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 2021

The Current Transcript for June 11, 2021

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

This is going to become mainstream technology 1500 years from now, you're not going to keep asking. It looks so archaic to our grandkids, you're just going to think your computer.

MATT GALLOWAY: Typing is for suckers. Instead of using your fingers to hammer out words in the future, you'll simply think those words and they will appear on a screen through an implant in your brain. And while that might sound far fetched, scientists have already managed to make this work in a test. While the idea could offer relief to people with disabilities, unable to type the ethical concerns of tapping into the deepest parts of your brain go well beyond this application. We'll dig into that in 30 minutes. Also this morning, as Canada continues to come to terms with the history of residential schools, indigenous child advocates have their eyes firmly on the present.

SOUNDCLIP

I think about the amount of time and energy and resources and money that went into keeping money and sky apart. And I can't help but think of that much time, energy and money has gone into supporting money sky to be together that both of them would be alive today.

MG: In an hour, how a new report draws a direct line between the residential schools of the past and the foster care system of today. But we begin in London, Ontario, at the end of a very painful week with a community calling for change. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Muslim Canadians call for concrete change after London attack

Guest: Ben Jamieson

SOUNDCLIP

We leave together, we don't need to fight together. It isn't good to fight together, so we should love each other.

MG: That's Abdulla Kamil little boy around the same age as Fayez Afsal, speaking at a vigil in London, Ontario, this week. Fayez is just nine years old and he's still in hospital in London, coping with injuries and the loss of his family and what police have described as an attack motivated by hate. Muslims around the world take part in Friday prayers today. And worshippers in mosques, not just in London, will remember the lives of Salman Afzaal. Madiha Salman, their 15 year old daughter Yumina, and her grandmother, Talat Afsal. A 20 year old man has been charged with four counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder. The Current Ben Jamieson has been in London this week and he is with me now. Ben, good morning.

BEN JAMIESON: Good morning.

MG: When you got to London, what were your first impressions of that city?

BEN JAMIESON: Well, London is really kind of your classic southern Ontario town and actually reminded me a lot of where I grew up in Peterborough. It's farmlands. And then you work your way into these sprawling suburbs of this historic downtown. But as I'm driving through and I never been to London before and I realise the streets are empty and maybe it was just in my mind and that was kind of what I was thinking it would be like, or maybe it was covid. But I mean, by Tuesday night, that definitely changed.

MG: How did it change?

BEN JAMIESON: The streets are packed. So I drove down to the vigil and we're talking bumper to bumper traffic. Hundreds of people lining the sidewalk, all walking towards the mosque. And then you get to where the mosque is and the street the mosque is on. And we're talking blocks of people just all packed together, all standing together. People are talking. People are, you know, meeting new people, seeing old friends. And then the sound system of where the vigil was happening didn't really reach all the way to the back because just how big this area was. And so then you'd see people who are kind of huddled around cell phones watching that live stream that everybody else was watching, but they were there in person. And so everyone has a different cell network. Right. And so everyone is having kind of a delay. So then you're hearing multiple versions of the speeches happening all at different times. It was really powerful.

MG: It sounds like quite a crowd. I mean, and in that crowd of the thousands and thousands of people, was it just people from London?

BEN JAMIESON: No, definitely not. I mean, I was walking around and you overhear people say, oh, we came from Mississauga, we drove in from Toronto. You know, we got in from, you know, Ottawa. That's a big drive. I mean, people really wanted to be here. And you could really hear and people were saying, you know, how important it was to be there and not just be there, but also be seen in public to be be seen with the community.

MG: What were people telling you about why they were there?

BEN JAMIESON: Well, towards the end of the night, so, I mean, again, we're talking so many people. So it took a while for the crowds to kind of clear. But by the end of the night, there's only a few people left. And I met Omar and Ingy and they're kind of standing in the middle of the street and there's a kerb that they were standing on top of. And I walked up to them and introduced myself and asked them if they'd be willing to speak with me. And so they started telling me a little bit about their day and why they were there. But then they started saying how their middle son, they have three kids, actually goes to school with Fayez, the little boy who's still in hospital.

SOUNDCLIP

INGY: I try to explain this to an almost nine year old. So I had to tell him it was an accident. The guy just drove through a red light and killed the whole family. But your friend survived and he's going to be OK. So the next question was, where is he going to live? What family are going to take him? And he actually was crying and asking me if he can come live with him.

MG: That's really tough. I mean, as a parent, you want to shield your kids from the horror of something like this.

BEN JAMIESON: Mm hmm. And actually, they couldn't really shield them for that long. I mean, by the end of that night, because of what was on the news, they had to go home and actually tell them what happened. And so I ended up actually meeting up with them the next day to hear about what that conversation was like. They were in a chain of restaurants in London, and so I met them at one of the restaurants last night.

SOUNDCLIP

INGY: We had to talk to them because it was all over the news. All their friends are talking about it. So we explained to the kids what happened. And of course, they were so confused that there is a person that can have all this hate in his heart to do something like like that. And the first thing that my son told me after that, he told me, I'm never walking on a sidewalk ever again. I'm so scared to walk and I'm not doing it. So, me and Omar, explain to him that this is the whole idea of a terror attack. You want people to be scared and they want Muslim, visible Muslim not to be out. So we're not going to let this happen. And then his older brother told him, no, we're going to go and we're going to walk, but if we see a car coming, we're going to run back inside. And this actually broke my heart that this is how we can fix it, that they are really scared. Like it's too much for their little brains to see something like this happening to one of their colleagues.

OMAR: As a father, the first thing I think about is trying to protect my kids. I try to protect them from the smallest things. And there's one thing that I don't want is my kids to be scared, that I feel helpless, that I there's nothing I can really do about that.

INGY: I always tell my friends, like Canada's home, I feel at home here and I feel safe here. And I really love London. And I never imagined that they would have come when I have to explain to my kids that being a Muslim is something different, because for me it's natural to be different. What we had to explain that some people are not OK with people being different.

MG: Wow. That's a really difficult conversation to have with your kids.

BEN JAMIESON: Mm hmm. And it's definitely one that many, many parents in London and across the country are having right now. I actually ended up meeting up with Dr. JAveed Sekara. He also knew the Afzal family and he's a child psychiatrist and also a dad himself. So I met him at his house. And you drive down these, you know, streets that are actually tunnelled with trees like this beautiful neighbourhood. His neighbour has a Fisher-Price chalkboard with tomato plants for sale written on it. I get to his driveway and he set up these folding chairs. And it looks like a scene that so many of us know now with covid like that's how you gather.

MG: How is he doing?

BEN JAMIESON: Not well. I mean, he looked exhausted. He'd been inside all day with his kids doing online school like any other day. But he was saying it was impossible for him to concentrate today and to really focus. You know, he really knew this family.

SOUNDCLIP

JAVEED: Always smiling hearts of gold, always making you feel special when you were around them, they were immigrants and they came here for something better. And it's heartbreaking to me to know that they were murdered for being Muslim. I'm going to be thinking about every black pickup truck that drives by. I'm going to be thinking about what we're wearing and what we identify as. I'm going to think about how we look to people. But I'm also going to be thinking about how important it is if I'm with my kids that they not be afraid to be who they are.

MG: And again, I mean, this is a sentiment that we have heard so much this week. It's a lot to think about when you're just leaving your house.

BEN JAMIESON: Definitely. And that's something that I heard time and time again. But also, I mean, that idea that this was a family that other family saw themselves in. So. Javeed is also chair of the London Police Board. So he's done a lot of research about bias and says it's given him this unique glimpse into what is bubbling right under the surface.

SOUNDCLIP

JAVEED: In Canada, we have a culture of denialism. We tend not to name things. You know, even in my research is it really is 18 months ago, people said, don't say the word racism. It makes people too uncomfortable. We like to imagine ourselves as some sort of multicultural utopia. But the reality is that there are many Canadians who aren't accepted and don't live freely as their authentic selves. For me personally, as an outspoken person who tries to make our communities better, but also who publicly identifies as Muslim, I do it with the knowledge that many people are going to tell me that if I don't like it, I should go back to where I came from. Well, I was born in Scarborough, Ontario. If there's anything I ask my friends, my neighbours, it's to not look away and it's to think about how our culture of denialism and avoidance and fragility actually upholds hateful ideas and rhetoric.

MG: And again, that is a call that we are hearing from many Muslims right now. But what about outside of the community? What's the reaction been like that that you picked up in London?

BEN JAMIESON: Well, Matt, there was this Facebook post this week. You probably saw it. It went pretty viral. It was by this former progressive conservative candidate in London, Jeff Bennett.

MG: I saw that man. Who is he?

BEN JAMIESON: So he was running for the provincial PCs back in 2014. And his campaign happened actually just ten months after there was a by election where one of the candidates was his friend, Ali Chaba.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF: People are expecting Ali to knock on the door. And then when it was me, people would say, wow, this is a pleasant surprise or wow. Well, boy, are we happy to see you here. And at first I was like, what do they mean by happy to see you here? And then I even had someone I remember somebody saying to me, well, Bennett, that's a good English name. And it was it was just a lot of stuff like that. And what I regret looking back is you don't even question it. You just you just go. Thank you for your support. But it became very evident very quickly that Ali didn't he faced a very different welcome and all of these doors.

BEN JAMIESON: So we met up and we walk around the neighbourhood where he went door knocking. And it's actually not just the neighbourhood where he went door knocking anymore.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF: The incident, an act of terrorism, really. It happened just 200 yards south of us. And this would be the spot where that family was walking. This is the neighbourhood. They would be just like you and I. But you and I two white, middle aged guys don't walk through a neighbourhood like this and think for a second that those people are going to look at those guys and think, why are they here? Those are those aren't realities that you and I have to face. But that's not so for everybody in this community. And that's why we're not addressing the problem, because everyone wants to point over there and say, OK, it's them. Yes, racism is a problem, but has nothing to do with me or even my friends or my community, people in London will say that's that's the sort of stuff that happens in downtown Toronto. What a load of crap. We haven't been honest with ourselves about our past. I think a lot of political parties need to be honest about who their supporters are, too, and and call that we need courage from from the leaders to to to not pander to to groups anymore just in an effort to get votes. We're even seeing that in Quebec where nobody wants to lose the Quebec vote. So we we let things slide. And I feel like enough is enough.

BEN JAMIESON: And that idea of enough is enough. And we let things slide and pandering. That's something I heard a lot after the vigil as well. You've all these politicians show up, they're giving speeches and people were happy to see them there for sure. But there was also this question of, you know, what happens now? What happens after the vigil?

MG: What specifically is your sense that people are looking for?

BEN JAMIESON: They're looking for concrete change. At the vigil, I met up with Laila and Lama Abushamala, their sisters, and they brought their families to the vigil and you couldn't miss them. You know, it's like this group of little cousins all playing together. They're drawing, you know, chalk on the sidewalk. It was this beautiful scene.

SOUNDCLIP

LAILA: for them to be putting in the effort to coming here and talking to us. And hopefully they passed some sort of legislation. Right. You know, passed some things. They do something about it. And hopefully it's not just empty words and actions follow so that, you know, we feel safe in Canada.

MG: Do they feel safe in Canada?

BEN JAMIESON: Well, so the next day I went met up with them and we we went to the park behind there, their building. And so we slipped to the back fence and there's this beautiful park and we went with Laila's young daughter, Ruah. And so we're walking around and it kind of triggered this memory of of a recent incident that had happened.

SOUNDCLIP

LAILA: We don't actually always feel safe in this area. Like I want to just say just the other day. Exactly. She's like nodding at me because I just remembered it because you don't think of these things before. But now that it's it's happened, you think about it.

LAMA: We were actually confronted by a random stranger in this area. I'm here with my sister. So we we live in the same building and decided to quarantine together since day one because we have little kids who play together. So which was amazing that we do live in the same building. So we quarantine together from day one. And so we took our kids to play. And so there are five kids running around and two adults. And this lady decided to videotape us. And I guess she wanted to tell the authorities that we were having a gathering during the lockdown. This is already a stereotype or a prejudice, right. Because how do you know what is going on in our family? How do you know?

LAILA: We're vaccinated? Like she just assumed. To us what it was like another day--

LAMA: Infuriating.

LAILA: No, but it was just another day of like a microaggression that happens towards Muslims. I want to say, like me specifically as a visible minority with a hijab, I don't know if she was being racist. I don't know if she would have talked to anybody else if they were in that area. But you can see there are fields, there are parking, there's a playground like it's huge. So she comes out to us and tells me my daughter is afraid to come out here because you are all in this big area and you're all like gathering during covid. And we're like, but you can come talk to me first. Don't videotape us, like, have the conversation. So, yes, no, it's not always safe to go for a walk. It's not always safe in the community because there are people that act on their prejudices. So, yeah, I didn't yell back or anything, but I was annoyed. I was annoyed and I was angry because you videotaped you didn't approach to talk or ask questions. And I, I even offered her an explanation.

LAMA: Like, I she's like, who are you? Why would I owe you an explanation?

LAILA: But see, that's the difference in my personality and yours.

LAMA: The guilt of like I feel like I have to justify myself so people don't think I'm doing the wrong thing. And it's just I feel like I don't see myself as somebody that's different. And that's, I think, what gets me the most about these kind of situations, because I feel like I should be like a representation for all Muslims. And I have to be the nice, sweet little girl. That's like, no, I'm sorry. Oh, you can go ahead. And it's like, no, like, I probably lived here longer than you have. Like, I have the exact same rights as you.

LAILA: Me, on the other hand, no. I actually I'm very careful about leaving my spot with litter. I have to pick it up. And my mentality behind that is I don't want them to think Muslims are dirty. I have to keep up that, you know, persona of we have to keep good. And I was telling, I even told my students this, you know, don't fight, you know, just talk to people. I always tell them, like, use your words when you're talking to strangers, even if they annoy you. Don't don't act on the prejudices and the stereotypes that come along with being Muslim. And those are sometimes human. Being angry is human. Like, you know what I mean, like we always have to be.

LAMA: On guard.

LAILA: On guard and always ready to, like, defend ourselves.

MG: All week we have been hearing stories like that one. I guess the question what we've heard from so many of the guests that we've talked to is where does the community go from here? What happens now?

BEN JAMIESON: Well, that's something that Dr. Munir Al-Kassem has been thinking a lot about and struggling with. He's the imam at the Islamic Centre of southwestern Ontario.

SOUNDCLIP

MUNIR: Honestly, I have a responsibility and a feeling that I need to balance. The responsibility is that I have to show strength. Maybe I may have to put a show of strength in front of my children and my grandchildren to show them that, no, life goes on. But a feeling that I may have to conceal, it's a feeling of of worry and fear. What if I would be associated by taking my grandchildren again to the park by when they will ease restrictions, that if I will invite them now, I don't know if they will ever respond. Let's go as a family, you know, I have a large family. I have six children, I have five daughters and one son. All of them are grown ups and they have their own families. And we love our summer union. If that becomes possible and if I invite them, they may be reluctant because they said, you know, Dad, we don't want to be so visible. And already they are worried about me. They said, Dad, make sure you're careful where you go. They are worried, but I can't I can't relinquish my responsibility as a leader in this community to provide some guidance, some direction on where we go from here. Life has to continue.

MG: Given all of that and the balancing act that he's talking about, how is he holding up?

BEN JAMIESON: Well, he was actually out for a walk on Sunday night with his granddaughter less than a kilometre from where the attack happened. So all week he's been thinking about that. But I mean, he also is thinking about his own grief and his own anger. But he's also a leader in the community. So now he's thinking, how do I show my community how we go forward? How do we feel.

SOUNDCLIP

MUNIR: We will have levels of healing. The community has to heal collectively, and individuals may hide their state of injury and may suffer internally. I say the community will heal, but this healing shouldn't come in an empty space that, OK, we dealt with this issue, now time will remove the pain. No, we want to go from here to a point where we know that Islamophobia, which is the cause that led to this crime, is eliminated. However, I want to say that what we really need to do now is not to issue statements of condemnation. We've talked a lot. We've got to have the task force that hopefully will be put together, look at the root cause of Islamophobia and xenophobia in general and understand what we have to do as Canadians. I honestly feel that Canada lost big potential for the future by losing this family.

BEN JAMIESON: So about that task force that he's talking about there, and that's the task for the Muslim groups across the country have been asking for. And so basically they're looking to have municipal, provincial, federal leaders all come together and really look at the root causes of discrimination, systemic discrimination and Islamophobia. And really, it's so that the loss of this family leads to some real change.

MG: Ben, thank you very much for this.

BEN JAMIESON: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Ben Jamieson is a producer with The Current, where your CBC News is next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

Once the shiny red buttons been created, it's only a matter of time before someone is going to push it. I think we really need to think as a society, how do we decide when and how to push it?

MG: That shiny red button has already been invented and it's becoming more and more attractive to scientists, tech titans and big business in six minutes. The future uses of brain implants, the good, the bad and the ugly. I'm Matt Galloway you're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

Ethical questions around neural implant technology

Guest: Ning Jiang, Jennifer Boger

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, a new report from British Columbia shines a light on the story of one small family and how the foster care system treated them. We'll tell you about Marnie and Skye in 30 minutes. But first, the increasingly thin line between us and our technology.

[Music: Theme]

MG: A milestone study at Stanford University has allowed a paralyzed patient to type for the very first time using only their mind, a tiny implant in the brain was used to create with an algorithm programme that would translate his thoughts to letters so that the words he was thinking would appear on the screen. So if a person can translate thoughts to text, what else could we do with this technology? That is a question that's already being asked by some of science's best and brightest. Even the tech pioneer Elon Musk is getting in on the game. His company, Neuralink, aims to enhance US humans using implants. It started, though, with monkeys.

SOUNDCLIP

This is Pager. He's a nine year old macaque who had a Neuraink placed in each side of his brain about six weeks ago. One of the things the neural links allow pages to do is to play his favourite video game, Pong. To control his paddle on the right side of the screen. Pages simply thinks about moving his hand up or down. Pager is amazingly good at mind Pong. He's focussed and he's playing entirely of his own volition. It's not magic. The reason Neuralink works is because it's recording and decoding electrical signals from the brain.

MG: A monkey playing pong with its mind might not have been how you imagined the year 2021, but here we are. Ning Jiang is the head of the Bionics Lab at the University of Waterloo. Professor, good morning.

NING JIANG: Good morning.

MG: What was your reaction when you heard of this study out of Stanford that, as I was saying, was allowing through an implant a patient with paralysis to type using their mind?

NING JIANG: Well, I wouldn't say that I'm totally surprised, but I do want to say that it's a very happy surprise to all of us working in this field.

MG: MG: Were you surprised to hear about a monkey playing Pong?

NING JIANG: Not at all. That is totally we knew it's coming. We know about 16 month, 16 months ago Neuralink demonstrated their first live demonstration on a pig. And we know it's coming, but it's a little bit faster than I thought.

MG: Explain how this works. What is going on to create text or allow somebody to play a game using their thoughts.

NING JIANG: So when you just imagine doing something in that unique electric activities is right there in your brain. All the scientists have done is first put electrodes into the brain, so we establish a brain machine interfacing. And then when those electric signals are coming out, we use artificial intelligence, A.I. algorithms, to translate or to decode those electricity electric signals into what we believe are the letters. Now, when the algorithm works right, then we can translate your thoughts into, for example, letters.

MG: How important is a study like this?

NING JIANG: It is a milestone, I would say, because as that paper and have illustrated, it is possible to decode covert intentions such as this very highly cognitive intentions into very clearly defined commands. That basically means that we can read another person's mind.

MG: Having a monkey play pong is one thing, but what do you see as the practical element of this? Who who would technology who would be helped by it, by a technology like this?

NING JIANG: So first of all, people, that is highly paralysed, that cannot be, cannot use other means to communicate with the external world, will be tremendously benefit from this type of technology.

MG: This demonstrated the ability to create text. What are the other things? If you are, as you say, able to read the intentions, read the mind of that patient, what are the other things that that person would be able to do through this technology?

NING JIANG: To begin with, we can use BMI, the brain machine interfacing, or BCI brain computer interfacing, to establish a communication tool such as typing or writing in this case, or we can use this technology to establish control of our external devices. Play pong obviously is one example. We can also use to control, for example, the temperature of the room to navigate a wheelchair and so on and so forth. And later on, we could probably use this to very quickly communicate information that, for example, emotional information and even higher cognitive state of the patient. There is really no limit. You know, if we really push the boundary of this technology, we could establish a brain machine interfacing from a person's brain to an external entity with any type of communication or information transfer.

MG: So what would that look like in the best case scenario? Go as far out as you can 50 years down the line. What does this look like

NING JIANG: 50 years down the line, if we put no limit on how this technology can be used, we may see something like Avatar in 50, 60 years that you can use your brain to fully control another another being either artificial or life.

MG: And something like that is possible. What James Cameron did in that film you think is possible.

NING JIANG: I think so. The pace of technology is evolving extremely fast.

MG: What about something closer to now? I mean, that's 50 years or so down the line. What about something more immediate?

NING JIANG: Yeah, I can imagine that maybe in five, 10, 15 years we can see fully paralysed patients and can actually stand up and use his or her brain to control a exoskeleton. And they will be walking around, even walking around as if there was no injury or there's no paralysis.

MG: What are the difficulties in making a broader impact from this technology? Because presumably there's a cost to this, but the practical element of having these sorts of implants in the brain would create obstacles as well. So what are the barriers to to scaling something like this up?

NING JIANG: Well, the barriers cost to mention that absolutely that will be one of the probably key considerations or key barriers or burdens. I think the other aspect is how the society, the public society consider this kind of technology and how this technology potentially can be abused. I think that's probably a major obstacle or a major consideration that will prevent this technology from making a broader impact.

MG: What are the abuses that you see are, you know, potentially an obstacle for this kind of technology?

NING JIANG: Well, I think this technology can, let's say, quote unquote, unlock our - how do you call that -our deepest secrets. In principle, therefore, you have to be have a very, very high level of security and to control who can read my mind and how he can read my mind when he can read my mind. Now, if we put no limit on this type of technology, then it means anybody can read anyone's mind at any time. Obviously, we don't want that to happen. Then the question is, who has the right? What are the rules? Let's say mind reading, what are the rules of mind reading? And I don't think our current society really probably never seriously considered such a possibility that can happen in the next five, 10 years. So we need to educate the public. You know, what should we do now if this is available now in five or 10 years?

MG: The study that we're talking about came out of Stanford University in California. And there are huge investments that are being made in the United States, in China, in the European Union, into the sort of technology. Why are those countries seeing an opportunity here and funding that opportunity?

NING JIANG: There are two frontiers of scientific exploration. One will be understanding the universe, and the other one is understanding ourselves, specifically our brain. And to begin with this type of exploration, provide new tools that was so powerful it was never existed before in terms of exploring who we are. So what is the fundamental principles of our our Brimhall brain is working and relating to that? These technology, these tools will be able to provide new ways of human, to interact with human human, to interact with society that will create limitless or boundless business opportunities. Therefore, I believe these are the key and driving force behind these global initiatives in using and in developing new technologies.

MG: Where's Canada in that research. I mean, are we at all in the game here?

NING JIANG: I mean, we are we are actually one of the pioneers in neural technology. And I think many of the currently using the fundamental principles of tools are currently being explored, are actually invented in Canada. For example, I would give one example. Canada is the first country to use electrocardiogram, basically putting electrodes directly on top of the brain. This is done from, um, from McGill University. But we don't have as far as I can see, we don't have a national initiative in pushing the limits for pushing the boundaries for newer technology. As other economies or other countries are, you know, taking the charge of taking the lead, we are sort of left behind. And I don't think that is the position that Canada should be.

MG: Ning Jiang, it's good to speak with you about this. This is intriguing and slightly terrifying. Thank you very much.

NING JIANG: Thank you very much.

MG: Ning Jiang is the head of the bionics lab at the University of Waterloo and a brain computer interface researcher. If putting tiny computerised implants into your brain sounds exciting, but also a little worrisome. My next guest might agree. Jennifer Boger is the director of the Intelligent Technologies for Wellness and Independent Living Lab, also at the University of Waterloo. She is in Kelowna, British Columbia, this morning. Jennifer, good morning to you. Good morning, Matt. You specifically study the ethics of things like this. So when you heard about this study coming out of Stanford, what went through your mind?

JENNIFER BOGER: I echo a lot of what Professor Zhang said, it's the next milestone, the next step in the evolution of this technology. So I think it's very exciting as well. It's very something we need to think about carefully,

MG: Something we need to think about carefully. Why?

JENNIFER BOGER: JSo, as Ning mentioned, there's just so many potential applications of this technology as with any technology, and some of them could be potentially very good and some of them could be potentially not so good. And what I think is most important is that we as a society, as researchers, as government, as general population, think carefully about what does responsible development use of these types of technologies look like.

MG: Let's talk about the good and the promise of this. I mean, again, hearing a little bit of what the professor was saying and talking about what's coming out of Stanford, how important is that sort of interface between the brain and some sort of computer as a tool to help people who can't communicate to be able to communicate?

JENNIFER BOGER: Right. I mean, it would be indispensable for some populations. It doesn't take much imagination to see what kind of difference this could make in those lives. What happens is with a lot of technologies, emerging technologies, the very good and very bad applications are sort of clear to see. It's the ones that are in the grey. Where do you say, OK, this set of people, this has enough benefit to them that will go ahead with this, but you're on the fringe, but not quite there. Like where do we draw that line if we're going to draw a line? You know, I think the conversations that we should be having is, well, while the should we is an important question, I think we need to focus a lot more on the how should we. We need to do a lot better on how we create technology -- technology that respects human values, promotes equity for the environment and so on. But this is not something that researchers alone can do. We need to have a large discussion and a lot of crossover knowledge from different disciplines because these are very complex questions.

MG: But again, you can see, I mean, if the patients as a professor are saying are locked in and unable to communicate, this could be an enormous benefit to them and not even just knows what we're talking about now, but the way that he was gaming it out five, 10 years down the road.

JENNIFER BOGER: Oh, one hundred percent. And I foresee that honestly, this is going to become mainstream technology 50 hundred years from now. You're not going to type; that's going to look so archaic to our grandkids. You're just going to think your computer, you know, it's one possible future that is a possible future. But if that is the possible future, then how do we go about it in a way where we're not just jumping the gun, but thinking carefully about how we use this technology and how we safeguard it against possible unintended misuse.

MG: How close is all of that to I mean, it sounds like Black Mirror and an episode of Black Mirror in some ways. Elon Musk talks about through his nursing programme the idea of enhancing humans. What does that say to you?

JENNIFER BOGER: Well, some people argue we're already starting to cross that boundary. Many people walk around with their phone attached to their hand. For example, there's been some studies looking at the way humans' brains develop when they interact with technology that closely from birth. Your brain actually remaps itself to assume that it has access to that information, that it can upload and download information like that. So one could argue we're already starting to blur that line and then it becomes, well, what's the difference between inputting it to a keyboard and being able to upload and download what I want through a keyboard versus just having something implanted in my head to do it? Some people find that idea repulsive and other people find that idea really helpful and useful.

MG: And there's also the idea that the professor mentioned, you know, my deepest, darkest thoughts now being accessible to any number of people, including perhaps Elon Musk. And who knows what people would want to do with with those thoughts?

JENNIFER BOGER: Well, one hundred percent. And imagine you're on a video call and you start thinking about your grocery list or something worse and worse. Right. And then, you know, everything that goes in the feed of the call. So these are the sorts of, and worst applications of this sort of stuff, too, that are not so not so kind. People can imagine that right away, too. So, again, it's not the technology that in itself is good or bad. It's how we use it, how we access it and what we do with it.

MG: So that's the big question. I mean, when you talk about that idea of responsible development, how do you do that? How do you. Create something that has incredible potential, but also create the conditions where it can be used responsibly and ethically.

JENNIFER BOGER: What a wonderful question that we're still trying to figure out. So part of part of the thing is, is we have a very rapid development of powerful tech in systems that have tremendous implications, as well as this technical convergence -- so the blending of these rapidly evolving systems often when we still don't understand the systems themselves. So this makes it really difficult to figure out how to develop them responsibly, as well as to predict what kind of impact they're going to have. So, many times when there's a negative impact of technology. That was not the creator's intention. It's just we didn't think of that possibility. The technology wasn't mature enough and or the people developing it are just too narrow, focussed on building the tech and not so much on what it will do. I honestly think what we need to do is have a lot more what if discussions in very broad, diverse groups. So doing these sorts of imagination discussions like we're doing today helps us think about not just what we're doing now, but look at where could this go in the future? Where do we want it to go in the future so that we can pipeline our development and set up systems and guidelines and regulations and all that sort of thing to be able to help us develop it responsibly, instead of you know, looking down and then by the time it's mature, oh, my gosh, now it's doing things we hadn't imagined, but we're not prepared for that. And I think a really big part of this is how we train people. So right now, a lot of our training is very focussed in our specialised area. There's little to no room right now in STEM education for things like philosophy and ethics and vice versa. People in social sciences don't usually learn about tech. So this gives the impression that while these topics are important, it's not one's job to consider the other, which is fair because that's how we're treating people to do. So right now, we have two large camps or more, but, you know, one building tech and the other asking questions about impacts and ramifications of tech. But we need to unsalable this a bit and get more cross over so that the people building it can talk to the people who are passionate about the implications of it and vice versa.

MG: Is it possible to put those roadblocks into the technology or is there some stuff that you just leave in the box that you don't take out? You know, just because you can create it doesn't mean that you should create it.

JENNIFER BOGER: What a great question. But in my opinion, once the shiny red buttons been created, it's only a matter of time before someone is going to push it. So I think we really need to think as a society, how do we decide when and how to push it. And a great example is CRISPR gene editing technology that's recently been forefront because when you alter genes in some ways, then you can pass on those alterations to your children, which is particularly problematic. And everyone said around the world, unequivocally, no, we shouldn't do that. But what happened is, you know, you get scientists that go rogue and just do it anyway. So just saying, no, you can't doesn't mean someone still won't. It just means they're going to be more covert about it, and they're going to do it without support. So while things like CRISPR, certainly we need to have very careful discussions and thought about it. And right now I think the right answer is no, don't do it. We also need to start thinking about if and when we do start to use CRISPR, how and when do we start doing that. Because just like this technology, there are some populations that could benefit greatly from having certain conditions, potentially life threatening diseases. For example, it seems more like black and white. But then where do you draw the line? And we know you can't just edit one gene without impacting others.

MG: What about for this technology? I mean, where do you draw the line? If you take a look at the regulations that a government like the Canadian government could put in, what should that line look like?

JENNIFER BOGER: As a society, as academics, as the government, we all have to talk together. I mean, ideally, you want technologies that are developed at a slow enough pace that we understand what they're doing, but not so slow that they stifle innovation. Likely this is going to go as many new cutting edge technologies do, where population two will clearly benefit from them, such as people who are locked in. They're the first ones to give it a go. And then after that, the door is open. And then that's where the conversations start being had about who and when, who gets choice, how do we make it equitable, you know, so that, as you pointed out, when this technology first comes out, it's going to be very expensive, you know, and then we can think of Orwellian dystopia where does one half of the population who can afford it get this technology and then there's a whole bunch that can't afford it, who don't. And then how does that then make a disparity gap even larger. So there's even questions like that that need to be thought about carefully before we just open the door.

MG: And if we get it right, what is most tantalising to you about the future that is out there?

JENNIFER BOGER: I'm going to interpret that broadly as technological future. I'm not sure if I'd want brain implants, but ask me again, you know, if I have a stroke and I can't type, well, then my opinion might change. So I think that's a big part of the puzzle, too, is that you can't just make a choice about these technologies. And that's it. We're done. It's dynamic technology. Evolution is dynamic. What are value systems? The society is dynamic. The fact that we're a global society with a lot of different values makes it a very interesting conversation. You know, are the rules around its use different in different places? Do we have global rules? All these things. I guess I guess it it's very exciting and as you say, slightly terrifying to be in. But the good potential is there, too. And I think we have to keep that in mind. It's not all nefarious, but, you know, perhaps locked in people can not too far in the future get up and walk again and be able to talk real time. And, you know, they're not such a by-product of their condition anymore, but can really participate more active citizens in society.

MG: This is not easy, which in part is why it's so fascinating to talk about. I'm really glad to have had the chance to speak with you, Jennifer. Thank you very much.

JENNIFER BOGER: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Take care.

JENNIFER BOGER: You too.

MG: Jennifer Boger is the director of the Intelligence Tech. Apologies for wellness and independent living lab at the University of Waterloo. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

She came out of that adoption just a mess like she wasn't even the child that I had known before she left for that adoption.

MG: One family's story says about the lasting impact of the sixties scoop and the foster care system. That conversation in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. And you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One.

A new report shows how the foster care system is failing Indigenous children

Guests: Jody Bauche, Mary Burton, Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current,

SOUNDCLIP

I love you, I miss you. Do you remember me telling you that the first star you see at night that I will also see that star no matter where we are? My heart, my prayers, my thoughts are with you. Only you. I hope, pray and wish and dream that you are OK. Do not give up the amazing person that you are.

MG: That letter is full of the love a mother has for her daughter. It was written by a woman named Marnie Crassweller or to her daughter, Skye. Marnie was taken away from her Dene mother during the sixties scoop. It was the beginning of generations of trauma. Marnie was abused and struggled with addiction for the rest of her life. Marnie's own daughter, Skye, was taken from her by the B.C. Ministry of Children and Families at the age of five. And a new report from BC's children and youth watchdog outlines how over the next 12 years, Skye moved 15 times, lived in eight different foster homes, suffered three failed adoptions and cycled through 18 different social workers. Skye died of a drug overdose in 2017 on the day she turned 17 years old. Jody Bauche is one of the report's investigators and the indigenous liaison for BC's representative for children and youth. She's met Jody. Good morning.

JODY BAUCHE: Good morning, Matt.

MG: We're going to walk through Guy's story and it's complicated, which in part is the story in and of itself. But just briefly, off the topic, what can you tell us about Skye?

JODY BAUCHE: Sky was an amazing and is still an amazing, incredible spirit. She was very lovable. I have I feel actually quite honoured to have worked on this investigation. She touched the lives of so many people and still does to this day.

MG: I mentioned that she went through, I mean, the story that she went through, eight different foster homes, three failed adoptions, 18 different social workers. That's a lot of shuffling through the system. Is it something like that common?

JODY BAUCHE: It is quite common, but it's quite unique to Skye's story. Is that impactful relationships that she had? She did exist in many different places, but those people did really care about her. And I think this story reflects exactly- you know, it's not the individuals, it's definitely the system and the different shuffling around. And, yeah, I feel very, very grateful to have understood through her story and the lens that we applied to the investigation that there is, in fact, discrimination within the system. And, yeah.

MG: Let's hear about that story and some of those relationships that she built up. When Skye was seven, she was going to be adopted by Sue Sinclair, who was a family friend who had adopted Skye's sister, Olivia. And for reasons that aren't entirely clear, the adoption fell through. Here is how Sue Sinclair remembers that time.

SOUNDCLIP

Well, she was extremely excited. She was calling me mom all the time, but she was very excited about being with Olivia, very excited about being with me. Like she wanted to be a family. In my heart I hoped that she would have felt confident and excited and happy and enjoy her life instead of worrying about where she was going to be next or why she wasn't good enough because she would have been loved unconditionally.

MG: How did Skye's behaviour change after that failed adoption?

JODY BAUCHE: Oh, Matt, is that question directed to me?

MG: Yeah.

JODY BAUCHE: Yeah, her behaviour, it was quite tragic after that. It's really actually quite hard to talk about. But she, like many indigenous youth and children and youth in care, when there is a disruption of relationship and plans for adoption or permanency or an opportunity to have belonging and connection permanently with a family, the disappointment is incredible. So there were some behaviours that arose that came out of that that were really challenging for other people around her to really help with. And often these behaviours are pathological lies, but in fact, they are just attributed to the pain and grief and loss that children experience in care.

MG: Skye went through another failed adoption and then went to live with Mandy Dixon. Mandy is a frontline trauma worker with indigenous families and had cared for Skye when she was small. Here she is.

SOUNDCLIP

She came out of the adoption just a mess. She wasn't even the child that I had known before she left for that adoption. They brought her to us. They asked us to open her spirit back up again. And those would be my cultural terms. And they gave us, what, was it 24 months to do it before they basically forced her into another adoption.

MG: So clearly, Mandy was invested in her well-being. Why wasn't Skye allowed to stay with her?

JODY BAUCHE: Because there was a push to have her adopted. And that part of her story is also very tragic to me. In that placement, that Skye was in with Mandy, she opened up incredibly. Mandy actually gave her quite a bit of cultural and spiritual guidance Skye had never had before. And the push for permanency in adoption was essentially the reason why this guy was moved from that placement.

MG: And again, I mean, I know this is difficult, what happened to Skye after she was forced into a third attempt at adoption?

JODY BAUCHE: So when she was moved into her third adoption, she's entering a time in her life where it's really crucial, it's middle childhood, actually, so middle childhood would be from eight to 12 years old. And it's a crucial time of development for children because they're starting to learn about themselves in relation to others. And that's often a part of their identity formation. So although the people that she ended up living with were very kind hearted and loving, she wasn't able to fully attach. And it was such a crucial time in her development that what she really, really needed was some some stability and some opportunity to start to understand herself and to have that consistent support of a loving adult to do that. And it was again, it was the system that, you know, forced that relationship to end and at the expense of her her well-being

MG: and then the absence of that stability and that support. I mean, you say at the expense of her well-being. I mean, she went through some pretty difficult times.

JODY BAUCHE: Yeah.

MG: Where was her mother, Marnie, during those years?

JODY BAUCHE: Marnie was in Vancouver during this time of Skye's life and she was writing letters to Skye during this time of her life. The social worker involved at the time was not sharing those letters with Skye out of fear that that would jeopardise Skye's well-being, which, again, if we had trained trauma, informed social workers, we would understand that, in fact, you know, we need to be sharing information with children about where their parents are from and who they are despite the circumstances that they may be in. It's still part of who they are. So, yeah. So, yeah, Marnie was in in Vancouver, Downtown Eastside, and I'm grateful for Janice Abbott, who was beside Marnie around that time of her life. And I am grateful for the stories that I heard through Janis about Marnie, Annie actually, she was born Annie. And it sounds like Annie and Skye and Skye were actually quite similar in a lot of ways. Their spirit was the same. They you know, they would often light up a room. People were very drawn to them because of their personalities. So it's challenging. I mean, the circumstances for social workers when they know they have to adhere to child protection, safety policies and regulations, it makes it challenging for them to really understand some of the the spirit and the intent behind keeping indigenous children connected with their families and culture.

MG: This reports, in telling this story, calls this story and residential schools, which we have obviously been talking about a lot over the last couple of weeks or so, different chapters of the same continuing saga. How do you see that?

JODY BAUCHE: Absolutely. And we walk through some of the legislation, actually. So in 1950 with residential schools were becoming known by the public is problematic. Can you believe that? Anyhow, there were there was a shift in policy actually within the Indian Act that allowed for the federal government to provide social services on reserves. So that's where we saw what's termed the sixties scoop. So Raven Sinclair from the University of Regina actually speaks about the correlation between the closing of residential schools and the influx of social workers graduating from university. So really, there is a real place- Tt's a by-product of of residential schools. And now we have our federal minister, Carolyn Bennett, last week proclaiming that, yes, in fact, foster care has replaced residential schools. And in British Columbia, there are over a three year period, in fact, recent data indicates that 59 percent of indigenous children and youth in foster care are harmed by their caregivers. So we see a pattern here.

MG: We're going to talk more about how to break that pattern in a moment, but you started by saying that you felt really privileged to be able to tell and learn about her story through this investigation. Skye died of an overdose on her 17th birthday. What did she want to do with her future? Where did she want to go?

JODY BAUCHE: And she was very caring and she was referred to as a mother hen. There are different stories of things that she shared with individuals over the years. People often said that she wanted to be famous, which is why I'm grateful for this interview today. She also had some aspirations of helping others. And so at one point, I think she wanted to be a doctor. But again, because of the amount of moves she experienced and the lack of stability, school was a really difficult thing. She attended eight schools. But if you look at her records, it's actually there is a lot of disruptions within those eight schools as well. But her spirit was so powerful and so touching that she probably would have gone on to do a lot of really amazing things.

MG: I'm really glad that you had the opportunity this morning to tell her story. It's really important. And we're going to talk more about how stories like this perhaps cannot be repeated in future. Jody, thank you very much.

JODY BAUCHE: Thank you.

MG: Jody Bauche is the indigenous liaison for BK's, representative for children and youth. Skye's story is very familiar to many indigenous families across this country. In Winnipeg, the situation was so pronounced that local activists there came together to create something called Fearless R2W. R2W refers to the postal code in the north end of Winnipeg, where many of the families live, and that organisation helps indigenous kids remain at home. Maryi Burton is the executive director and co-founder of Fearless R2W. Mary, good morning to you.

MARY BURTON: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. What were you thinking as you listen to Skys story from British Columbia?

MARY BURTON: Well, unfortunately, it's it's very common to have that happen. The sheer numbers of children in care in B.C. I was doing some research on this last night and just the sheer numbers of children who are in care across this country, 52 percent of indigenous children in this country are in stranger homes, as we call them here, and that's staggering.

MG: In your city. I mean, what do the residents, particularly in the north end, think of child and family services?

MARY BURTON: People here in the north end are very much afraid of CFS. The numbers here are staggering as well. There's 9849 children in care in stranger homes. 527 children in own home placements and 19 nonpaid care. So total children in care in Manitoba are 10,395.

MG: Why would CFS get involved with a family? I mean, what are one or two of the reasons why that might happen?

MARY BURTON: Well, they say neglect is the biggest problem, but poverty is not neglect. 85 percent of all our apprehensions that happen in Manitoba or sorry, in Winnipeg in the north and don't have to happen because of poverty, not neglect.

MG: I mean, ostensibly, this is done in the interest of a child. I mean, if CFS has to remove the child from the home, are there times when you believe that that is in the best interest of the child?

MARY BURTON: Yes, there are times I am way so not anti CFS. I believe CFS is needed. I am a by-product of the sixties scoop. I was removed from my home for very good reason, but they didn't have to keep me, is always. My response is once they took us away and the threat was removed, they could have given us back, but they didn't. There's myself and five other simply siblings.

MG: So if it's not something that I mean, as you say, you're not anti CFS, what's it at the root of the problem in Winnipeg?

MARY BURTON: The root of the problem is the fact that there's not enough knowledge about indigenous families, there's not enough knowledge about indigenous culture and about our traditions and how we look after each other.

MG: And that that can lead to not misunderstanding, but actions being taken that perhaps don't need to be taken.

MARY BURTON: Exactly. So, for instance, I I've helped many children stay in their home, in their homes because of going in with what I call a strength based approach. If I get a call from a family in there, they're totally beside themselves not knowing what's going to happen because CFS is on the way and they don't have any milk, bread or eggs or they don't have a little bit of- they only have a little bit of groceries until payday, which is three or four days away. I'll go to the grocery store and I'll get them what they need. And I will sit with them

MG: Because of CFS where they turn up and there weren't milk, bread and eggs in the house, what would happen?

MARY BURTON: They would then open a file. That doesn't mean that they would take the children immediately, but they would open a file and then they would open up all of the little areas of this family's life and and pick away at all of the good things that the family is doing, and then just say all the bad things that this family is doing for those children or to those children.

MG: And so you would go and you would get food on the shelves, to cut that off.

MARY BURTON: Yes, I would like out of my own pocket, I would go and buy groceries for them and put them in, put it in their homes and sit with them and talk and work with the agency to try and keep those children in the home.

MG: What did you call it? You call it a strength based approach.

MARY BURTON: Yes.

MG: What do you mean by that?

MARY BURTON: What do you mean by that is a social worker went into the home and looked around and said, OK, you're doing A, B, C and D, right but you need to be looked at, let's try and fix those things and then keep those children that way, the children stay in the home. Ripping a child away from their home - and that's exactly what they're doing, they're ripping the children away from their home, the only thing that they've ever known - causes trauma and that trauma causes behavioural issues.

MG: What would you want to see change when it comes to this? I mean, we talk more about the idea of understanding culture and having a greater cultural knowledge base to to to build the work on, but what else needs to happen to ensure that indigenous kids stay out of care in Winnipeg and elsewhere?

MARY BURTON: Well, I think the biggest thing would be to have social workers trained in our within about our culture and our and our teachings. I'm an indigenous woman, but our cultures and our teachings and our traditions and how we look after each other as one family. It's not just a mom and children or mom, dad and children, it's mom, it's grandma, i's grandpa, it's mom, dad, it's children, it's siblings, it's aunts and uncles and, you know, brothers like brothers and sisters. Everybody looks after each other. And in the little small community, I call it a community in itself. Because I live in the north end of Winnipeg in the RTW postcode zone, and it's the biggest postcode area in the north and in Winnipeg right now, as far as I know. And one in six families here are affected by CFS daily. And that doesn't mean that those children are being apprehended, it means that those that CFS is looking into one in six families in the north end. What's the possibility of apprehension happening.

MG: And this is, again, about reforming a system, not throwing the system out, but reforming that system?

MARY BURTON: Exactly like I believe like people say the system is broken. It's not broken. It's working exactly the way the government wanted it to work. And like the lady before me said, this is definitely a by-product of residential schools. You look at it, the residential school system is full of child welfare. They're all the same. They're all a different chapter of the same book.

MG: Mary I'm glad to have the chance to speak with you about the work that you're doing. Thank you very much.

MARY BURTON: Thank you.

Mary Burton is executive director and co-founder of Fearless R2W. She was in Winnipeg. Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux is chair on Truth and Reconciliation at Lakehead University. In 2016. She was a federal government ministerial representative examining this child welfare system. Cynthia, good morning to you.

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: Good morning.

MG: When you hear something like Skye's experience, how common is that based on the work that you know?

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: very common. In fact, it's happening as we speak. It's happening right across the country and we have not been able to mitigate it. But there are some ways that it can be done. And I know I speak to a lot of Canadians through the reconciliation and the truth process. And I that's my encouragement to them is if you want to do anything in Canada, you want to help in any way with this happening with First Nations, you have to push your municipalities, your employees and your employees to make the changes that are necessary so that children can be raised in their own homes and communities.

MG: And do you see a through line, a direct line between residential schools, the 60 Schoop and what we're talking about this morning?

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: I see going all the way back to contact. Actually, there's a repeat of trauma all the way through. It's an intergenerational effect. And science is telling us through epigenetics that no trauma can last as much as 14 generations. And we had seven generations go to the residential school and Indian hospitals.

MG: Why has so little changed on this? You were brought in by the federal government in 2016 to examine what was happening in the child welfare system. So five years on, why has so little changed, do you think?

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: Because we haven't done what the government is, I suppose, working towards it, but there has to be a restoration of jurisdiction and authority to the communities. And many of them are creating child welfare or child welfare wellbeing laws, which should be recognised. The fact that birth rates are finally being lifted is is important, but the hospitals are doing that directly. The funding has to be unlocked. We know that one lady said our social workers are overworked and underpaid. They're not trained well enough and we have to change those standards. The CAS's has standards and our indigenous agencies have to follow those standards, which is just repeating the apprehension place. They need to go into prevention and they need to ensure that those families have the supports that they need. And there needs to be funding to ensure that there is food in the fridge. Don't take those children away from their mothers. Make sure that those mothers have what they need to be able to move forward in a good way. And if there's addictions, make sure we get somehow to treat those addictions and help the mothers and children stay together. Relationships with the provinces have to change as well.

MG: Well, and Mary made a really powerful point that the system is broken. The system is working exactly the way it was designed to work. When you talk about prevention rather than apprehension, that people have talked about that as well, that you need to pivot away from apprehension first towards prevention is that in many ways at the heart of how you reform a system like this or change the system?

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: Absolutely. You put resources into the families. You put resources into the family so that they can get the foods that they need, that they can get the support they need. You know, there's there's absolutely because our kids are going through these systems and being moved. I'm getting and they're getting attachment disorders from being shifted about and they, you know, of course they should get the letters from their mothers that that their mothers are sending, but they're also ageing out into poverty. They're ageing out into justice systems. And the cycle is repeating. So if we start at the beginning with young girls and young women before they get pregnant and then through their pregnancies and through the early ages of their children, and we support them and we ensure that the social workers are trained in that and that way and that they're available and we have enough of them that we're going to see that cycle start to break down and we're going to see healthy families coming out of that.

MG: You worked closely with Carolyn Bennett, the minister of Crown Indigenous Relations, and you've hinted that some of this stuff, but specifically knowing her, what do you want the federal government to implement now? It feels like there is a renewed urgency to the conversation. So what could the government do right now?

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: They can provide the resources to the training that's necessary for social workers in indigenous programming and actually to also should work, as I suppose, because they're all working with different people of colour. They can put more resources into the indigenous social work programmes and the agencies. They can ensure that the communities themselves have recognised child wellbeing laws and that those laws are implemented. They can restore jurisdiction and authority to our first nation communities so that they have the wherewithal to say what happens to these children and can step into the situation when it's necessary. Right now CAS, there's a barrier, there's a huge barrier there. And a lot of those people really don't understand what's happening in the communities. As both Mary and Jody pointed out, you know, they take these kids because there's no food in the fridge. Our communities are doing exactly what what Maori said. If the social worker is coming to see whether or not the children can visit, the community steps in and provides food for the family so that when the social worker to take a walk right in and open up the fridge. Like, who gives them the authority? CAS gives them the authority to open the fridge. And if there's no food in the fridge, the kids can't visit. Or they're taken away. They open a file and they start the process of taking those children away. And grandmothers are not given resources. If a grandmother can take on the children but is on a fixed income, the grandmother, because she's a kin, does not get the same resources. If they give the kids to a white family, they get paid the money, the 1200 dollars per child, and the grandmother gets nothing or maybe 200 dollars and was told that she handed over to CAS. She may get more, but she also may not get the children because maybe somewhere back in the past she had some kind of a law infraction or or maybe she, you know, she was she drank at one point. And so they tell her, you know, you don't qualify. So we have to change those standards. And I think that's probably the most important thing we could do is ensure that every first nation community across Canada has the wellbeing law and that the standards are fitting for the communities themselves and the families themselves, whether they're in Winnipeg, whether they're in Edmonton or whether they are in a remote community.

MG: Are you confident - we just have a few seconds left - are you confident that that will be seised upon that? Now is the time to make that change?

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: I'm confident that, you know, I talked to Minister Bennett fairly regularly. I'm confident that she fully understands what's happening and she fully supports it. That's why she sent me out. She wanted to know, what do the communities want? Do they want the money to go to agencies, to the CAS, or do they want the money to go directly to the community so that the community can provide the prevention that's necessary for these young families? And she knows that that's what's has to happen.

MG: We will leave it there, but we will talk more about this, I'm sure, in future. In the meantime, it's good to speak with you again.

CYNTHIA WESLEY-ESQUIMAUX: Well, you have a great day. Thanks.

MG: Cynthia Wesley-Esquimauxchair on Truth and Reconciliation at Lakehead University. In 2016, She is a federal government ministerial representative examining the child welfare system. If you are in need of help, there are people to reach out to. The First Nations and Inuit Hope for Wellness Helpline and online counselling service is available toll free. The number is 1 855 2420 3310. Or hopeforwellness.ca. And that is The Current for this Friday and for this week. Coming up next on CBC Radio One. It's Q I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend. And we'll talk again on Monday.

Friday June 11, 2021 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode