERRIOT: The lion’s share. This is 7,000 square kilometres more than 7,000 square kilometres of land, roughly equivalent to the size of Prince Edward Island. Some of the pastures are huge. You can take the three pastures in southwest of Saskatchewan together and it makes up an area bigger than Waterton Lakes National Park.

AMT: Hmm. Well, you know we have a clip here that I want to play for you because without a federal program, ranchers are taking on some responsibility and some of them really like this. I've got a clip of Chad MacPherson, general manager of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association. It represents cattle producers. Listen to what he says.

TREVOR HERRIOT: Sure.

SOUNDCLIP

Once they stopped being patrons in the community pasture—they became provincial lessees—they were able to form legal entities and have more management control on the property. There's millions of acres of grasslands privately managed in Saskatchewan and it's in the best interest of the land managers for the sustainability in the long term, to manage it wisely and sustainably. Ownership of the land doesn't matter. It just has to be managed in an appropriate fashion and that’s what really matters. If you look after the land, it will be there for generations to come.

AMT: Mert Taylor, what do you think about that? Can the cattle ranchers just manage the land the way you were doing?

MERT TAYLOR: Well, they probably can, Anna Maria. The thing is how much of workload are they willing to take on? Ranching is a business and it's a profit and loss type of business. Now they're not going to get credited for management of species at risk or invasive weed species coming in. It's just like renting a house, you know? You’re not going to put new cupboards in a house you're renting because you don't own it. So the government really can't expect the lessees to take over the responsibilities we had as pasture managers to maintain it. The thing with oil and gas business is without somebody riding herd on them, we had invasive species of grass seeded into native grass when they did the reclamation part after we got into it. Then we made them recede to the native species that were there and in doing so, the neighbouring landowners outside could say to the oil and gas companies well, you did this on the pastures. You're going to have to do on my land too. So it’s a benefit for both parties involved.

TREVOR HERRIOT: I want to point out, Anna Maria, that I mean I know Chad MacPherson. I’ve met him a couple times and Stock Growers, they’re an important organization, but the leadership of the Stock Growers—it has to be said—is a small kind of elite of cattlemen, a subset of cattlemen in the province. Not everybody agrees with them. And they had the ear of the provincial government and were part of a blue ribbon committee that made the decisions as to what Saskatchewan would do with the community pastures. And frankly, I think some of those guys would just like to get their hands on a big piece of prairie that they can manage themselves.

AMT: And what's the danger in that then Trevor, if these lands have been for a long time, public lands?

TREVOR HERRIOT: Well, Chad said it doesn’t matter about ownership—private or public ownership—that seems to assume that you know like certainly there are good stewards out there who could look after the land really well for their own lifetime. But they don't live forever. It's an economic dictum that over time, all land use is driven to the most profitable economic use. That's just the way things go. You know in southern Ontario, a piece of Carolinian forest, ultimately its highest economic land use to become a strip mall. Here in Saskatchewan, our native prairie could end up being a ranchette development where everybody’s building their own little starter castle, or it could be converted to grow canola or chickpeas. You know? That's ultimately where this land will head if we don't protect it in perpetuity and help our ranching families continue to be traditional ranching families who can be the best possible stewards that they are.

AMT: You actually compare these lands to the coastal old growth forests. You say these are really important to what Canada is.

TREVOR HERRIOT: Absolutely. I mean how can we continue to say we're prairie people if we don't have any prairie left? We've got 20 per cent left and it's dropping every year. World Wildlife Fund last year came out with what they call their plowprint report and it showed that southwestern Saskatchewan is one of the worst places on the continent for the conversion of native prairie to cropland.

AMT: Okay. Well, gentlemen, we have to leave it there but thank you for your time today and thank you for talking about all of this.

TREVOR HERRIOT: Thank you.

MERT TAYLOR: Thank you.

AMT: That's Trevor Herriot, co-chair of the Public Pastures—Public Interest and author of Towards a Prairie Atonement. Mert Taylor, a retired pasture manager—official title—with a community pastures program, otherwise known as a cowboy with that program. They were both in our Regina studio. Now we did request an interview with the environment minister, Catherine McKenna. The Current also requested an interview with the Minister of Agriculture Lawrence MacAulay. Not available. We'd like to hear from you, especially if you live in the region around the grasslands. What kind of protection should there be? How should it be balanced with other interests? You can send us an email. Click on the contact link on our website: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. Tweet us @thecurrentCBC or find us on Facebook and continue the conversation there. That's our program for today. Stay with Radio One for q. q is diving deep into the origins of the podcast today to explain how a chance meeting in Boston between a software development and a long-time NPR host produced the very first podcast. That story coming up on q. And speaking of podcasts, if you have a free CBC Radio app on your Android or iPhone, you can download interviews, segments, clips from your favorite shows to play offline for up to 30 days. You can download our podcast. You can also stream live radio from across the country or make playlists for on the go. Tomorrow we're talking about the treadmill because it is turning 200 years old and will be exploring the history of fitness. The treadmill, by the way, was designed as punishment for prison inmates. So we are asking how far we've really moved from the idea of exercise as punishment. We'll be talking about that tomorrow. Today's last word goes to a woman who reminded us that fitness can be fun with a simple trot, gallop and prance. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

Hello. I'm Joanna Rohrback of Prancercise LLC. I've got my ankle weights in place and my music’s ready. So let's stop talkin’ and do some walkin’.

[Music: Electric guitar]

My life and my philosophy is the essence of prancercise. It’s defined as a springy rhythmic movement forward, similar to a horse's gait, ideally induced by elation. Okay. This is what we're going to do. We're going to stretch our legs from side to side and our arms go back in circles. Okay?

[Sound: Crowd cheering and applause]

Now we’re going to go forward and we’re going to eventually spring off the ground. Arms keep going back. Going to lift you off the ground. Balls of the feet and there we go.

[Sound: Cheering]

We’re horses. We’re horses. We’re horses. Now it’s your turn. So even though your gait and your rhythm might be a little bit different, the basic moves will be about the same. So get out there and have some fun.

[Music: Ending theme]

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 21, 2017 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode