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 2024

The Current Transcript for October 30, 2024

Host: Susan Ormiston

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

GIULIANA FURCI: Fungi actually make a system, an ecosystem. And therefore, by looking at nature, without the fungi, it's like being a doctor who has to diagnose and treat without ever having used a blood test.

SUSAN ORMISTON: Fungi are neither flora nor fauna. Mushrooms, moulds and yeast are special, say scientists, and they deserve their own protections in every country. Coming up in 30 minutes, how scientists this week are making the case for fungi at the world's biodiversity conference in Colombia. Also this morning, a nightmare from which you never wake up. John Brennan was a new father to an infant son right up until his estranged partner delivered a shock.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN BRENNAN: How is it that a year ago I'm 99.97% a match to this human? And now here we are a year later and I'm 0%?

SUSAN ORMISTON: The prenatal paternity test he had taken was wrong. A bad result from the Toronto based testing company Wireguard IQ Metrics. In an hour, how John Brennan found out he wasn't the only one. But we start today with a blunt report on missing Indigenous children forced to attend residential schools. Kimberly Murray, a government appointed Go-between, delivers a strong rebuke to Canada and asks the government to acknowledge the, quote, "Crime against humanity." Good morning. I'm Susan Ormiston, sitting in for Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Report on unmarked graves at residential schools calls for new laws, reparations

Guest: Kimberly Murray

SO: Three years ago, Indigenous leaders in Kamloops, Cowessess and other First Nations revealed disturbing news. Hundreds of unmarked graves on the sites of former residential schools. The government appointed an independent interlocutor. Kimberley Murray's mandate was to engage with communities and make recommendations to ensure that these burial sites are treated with honour, respect and dignity. And yesterday, she delivered her highly anticipated report in an event that began with a ceremony and was, was attended by survivors.

SOUNDCLIP

KIMBERLY MURRAY: These children did not just vanish. They were not disappeared by accident. The forced removal and transfer of indigenous children was Canadian law and Canadian policy. Those in charge of these institutions knew that the children's chances of surviving were low.

SO: Kimberly Murray joins me now from Ottawa. Good morning.

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Good morning.

SO: You know, the work you've been doing is really engaging with some pretty painful history. And you say in your report that the greatest and most important obligation that we all have is to the survivors. What do you mean by that?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Absolutely. The survivors are living witnesses, and they're the ones that lived through these atrocities. They're the ones that saw the harms that were inflicted on the other children that never survived. And they're ageing and we're losing them every day. So, it's so important that we need to support them as they come forward and share more of these truths so that they can educate Canadians and correct the historical record and ensure that this never happens again in this country.

SO: And you spoke with so many survivors and families who lost loved ones. What did they hope would come out of this process?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, first of all, I mean, their number one hope was to find their missing loved one. And, you know, we had some success over the last two years in supporting families and finding where their child was buried. But many are still searching and still trying to find where their loved one is.

SO: Kimberly, you report that many children described as missing were, in fact, disappeared by the state and that the government is still actively disappearing them by concealing their fate still. That's a very blunt analysis. How do you want to see that change?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, first of all, it's a legal analysis, and that's the law. The international law of enforced disappearance. And to change it, we need Canada to step up and change its laws that are blocking access to the archives. We need the government to give full access to the records that will help communities and families find where their loved ones missing. You know, I've been saying this for two years. The churches in Canada know that the children died in these institutions. The churches in Canada know that they buried them on the grounds of Indian residential schools, yet they're not helping the communities find those burial grounds. And they're blocking access to very important information that they're holding on to.

SO: From your study and research over these years, what don't we know about what happened to these children?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, we don't know their causes of death. You know, this is very troubling because when we look at some of the records that we have seen in some of the death certificates, they're signed by the Indian agent, they're signed. The cause of death is identified by the Indian agent. We don't know for what happened to these children, what caused their deaths. We don't know. What we do know is that there were medical experiments that were being done on the children. So, how can we have any trust in these records that exist that say the children died of TB and even if they died of these diseases, Canada knew they were dying of these diseases and they created the conditions for these children to die in these conditions. And so, there has to be some accountability for, for that as well.

SO: In your report, you rephrased, you know, the typical recommendations and call them obligations, which is a very interesting way to put it. And one of them is you've called for a commission of investigations into the enforced disappearance of indigenous children and for it to have a 20-year mandate and funding. So, what could this commission do that others like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or your own report have not done?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, importantly, it could have powers and it needs to have powers. Neither my office or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were granted powers. We had no powers to compel the production of records. We had no powers to go onto sites and we had no powers to compel testimony. It's really imperative that any kind of commission of investigation into disappeared people have those type of powers so that we can get to the bottom and we can get to the truth.

SO: And what's the significance of a 20-year mandate?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: While this work is very complex, it's very, it takes a long time to do the research. It takes a long time to do the ground searches. And importantly, we know that it's more than the Indian residential schools recognised under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement. We know that kids were transferred between Indian residential schools in between and to other institutions: Indian hospitals, TB sanatorium reformatories, homes for disab--, homes for unwed mothers, places for disabled children. And we know that the children died in these other institutions, and they're buried in graves all across the country. Some are in marked graves, some are in mass graves and unmarked mass graves in cemeteries. The families do not know where their children are. So, this is going to take a lot of time when we start looking at all the missing and disappeared children.

SO: And part of that in your report is you're calling for governments and churches to fund indigenous-led search and recovery efforts that you just mentioned. You know, the federal government has put in place the Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support Fund, and as of March, they've committed, I think, about $200 million to these projects. So, what else is needed?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Yeah. And it's important to understand that that fund, an important fund only includes certain sites. And as I said, there's all these other sites that need to be investigated. And so, we can't have these, you know, limitations and barriers. We have to follow the truth wherever it leads us. If a child was taken to a residential school and then transferred to a TB sanatorium, the findings should not stop because you want to continue to search where that child died and find where they're buried. And that's the problem that we have with the funding. And the other thing that, you know, I've been saying this as well, we can't treat the search for missing and disappeared children as a program, as a government program. This is a legal, international legal obligation on the state to support. The finding of truth is part of a reparation package that needs to go for indigenous communities to be able to heal and to find the truth and to find where the children are buried.

SO: Kimberly, do you think that there is the political will to make these types of things happen and to spend the money that it would take to do so?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: I think that the government, I feel that the government wants to be seen as doing something, but is limiting what they should be doing. And, you know, appointing me as the special interlocutor is a good example. You know, they came out immediately after to Kamloops, made their announcement saying they would appoint me, not me, but they would created a special interlocutor. But then, they limited my powers. And many people in the community were concerned about the appointment because they thought, well, they're just pretending to be doing something and they're not taking all the necessary steps that they need to take. And it's part of the sort of piecemeal ad hoc approach that Canada has taken over the years in responding to the harms that have been perpetrated against indigenous people. We need a more holistic approach for reparations than what we have right now in the country.

SO: You've mentioned the, the legal bases of which you write, and you've also called for amendments to the Criminal Code that would make it an offence to deny or minimise the effects of residential schools. What are you saying there and why is why is that necessary?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, we have to, we have to criminalise the incitement of hate against indigenous people. And we're seeing a rise in the country of denialism in relation to the Indian residential schools and the harms of the system and the denialism towards the missing and disappeared children. You know, it's very violent and our laws don't protect hate. And we need to make it very clear in the Criminal Code that this is not acceptable behaviour to victimise Indigenous people in this way.

SO: Just staying with the legal aspects of your four volume report, I think you called for an acknowledgement from the Government that forcing Indigenous children into residential schools was a crime against humanity that should be adjudicated by the International Criminal Court. This has been tested. It's been rejected by that court once already because of jurisdiction. Why do you believe that it could meet that bar now?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, what's important to understand about enforced disappearances, the crime of enforced disappearance is that it's an ongoing crime. That means it's a crime. It doesn't matter when the child or the person was disappeared. If we still don't know the fate and whereabouts of the person that was disappeared. If the state is concealing the fact of where the child is buried. And so, I say that Canada committed the offence of enforced disappearance yesterday, is committing in it today, and it's going to be committing it tomorrow because it's not, it's still concealing the fate of the children. It knows, the government knows that these children died in this institution. And the government knows that there were burial grounds and they have the records and they need to produce those records to communities as well as the churches, the churches were the agents of the state. And so, the concealing of the fate makes it an ongoing crime. And I think that the International Criminal Court should be investigating the disappearances of the children in Canada. And I also think that the Working Group Against Enforced Disappearances needs to come visit Canada. They've never been to this country. And it's time that we get that committee to come here and look at the situation of the disappearances.

SO: And from the survivors you've spoken with, how would these kinds of legal measures help with reconciliation?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: It will help with accountability. You know, we can't have reconciliation if there's no accountability. Very few perpetrators have been charged and convicted of offences in relation to Indian residential schools while they were operating and after they closed. Canada has taken many steps to ensure that there there is no accountability and no avenue for survivors and Indigenous people to pursue in the international forum by failing to sign many conventions.

SO: Yesterday, Justice Minister Arif Virani received a copy of the report in person from you. We asked for him on the program today. His office told us he won't be doing interviews until they have had time to absorb this report. He did express gratitude for your work and committed to, quote, "Continue the government's efforts towards reconciliation." What do you want from the Justice Minister and the federal government in the days and weeks ahead?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, I'd like to see a commitment to implement all of the 42 obligations that are identified in the report. And I would like the the Minister of Justice to realise that we need accountability. He speaks about reconciliation and healing, but he doesn't talk about accountability. And that's what survivors and Indigenous people want. They want to see some accountability for the harms that were perpetrated against their children.

SO: I want to go back to something you mentioned earlier in our conversation. It's an important one. Your report calls for wide access to residential school records. Why has it been such a challenge for families to get those records?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, there's a complex web of legislations, provincial and federal legislation, privacy laws, access to information laws, library and archive laws, laws around the destruction of records. Churches are hiding behind privacy laws that don't apply to them. And it's sort of this whole maze that communities and survivors are having to go through. Now, I want to recognise that there have been some, some of the churches and some of the archives have been very open, have entered into agreements and it is possible to get those access. But too many are still blocking access for communities. I mean, we have an urgent need to have an Indigenous data sovereignty strategy in this country so Indigenous people can get their own, their records back.

SO: And amongst your obligations, you talk about full reparations and compensation for family members. Do you know what kind of a cost that would be? What the government and Canadians would, should be prepared to pay?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: You know, it's not a--, it's not about the financial compensation. You know, reparations include many things. And, you know, I speak about this a lot in my report, the need for public education, the need to correct the historical records, the need for commemoration and memorialisation to have memory loss so that this never happens again. Those are all part of reparations. You know, too many people are fixating on compensation and no more money given to indigenous people. But, you know, I can say that the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and the compensation that was provided was to survivors that were sexually and physically abused in the institution. Families whose loved ones were taken from them and died in these institutions and never returned home were never compensated. That family, those families and communities were never compensated for those losses of those little lives. And our apology that was issued by the Prime Minister at the time had one line in it about the children that died in the institution, one sentence. And so, absolutely, reparations includes some restitution in compensation for those families and communities, for those lives that could have been so much if they had remained in their communities.

SO: And to that point, you recommend in your report more apologies, not just from the government, but university medical organisations, media, what would they need to encompass?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Well, first of all, they have to acknowledge their own complicity in the Indian residential school system and these other institutions. You know, with the medical profession, and they've taken first steps in relation to this, looking at their involvement in the medical experimentation and how they benefited on those medical human experimentations that they did on the children in the institution. I think there's a need for media outlets to look at their own history of reinforcing stereotypes and discrimination and racism against Indigenous people with the way they've reported all the way back to the operation of the Indian residential schools till today. There are precedents around the world where media have made recommendations in New Zealand, for example, in how they reported on Indigenous people in New Zealand. Universities, you know, were involved in those medical experimentation. They, their, their institutions sit on stolen indigenous land and those things need to be acknowledged and they need to think about what kinds of reparations that they could provide to Indigenous communities for the harms they've perpetrated.

SO: Kimberly, you've thrown yourself into this work over the last few years, and you noted in your opening remarks that many recommendations have gone unheeded from other reports. Do you worry that this one could have a similar fate?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Absolutely. Absolutely worry about that. And that's why I made a point of ensuring that I identify the legal obligations. It was important to me to deliver a report to community and survivors that they can pick up the work that I did and go to the international forum and try and get some accountability and put some pressure from the outside on the Canadian government. But I also, you know, encourage all Canadians to become upstanders to reconciliation, read the report, make a determination for yourself by looking at the evidence that's in the report and support communities in trying to put pressure on the government to implement these and live up to their obligations that they have.

SO: We have just a minute left. What will stay with you most from what you've learned?

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Most importantly, I'll always carry with me the families that I helped and stood next to when they found their missing loved one and did those ceremonies on the sites.

SO: Yeah. Goes back to those unmarked graves where we started. Kimberly Murray, thank you very much for your work and for joining us this morning.

KIMBERLY MURRAY: Thank you, Susan.

SO: Kimberly Murray is the independent special interlocutor for the missing children and unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian residential schools. She delivered her report yesterday. If you are a residential school survivor or an intergenerational survivor and need help, you can call the Residential School Survivor Support Line at 1-866-925-4419. That's 1-866-925-4419. The CBC News is next. And then...

SOUNDCLIP

GIULIANA FURCI: We're proposing the use of a new fundamental [Music: Theme fading in] and essential, quote unquote, "tool" to be able to diagnose what's happening to our planet and to be able to treat and design ways forward for a better planet.

SO: That tool: Fungi. The latest U.N. Biodiversity Conference is underway, and the UK and Chile are proposing fungi be recognised alongsides plants and animals as a separate category for environmental protection. Coming up in six minutes, a pledge for fungal conservation. I'm Susan Ormiston, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Fungi’s surprising role in ecosystems

Guest: Giuliana Furci, Allison Walker, Anissa Watson

SO: I'm Susan Ormiston, sitting in for Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current. Flora and fauna and fungi. When it comes to the natural world, scientists have historically divided organisms into two broad categories: Plants and animals. But experts say mushrooms, moulds and yeast deserve their own category and protection. Fungi are on the agenda this week at the United Nations' 16th Convention on Biological Diversity in Cali, Colombia. The UK and Chile are putting forward a joint proposal calling for fungi to be placed along an-- animals and plants as a separate biological realm. Giuliana Furci is a mycologist, that's someone who studies fungi, and the Chief Executive of the Fungi Foundation, which helped push for this. Good morning.

GIULIANA FURCI: Good morning.

Speaker 2: Juliana, When a lot of us look at mushrooms, we think, well, that's a plant, of course. What's wrong with that idea?

GIULIANA FURCI: Well, fungi have been categorised as an independent kingdom of life since 1969, without any doubt. What's happening at the moment isn't a call for the fungi to be recognised as separate organisms just in science. It's a call for fungi to be recognised as a separate kingdom of life in legislation, policies and agreements because they're difference, scientifically, is undoubted. Fungi have a different type of cell than a plant and than an animal and they obtain their energy in a different way. And that's not in question. But fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants. When life starts changing, as evolution occurs, there's a common ancestor called the opisthokont, which then split up in a way to give life to the kingdom of animals and the kingdom of fungi.

SO: Wow. So, you've pushed hard for this pledge for fungal conservation that is on the agenda now at COP 16. What's the idea behind it?

GIULIANA FURCI: So basically, we've been designing a conservation framework and designing ways to halt biodiversity loss. Looking just at plants and animals as the components of microscopic life on Earth. And we've never included in these strategies on a global level the fungi, the fungi or fungi or fungi, you can say them anyway, by the way, which are organisms that connect everything, that connects plants to animals, you know, animals to bacteria, etc.. So, what we're doing now is proposing that countries start including fungi in their conservation frameworks, to be able to look at nature in a holistic way.

SO: Why, though, are there examples of fungi that are endangered and need this protection?

GIULIANA FURCI: There are hundreds of species that are endangered that have been evaluated by the IUCN Red List, just like plants and animals. Some are critically endangered, some on the verge of extinction. Fungi face the same threats as plants and animals, but they don't have the same type of protections as plant and animals in international legislation.

SO: So, they're not included under the typical conservation regulations that countries have to abide by?

GIULIANA FURCI: Precisely. And that's exactly why the UK and the Republic of Chile are calling for them to be included. Most legislation refers to nature as animals and plants or fauna and flora and sometimes micro-organisms. But fungi are neither fauna or flora, and they are certainly more than just microorganisms, so they are explicitly actually excluded from all these policies and their protection, therefore, is neglected.

SO: Giuliana, what types of fungi are endangered? Like, could you give us an example?

GIULIANA FURCI: So there are some lichens that are endangered. Lichens are organisms that are symbiotic. They're made up from a fungus and an algae, but they are studied and they are categorised and the kingdom of the fungi. There are some mushrooms, for example, a close relative of the oyster mushroom that is also endangered. And there's a very, very emblematic example of a fungus that looks like a porcini mushroom that is from Chile and that is critically endangered and is very, very important to the indigenous cultures of the Southern Cone of the Americas. So, there are many of them, as I said before, hundreds of species that are in some kind of conservation category on a global level and sometimes on national levels in their red lists.

SO: What's causing the fungi to be endangered?

GIULIANA FURCI: So, fungi are subject to the same threats as plants and animals: Climate change, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, overharvesting, use of pesticides, fungicides. You know, fertilizers. So, they, they are not different from plants and animals in that sense. It's just that their protection is not included in the frameworks that protect plants and animals.

SO: So if this pledge gets adopted at COP 16, what would it do, sort of in concrete terms to protect the fungi you're talking about?

GIULIANA FURCI: So, as I mentioned before, fungi are the organisms that connect all sorts of beings in ecosystems. Fungi actually make a system an ecosystem. And therefore, by looking at nature, without the fungi, it's like being a doctor who has to diagnose and treat without ever having used a blood test. We're introducing and we're proposing the use of a new fundamental and essential, quote unquote, "tool" to be able to diagnose what's happening to our planet and to be able to treat and design ways forward for a better planet.

SO: And what's the resistance?

GIULIANA FURCI: Well, there is actually no resistance, to be honest. And that's, that's the beauty of it. It's not that fungi have been proposed to be included as a new kingdom of life and legislation policies and agreements, and that's been rejected. It's just that it's never happened before, that countries come together with an NGO and with a coalition of organisations that are putting forward this, this motion and supporting the governments in doing this. So it's actually, in my opinion, a total no brainer, as one would say.

SO: Chile, I understand, has taken steps to protect fungi already. So, what have they done?

GIULIANA FURCI: In Chile, every environmental impact assessment has to include a fungal baseline study. So when you're looking to give a permit, for example, to build a dam or to build a highway, you don't only have to look at the impacts on plants and animals, but also the impacts on fungi. And that's extremely important. And it's important for for many reasons. I think, you know, one of the most relevant of which is that if you find that there's going to be an impact on an animal, you can take that animal to a zoo and you can, or you can breed the animal elsewhere. If there's impact on an endangered plant, you can probably take that plant and plant it somewhere else, have nurseries, take it to a botanic garden. But fungi are mostly inseparable from their habitats. And so, if there's an impact proven on an endangered fungus, then you have to protect the habitat and the ecosystem in order to protect the species.

SO: And are those the types of things that you would expect other countries to copy if this goes forward?

GIULIANA FURCI: I think countries, more than copy, I think what we're calling here in the pledge, what the governments are calling for also is for there to be a, a search for including that measure, but also looking at other measures that can help us really just get out of this, this environmental crisis we're in. And so, one of them for sure would be including, I hope, would be including fungi in environmental impact assessments. But there are others, like, for example, designing the global strategy for fungal conservation, together with mycologists, governments and others, and really looking and putting the effort into finding a way forward that is an eco-systemic approach to nature and not just this compartmentalised, you know, legislation that looks as just, just plants, animals and others as components and never really looks at systems like ecosystems.

SO: And, Giuliana, what do you think is at stake if fungi is not protected, conserved more?

GIULIANA FURCI: Well, in my mind and in, you know, my work, what is pretty clear and I think there's quite a big consensus on this, is that the way that we've been looking at biodiversity and habitat protection and conservation frameworks to date, is not working. And so, what this move and what this proposal does, really in my mind brings hope. What it's going to do is bring a new way forward into how we can start looking at nature. What we're doing now is really putting forward the, the availability, the possibility to have this diagnostic and treatment tool like a blood test to a doctor. But for nature, by including fungi in conservation frameworks.

SO: Well, you've certainly given us a whole new way to think about mushrooms. Thank you so much, Juliana.

GIULIANA FURCI: Thank you very much.

SO: Giuliana Furci is the Chief Executive of the Fungi Foundation.

SO: Along with their international counterparts, many Canadian scientists are focussed on fungal conservation efforts. Allison Walker is a biology professor at Acadia University, director of the E.C. Smith Herbarium. She's also a member of a fungal conservation working group here in Canada. Good morning.

ALLISON WALKER: Good morning. How are you?

SO: I'm good, thank you. What do you think of this push to have fungi recognised at COP 16?

ALLISON WALKER: I think it's incredibly exciting for Canada and for the world. I think it's the best possible thing that could happen for fungal conservation. And our hope is that it leads to more funding and education for this type of research in Canada.

SO: Why is fungi so critical to Canadian ecosystems?

ALLISON WALKER: I think that's a great question. And we have a diversity of habitats in Canada. We have over 700-- sorry, 7000 species of mushrooms that we know of, quite a lot more that we don't know yet. And so, it's a really important moment for Canada because we actually have a data set now from all the provinces and territories where we have compiled what we do know, and we can take that forward and start this process of red listing and determining which ones are indeed threatened in Canada. And that's a monumental effort. We need more people on the ground helping with that. But it's an extremely exciting opportunity because we do have special habitats here in Canada. We have old growth forests, we have sand dunes, boreal habitats, all with their unique vegetation and unique fungi that warrant further exploration.

SO: Can you imagine the Canadian landscape without so many, 7000 species or more of fungi? What would it look like?

ALLISON WALKER: Well, I tell my students that Acadia we'll be buried alive in dead stuff because fungi are these crucial decomposers, and so they're very important at taking nutrients and recycling them back into the ecosystem so that other organisms can grow and survive: The plants and animals. So without fungi, we wouldn't have these systems, they wouldn't function and we wouldn't have plants on Earth, in fact, without fungi. So, they're very much underappreciated and we need to learn more.

SO: I'm curious, why do you think they're underappreciated?

ALLISON WALKER: I think they have a reputation, you know, as being fairly disgusting, a fairly problematic in terms of, you know, food spoilage, disease, rot, decay. When the flipside of that is they are performing a vital service for everything else on Earth. And so, I think it's time to flip the narrative and start to appreciate what they're doing for us. They're often unseen because they're underground or they're growing in a log somewhere we can't see what they're doing, but they are, without a doubt, very, very important.

SO: And any of us who have walked in a forest and seen the the different kinds are amazed, really, aren't we? I know your research involves field work to go out and document the species. How much do we really know about the variety of fungi that are out there in the world and, and the actual role that each of them plays in the ecosystem?

ALLISON WALKER: We can discover a new species in our backyard. So, there is incredible diversity out there that's never been described. There are no names on many of these fungi. And so with my students, we've been able to describe a few new species. But we know that with those fungi there are, there's also chemical diversity. They can produce potentially new drugs, new enzymes that can be used for a variety of things: Breaking down toxins, contaminants, plastics in the environment. So with this undescribed diversity, we have a wealth of bioactive compounds and medicines out there that we, we desperately need at this time. So without conserving these fungi, we don't know what benefits we might lose.

SO: Speaking of benefits, I mean, many people may know that the antibiotic penicillin came from a fungus, as you describe. What else are fungi being used for in medical purposes, for example?

ALLISON WALKER: Yeah. So another classic example is cyclosporine. So, a drug that helps the body not reject new organs in terms of organ transplantation. So, fungi are involved are primarily thought of as producing antibiotics. They're being investigated for anti-cancer compounds and other agents that can boost the immune system as well. So there's really no end to that. The research is being done right now, and industrially they're used to produce important preservatives and chemicals used for all kinds of manufacturing processes.

SO: Another area that I know some research is doing is capture and storing carbon. Of course, a big factor in discussions about climate change. What do we know about how fungi plays into that?

ALLISON WALKER: Yeah. So the estimates currently are that in land systems, terrestrial habitats, that about 30% of the carbon that's being stored can be attributed to fungi and biomass of, of microbes like fungi. And so, that means they're incredibly important in all different types of habitats. Right now, being able to aid in that sequestration of carbon dioxide and storing it long term in soil and in, in the fungi themselves, and hoping to keep it there to slow down the rates of global warming.

SO: 30%. That's quite surprising. I mean, I wouldn't think there would be that much fungi out there.

ALLISON WALKER: Well, it's really surprising when you think about it. But the tiny microscopic threads of the fungus or the hyphae or mycelium in the soil can actually estimate those kilometres of this and, you know, a gram of soil. So, it's really microscopic and fine, but it's so abundant that most of the soil itself is actually living. It's a living thing is another way we can think about it.

SO: How much research is going into that, trying to quantify capture and capturing and storing carbon? Because it's such a big issue today.

ALLISON WALKER: It is. And it's really increasing in terms of research efforts in this area. I work a lot in coastal wetlands such as salt marshes, and that is a big black box there because we know these habitats can store a lot of carbon. There's a slow rate of decomposition there because they're waterlogged, low oxygen. But with increasing sea temperatures, changes in ocean PH, changes in nutrients in the ocean, they can actually start to release carbon and become a source of carbon dioxide, which we don't want. So, there's a lot of interesting research going on in that area now.

SO: Just wrapping up our discussion, Alison, are there other ways that fungi play a role in our day-to-d--, day-to-day lives that we don't even think about or realise?

ALLISON WALKER: Ah, yes. Absolutely. So, fungi are part of the human microbiome that we think about in our guts and other animals as well, helping us to break down the food that we eat. Our fungi are involved in making the foods that we eat, like soy sauce and blue cheese and wine and beer and cider that we enjoy. So, they intersect with our lives in many ways that cause a lot of food spoilage of items in our fridge and in agriculture. And they're being exploited for biocontrol potential against pests in forestry and agriculture as well. So, some fungi are very specific to a certain insect or even another pest fungus, and they can be used as a more natural alternative to chemical pest control.

SO: Alison, thank you very much.

ALLISON WALKER: Thanks so much.

SO: Alison Walker is a biology professor at Acadia University.

SO: As we heard, mushrooms and fungi are potentially helpful in all sorts of practical ways. In British Columbia, one environmental organisation has been looking into using fungi to help clean up old railway ties and to break down bush and brush and wood waste without burning it. Anissa Watson is the director of program Execution with the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition. She's in Hazelton, B.C.. Hello.

ANISSA WATSON: Good morning.

SO: Let's start with those railway ties. What's the problem you're trying to solve here?

ANISSA WATSON: Yeah. So, CN Rail has a long history of leaving discarded railway ties along waterways in our area in the Skeena region. And our concern with that is the immense contamination that can come out of them and leach into the soil water and eventually into wildlife. There are large, large piles of tires lining the Skeena region. And so if there's a wildfire, those will burn up and that releases all of the toxic chemicals back into the airway as well. So, we got kind of curious about this and started to do some research around utilising fungi for mycoremediation, which is the practice of using mushrooms essentially to break down, bind or remove contaminants in soil and water. So, we wanted to see what could happen with creosote. And so, what we did is we worked with a local Skeena mushroom farm here, and did a little pilot testing out three different types of fungi: Oyster mushroom, Chicken of the woods, and Turkey tail to try to see if we could train the mycelium. So the little, little sort of roots, that's how I think of them. The roots of the mushrooms to consume and digest the creosote in the ties. So, in a lab experiment, this looked like, you know, doing this in petri dishes. And what we found was that Turkey tail mushroom had the most significant reduction in chemicals in the creosote. And so, what happens is the mushrooms will sort of break down these larger hydrocarbon chains in the chemicals into smaller ones that then can be processed and used, allowing for microorganisms or plants or whatever to kind of get to work to break them down. And so, what we found with the creosote ties was that we had some success with Turkey tail and we were actually able to notice a significant reduction in the chemicals.

SO: Do the Turkey tail mushrooms actually move toward something to feed them? Like how do they actually consume something that's on a railway tiee?

ANISSA WATSON: Yeah. So what we found, what we used was a very, very small in our lab, a very small chip of creosote. And like, you know, kind of broke it down into a dust. So, it was as small as possible. And the mycelium, well, they need food. We know mushrooms need food to survive. So, they, they went towards that creosote. So, they wanted to sort of consume it as a, as a food for themselves. And so, what we're doing now is now that we've done this lab testing, now we need to see like, how can we do this on a larger scale? What would be the safest and most effective way to myceliate these creosote tires in a way that the Turkey tail can then grow on them and start to break it down? So, what it, what the Turkey tail will do is it will, eventually, it'll go, move into the creosote and then it uptakes and starts to break down those chemicals inside of it. [SO: Oh, fascinating.] So that's what we know so far. And what we've done is we've taken the strain of Turkey tail that we've kind of like trained to want to eat the creosote and we've cultivated it. So then, when we move next spring into doing outdoor installations, then we've got a type of Turkey tail mushroom that's like excited to go towards the creosote.

SO: That's partial to creosote. Wow. Fascinating. [ALLISON WALKER: Yeah.] You're also looking at mushrooms to deal with wood waste. What have you found there?

ANISSA WATSON: Yeah. So, it's a process called cold fire, essentially. And so, we know that mushrooms, especially saprophytic mushrooms like to break down the, the carbon cells in plant cell structures. So, they'll go in and they'll start to break it down and then, they store it. So, what we've done is started to work with a local community here to test out how to deal with waste wood. So, we're looking at waste wood left over from forestry practices, large piles, breaking that down, and then inoculating or mycieliating that with fungi to help to break down the process of this wood so we don't have to burn it, essentially.

SO: And why not burn it, though? It seems like a complicated process when there is, you know, a way to get rid of wood waste.

ANISSA WATSON: Yeah. So, our concern about burning the wood waste is the amount of carbon it releases into the atmosphere, along with the impact that that high intensity heat from burning slash piles can have on the soil around it. The other thing is all that carbon gets released into the atmosphere, so none of it gets stored back into the soil, where as the mushrooms will break that down and store it back into the soil so it holds it in there.

SO: What are the biggest challenges when you're looking at doing these experiments, trying to understand how mushrooms can help our ecosystems? How do you create buy-in for these new ways of doing things?

ANISSA WATSON: So, what we've found is by-in in our com--, on the community level is 100%. People are interested, people are happy to find solutions. And, and there's already a connection here with mushrooms culturally. So, it's something that people are already understanding as like a useful tool in our ecosystem. Where we're having some troubles getting larger buy-in is from policymakers, government and things like that. The people who make the policies around how to deal with the wood waste. So, that's one of our challenges. The other challenge is how do we scale this up on a large enough scale that we can actually look at slash piles and actually effectively deal with them using fungi?

SO: So you've got some work to do ahead, as you mentioned, in the spring.

ANISSA WATSON: Absolutely, yeah. We're excited to continue to do this work. We're really happy that we were able to do some tests earlier this year, and get the community interest and the community buy-in. So, we're excited for next year when we get to do larger installations.

SO: And so, we heard from our other guests how passionate they are about mushrooms. It sounds like you are, too.

ANISSA WATSON: Yeah. I've just started actually to learn more about this and recognising the really critical role they play in a healthy, vibrant ecosystem. So, it's like, it's like getting your mind blown. Like, really, when you start to start to dig into the knowledge that fungi hold and the work that they do in our environment. It's really incredible. So, they really are a critical species for us.

SO: And here we thought it was magic mushrooms that only blew our mind. And you've got all these other applications.

ANISSA WATSON: Absolutely.

SO: Thanks, Anissa.

ANISSA WATSON: Yeah, Thank you.

SO: Anissa Watson is director of program Execution with the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition. Coming up after your regional update...

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL HOULIHAN: This mistake has a devastating ripple effect on many, many people involved in this.

JOHN BRENNAN: I understand and...

RACHEL HOULIHAN: No, you need to hear this. We got a positive result, so we put his name on the birth certificate.

JOHN BRENNAN: Yeah.

RACHEL HOULIHAN: It has an effect on the grandparents.

SO: Countless people put their trust in a Canadian company offering paternity tests only to have their lives upended by bad results. Journalist Rachel Houlihan tells the story of her investigation into the DNA company with a pattern of naming the wrong dads. I'm Susan Ormiston and you're listening to The Current. We're back in 90 seconds.

[Music: Theme]

And a DNA lab repeatedly identified the wrong dads

Guests: Rachel Houlihan, Mike Moffatt

SO: I'm Susan Ormiston, and this is The Current. When John Brennan learned the woman he'd been casually seeing was pregnant with his son, he went all in. He pivoted from a carefree college life in Atlanta, Georgia, to buying a house and moving in with the baby's mother.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN BRENNAN: I had the little scissors and cut the umbilical cord and the whole, the whole thing.

SO: John built his life around this baby boy named Travis. He was a father for eight months until all of a sudden, he wasn't. Just after his son's first Christmas, John received a text from Travis's mom.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN BRENNAN: And it's, Hey, sorry, plans have changed. You're not going to see Travis today because he's not your son. Call your lawyer. I'm like, what? What? What do you mean he's not my son?

SO: Travis's mother had decided to take a second paternity test after her relationship with John fell apart. And it revealed that John didn't share a shred of DNA with the baby he loved.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN BRENNAN: How is it that a year ago I'm 99.97% a match to this human? And now, here we are a year later and I'm 0%. And then, all of a sudden, the pieces of the puzzle started coming together. It's like, all right, well, I guess that first test wasn't right.

SO: That first test was done by a company called Prenatal Paternities Inc, which promised clients 99.9% accuracy. John Brennan checked it up. Checked, chalked it up to incredibly bad luck. But years later, he stumbled on a Facebook group filled with others who'd received test results that named the wrong dads. And they all came from the same lab in Toronto. Rachel Houlihan is a journalist with the CBC News Investigative Unit. She co-hosts the newest season of Uncover from CBC Podcasts called Bad Results. Rachel, good morning.

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Good morning.

SO: What happened? Incredible story after John learned that he wasn't Travis's biological father.

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Well, John was completely blindsided. But before he could really process what it all meant, or how the mistake even happened in the first place, lawyers stepped in and they immediately gave him papers to sign away his rights to Travis. So, it was really painful. And, you know, I think that we all recognise that being a father is more than just DNA. And for John, in his heart, he was Travis's father. Even after he got that new paternity test and he spiralled into an incredibly deep, dark depression, also, because it wasn't just him, it was his entire family that had grown to love this little boy. Aunts, uncles, cousins, you know, everyone, especially his own mother. You know, Travis was her first grandchild. Her co-workers had given her a grandma shower. She had a nursery set up in her house and she babysat all the time. But because everything happened so suddenly and, you know, all ties, all contact with Travis, they were severed instantly. So truly, it was like a death in the family.

SO: Yeah, a super tragic story, the way you describe it. How many other people received wrong DNA results from this company?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Well, the Facebook group that John eventually joined, the one for people who'd say they've also gotten wrong prenatal test results, it has about 100 people in it right now. Then, we've also gotten our hands on a separate email list that has another 100 people that say the same thing. So, the scale has the potential to be quite huge. Also, because the company Accu-Metrics started selling the prenatal test back in 2010. So it was, you know, on the market for a while. And they also sold the test internationally. And I've spoken to people who worked at the company, and they say they were expected to send out 5 to 10 prenatal testing kits a shift. So, if I'm really lowballing it, that's roughly a thousand kits a year that just one employee could be sending out. So the question is, of that 1000, how many were wrong? And plus, there are probably people who will listen to this or listen to the podcast and remember that they use this company and might be questioning their results.

SO: And, you know, you and your co-host, Jorge Barrera spoke with dozens of people. Why do people get DNA tests?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: I'd say I mean, everybody's story is different, but there is a very common thread, which is you have someone often that's in a relationship and then, you know, things fall apart and then, they go quickly and have a quick relationship with someone else. They realise they made a mistake and they go back to the other partner and then, they find out they're pregnant. And so, you want to know is: Who, who is the father, right? So, that's one common scenario. There are other more serious cases like sexual assault cases. Also, you know, people that are younger maybe having just multiple partners.

SO: And you spoke to one man, which his story really stuck with you. Tell us.

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Yeah, I, I got an e-mail from a man saying he'd gotten a wrong result, and we lined up a call and we had barely even said hello, and he was just sobbing. And he says to me, I'm sorry. I've just never talked to anyone about this. He was eventually able to get out his story where he told me about how his wife had had an affair. They reconciled, and then she found out she was pregnant. And they did a prenatal paternity test with Accu-Metrics. And he came back as the father, you know, the huge relief to the couple. But years have now passed and the child is now five years old. And he says it's very clear that he's not biologically related to this little boy because his wife is Caucasian and she had an affair with a man who was black. So, he says now it's, it's just so obvious to him that they're not biologically related. And now, he says it doesn't change his love for his son, obviously, in any way. But he says he wonders, when is this little boy going to ask him: "Why don't we look the same? Why don't we match?" And then he wonders, you know, what's he going to tell his son? And what if his son, when he gets older, wants to meet this other man? This other man doesn't even know that this little boy exists. What if the biological father learns of this little boy's existence and wants to be part of the boy's life? All of this is just going to reverberate for years to come, and that is just the case with so many people that we spoke to.

SO: So Rachel, with Accu-Metrics Inc, how were the tests conducted? Like, how might this happen?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: So, I think the first thing: It's really important to understand that this is a real test, just in case anyone's listening and thinking, you know, a prenatal paternity test that sounds like science fiction. It's a real test. And when it's done properly, it's a very accurate test. And what it involves is matching up thousands of DNA kind of data points between the potential father and the unborn baby. And to do that, you need two things. So, you need a mouth swab normally, sort of like how you would do it for an ancestry test kind of thing. You need that from the potential father and then, you need a blood sample from the pregnant woman because the foetal DNA is floating in her blood. And you've got to extract the foetal DNA from the blood. And the way the company collected DNA samples was really inconsistent. Sometimes, a person would come to an individual's home and collect the samples. Sometimes, customers were sent a blood collection tube and they were told to go to a local lab, take that sample, and then package it off into the mail back to the company. But the main method, it seems that Accu-Metrics used was a finger prick home kit. So, the mother would squeeze a few drops of blood into a tube using a little lancet, kind of like a diabetes kit. And this test method is really problematic because experts tell us that it's simply doesn't yield enough blood to even run the test. Now, the industry standard is to use two vials, so four teaspoons. So, you can imagine just a few drops. I mean, there's such a huge difference. And, you know, some people might think, well, it's really obvious that that's not enough blood to run the test. But I'm telling you, we were months into looking into this story before we learned this.

SO: So, going back to that Facebook group that John had joined where he learned he wasn't alone, it has people in it in this group who used Prenatal Paternities Inc and Viaguard Accu-Metrics. Is there a connection? And if so, what connection between these two companies?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: It's the same company. So, they're registered as separate entities and they have separate websites, but they both trace back to the lab here in Toronto. So, you've got Viaguard Accu-Metrics, which has sold all sorts of tests going back to 2010, including the prenatal test, you know, it was on their website, but they also did ancestry testing, dog DNA testing, drug and alcohol testing. I think I could trace 70 different websites all going back to our key metrics. I mean, they offered a huge range of tests.

SO: Dog DNA?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Dog DNA testing, and then Prenatal Paternities Inc was sort of like their, you know, their prenatal division. And it was used strictly to sell the prenatal test. It was sort of like also their international version of the company because they had one website specifically targeting Americans. So a .com. They had one obviously for Canadians, a .ca, they had another focussed on the United Kingdom and they had one focussed on Australians. But all of it is run by just one Canadian, which is Harvey Tenenbaum.

SO: Harvey Tenenbaum, who's he?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: So, he is a 91-year-old entrepreneur. He owns, you know, a multimillion-dollar estate north of Toronto. He's got an indoor pool and a tennis court. He also owns the large commercial building that Accu-Metrics operates out of. He's also, interestingly, a horse racing aficionado. He has owned around 150 horses over the past 20 years, and one horse alone netted him about $1 million. But probably the most relevant and most important thing to talk about is his scientific background or his credentials. You know, he signs some test results as having a Ph.D. and his LinkedIn page also says that he has a Ph.D. in pharmacology from the University of Toronto. But we reached out to the university and asked them to confirm this, and they told us they have no record of a PhD under that name. They could only find a Bachelor of Science from 1958. So, this raises some questions about Harvey's qualifications.

SO: It does. And how does he explain all these allegations of wrong prenatal paternity results?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: I think it's good to first understand what the company sold, you know, what it advertised and why people even trusted this company. It advertised that it was a world leader in this type of test, that they ran each test twice to ensure accuracy. And in this promotional video from YouTube that we're going to listen to, you can hear Harvey Tenenbaum talk about the accuracy of his company's tests.

SOUNDCLIP

HARVEY TENENBAUM: You can have confidence in the results and in the protocols and procedures we use. It's just clinical laboratory work and you are receiving the definitive answer. And the question of the paternity of the foetus.

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Now, that, of course, does not square with what our investigation reveals. And we did send multiple interview requests to Harvey and to his lawyer to find out what he had to say about these inaccurate results. We also sent a detailed list of questions, but we didn't get a reply. We also approached Harvey one afternoon in person as he was leaving the lab at the end of the workday. And in that brief conversation, he said the tests are accurate and that he blamed any errors on customers during sample collection.

SO: Tell me a little bit about the people who worked at the company, because you said you spoke with two former employees who began working at the company's call centre, I think in 2018, and they were a little suspicious about the scripted questions they were required to ask. Let's have a listen to one of them, Sika Richot.

SOUNDCLIP

SIKA RICHOT: Part of the script was to say, can you tell me the date of your last period? Because I think we even had to put it in the form. Harvey showed me the ovulation calendar on Google. It wasn't anything special. It was just like, you put the date that you had sex, the date of your last period, and then it gives you a calculation of round about when you got pregnant. And then you'd say something like, It's likely you tell them who it's likely to be before you've even sent the kit or anything. And like, it's likely to be that person.

SO: What else did Sika tell you about working at that call centre?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Sikka says they were inundated with calls from customers who had questions about their results. And many, like John, often found themselves in custody battles. And when they had to do new court-ordered paternity tests, that's when they would learn that the Accu-Metrics test was wrong. Also, Sika and another employee made it really clear that all those calls about disputed test results would go directly to Harvey.

SO: You also heard from another employee that you don't want to name or can't because he's scared of any association with Viaguard Accu-Metrics would affect his credibility in his current job. But what did he tell you?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: So, this employee's job was to process the packages that came in containing DNA samples from customers. They had to enter customer information into the computer system and then, put the samples into a special container that was supposed to go to the lab downstairs. Well, the former employee says they saw one of Viaguard Accu-Metrics' senior managers, a man named Kyle Tsui, tossed the samples into the garbage without being tested. And Kyle wasn't just any employee. He was the second-in-command at Viaguard. And he's also now a convicted fraudster. He's currently serving a 44-month sentence in an American prison for running a food sensitivity side hustle, completely unrelated to Accu-Metrics. People mailed in hair samples, hoping to have them tested for these sensitivities, but he was just throwing them in the garbage. And around 88,000 people sent in samples. And at eight months, he made about $6 million. And we did ask Kyle through his lawyer about the allegation that he might have also thrown out some paternity samples during his time at Accu-Metrics, but we didn't get a response.

SO: Incredible. So ultimately, during your investigation, you went undercover into Harvey Tenenbaum's Toronto office. What happened?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: We knew what the company said publicly and what it advertised didn't square with what we knew. So, CBC granted me permission to go in posing as a customer needing a paternity test. I knew going in, though, that Accu-Metrics had recently stopped selling the test, but we didn't know why. So, during my conversation with Harvey, I had to kind of make that sort of little segway asking, you know, could I have done this test while I was pregnant? And in his answer, he made a surprising admission. He told me that prenatal tests were, quote, "Never that accurate." And he also specifically referenced a case where the shock of an accurate test was revealed right at the birth of a baby because the skin colours didn't match. And I knew that he was referencing a real case because I've spoken to a woman that, that actually happened to and she sued the company.

SO: So, all of this leads to questions about how the company has been able to operate, what are the regulations around this kind of business?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: I think people will be surprised to learn that there are none. Accu-Metrics sets in a regulatory black hole. So, commercial DNA companies are not regulated in Canada, and it doesn't matter if it's for something fun like finding out, you know, whether or not you're part Irish or if it's for something as serious and potentially life-altering like a prenatal paternity test. We reached out to every single provincial health ministry to see if they had any regulations in place, and they told us to talk to Health Canada. And Health Canada told us to talk to the provinces.

SO: That seems hard to digest. You know, a health test like this doesn't fall under any regulation?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Right. Well, it's, it's because it's not considered a diagnostic test, so that's the first thing. So, figuring out who the father of a child is is not a diagnostic test. And it's also a direct-to-consumer test. So, it's not going through a hospital. It's not going through like a clinic. You know, it's all being sold through the website direct to the consumer. So, Health Canada just, they say it's a provincial matter.

SO: So, what would justice looked like for the former customers you spoke with, and whose lives were really turned upside down by bad results?

RACHEL HOULIHAN: Well, many have expressed interest in suing the company, but that could prove to be very challenging because there's generally a two year statute of limitations in personal injury cases. So, from the moment they realised the test named the wrong father, they had, for the most part, two years to file a claim. But for so many people I spoke with, honestly, they just didn't have the emotional bandwidth to do that. Plus, many had already spent a lot of money on lawyers like John, we talked to at the beginning. He spent $20,000 on lawyers' fees just during the custody battle. So, you know, I don't know what the recourse would be for for many of these people. Some people also think the police should be investigating Accu-Metrics. They call it a, quote, "scam with horrible, personally devastating consequences." And a couple of them have actually called the Toronto police in attempts to file complaints. But we reached out to the Toronto police, and they don't appear to have an open investigation. So, as far as we can tell, it's business as usual for Accu-Metrics.

SO: Thank you, Rachel.

RACHEL HOULIHAN: You're welcome.

SO: Rachel Houlihan is co-host of CBC Podcasts' new season of Uncover: Bad Results. To hear the first episode, go to The Current's podcast feed or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Music: playing]

SO: I'm Susan Ormiston and you're listening to The Current. It's not easy to afford a home these days. Almost everywhere in the country, the cost seems eye-poppingly high, especially for young people trying to buy for the first time. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has a new proposal he says will help. He's promising if he wins the next federal election to remove the GST on all newly-built homes sold for less than $1 million. He says the move would save Canadians tens of thousands of dollars when they sign that mortgage. The Conservative leader says his proposal would prompt more housing, an additional 30,000 homes in Canada next year and each year thereafter. And he says he'll pay for the lost tax revenue in part by axing two Liberal housing programs aimed at cutting red tape and building more infrastructure.

SOUNDCLIP

PIERRE POILIEVRE: Common sense Conservatives will stop giving the money to bureaucrats. Instead, leave it in the pockets of home builders and home buyers.

SO: Mike Moffatt is an economist who specialises in housing. He advises politicians at all levels of government, including in the past, federal Liberals. He is the founding director of the Place Centre, a housing related think tank based at the University of Ottawa. Good morning.

MIKE MOFFATT: Good morning.

SO: You know, anyone who's been shut out of the housing market might be a bit sceptical that this plan or any plan will make a big difference to them. Will it?

MIKE MOFFATT: Well, it will certainly help. There's no one single policy that's going to solve the housing crisis. We need to be doing hundreds of different things. But this will certainly help. There is an existing GST housing rebate, but it hasn't been updated since 1991 and it's basically been eroded away by inflation. So, this should certainly help to, to not have to pay a 5% GST when when you're buying a newly constructed home, that's not only going to make these houses more affordable, but it makes it more attractive to buy a newly constructed home. And that should help increase home building.

SO: But how would it work? I mean, who gets the money?

MIKE MOFFATT: So, it's, the buyer essentially gets the money. And again, we should recognise that this is not a new policy, that the GST new housing rebate already exists, but it hasn't been updated since 1991. Under the current policy that, you, you need to buy a house that's under $450,000 to get any form of rebates, and that rebate is only kind of a small fraction of the GST you pay. And in most part, large parts of the country, you're not going to find a newly constructed home for under $450,000. So this rebate, this existing rebate may as well not exist. So, what the Conservatives are saying is let's increase that amount to $1 million to capture most newly constructed homes. And they're going to make the rebate a full 100%. So you get back any of the GST paid on, on buying a new home. Now, obviously, this, you know, creates the conditions for, you know, new homes to be more attractive. So you might, you know, start to see a little bit of upward pressure on, on prices, you know, because of the increased demands on new homes. But ultimately, it's the buyer who gets it back and that doesn't change. I mean, again, this is not a new policy. This is updating something that's exist--, existed since 1991.

SO: Peter Poilievre is saying, for example, that his proposal would save Canadians $40,000 on an $800,000 house and that 30,000 new homes could be built every year because of this. How accurate are those numbers?

MIKE MOFFATT: Well well, the first one is simple and definitely accurate because there's just 5% of whatever the price is because that's the level of the GST. So 5% of 800,000 is 40,000 on the second one. You know, we haven't done any advanced modelling here yet, but we would we would say that this seems plausible or at least a reasonable estimate that we've estimated past tax change policies, including eliminating the GST on rental pro-- rental construction and this is in the same ballpark. So, I do, I do think this is a reasonable estimate of how many homes will get created. I think a little bit more work needs to be done to get a more exact number. But you know, this is in the ballpark.

SO: So then, there's the question always of how to pay for it. The conservative leader says he'll make up for some of it with increased income tax generated by building more homes. But he says he'll also cut to Liberal programs aimed at speeding up construction of new housing, one aimed at cutting red tape and another at creating infrastructure like water and sewers for new home builds. Here's what the Housing Minister, Sean Fraser, said in response.

SOUNDCLIP

SEAN FRASER: A lot of the red tape has been completely cut to make it easier and faster to build homes. If you want to now go back to municipalities and pull that money out, that would make no sense.

SO: How is cutting those programs a good idea? How well are those programs working, for example?

MIKE MOFFATT: Well, I think we should keep these programs. You know, we need a wartime-like effort in order to bring some balance back to the housing market. We need every every tool possible. I don't think these programs are working as well as they should. For instance, the infrastructure program requires municipalities to freeze development charges. So, taxes on new development. Here in the city of Ottawa, where I am, they have increased development charges twice in the last six months for an increase of about 25% overboard. So, I think there's some problems with these programs that municipalities have largely been ignoring, or at least some municipalities have been ignoring the conditions. But I don't think we should get rid of them entirely. I think we need to reform them. And it does feel a little bit like the Poilievre government is throwing the baby out with the bath water here. These programs need to be reformed, but at the core, they're very good ideas and we need them.

SO: Do you think that the Liberals might take a little bit of this idea and and revamp that 1991 GST rebate or do something in the next few months?

MIKE MOFFATT: Yeah, I'm hopeful that they do. I'd like to see that from all the parties. You know, I think how we solve this crisis is a race to the top when it comes to policies where the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Conservatives all try and outdo each other with more and more bold housing policies. So, absolutely, I would love to see the government say, "Okay, you know what? Mr. Poilievre has a point here. We are going to do something similar on the GST while keeping these other programs intact."

SO: Just in the minute we have left, you know, it's housing is so complex, I don't need to tell you that. Do you think that people waiting for some relief to get into that market, are they going to see any? Will house prices come down, do you think?

MIKE MOFFATT: Yeah, I think we're already starting to see some relief, particularly on the rental markets. You know, the changes that the federal government has made to international student programs have decreased rents and we've actually seen home prices fall in a lot of student neighbourhoods. So, we are seeing some relief, at least in part of the country. But there's a lot more work that we need to do. We've dug such a large hole for ourselves that, yeah, having prices and rents go down 3 or 4% is absolutely helpful. But there's a lot further we need to go.

SO: And just lastly, you know, we mentioned he's talking about $1 million for newly built homes. Does that effectively mean that doesn't work in, you know, Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver, even Calgary?

MIKE MOFFATT: Yeah, I think that is the biggest drawback of this plan, is that it doesn't really work that well in the Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver areas. So, what we've been suggesting is that there should be a phase out where homes between 1 to 1.5 million, they don't necessarily get the full rebate, but they should get something. So, this isn't a perfect plan. And I do think it needs tweaks for the GTA and GVA.

SO: All right, Mike. Thank you very much for walking us through that. Appreciate it.

MIKE MOFFATT: Thank you for having me.

SO: Mike Moffatt is founding director of The Place Centre, a housing related think tank.

SO: That is our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q coming up. I'm Susan Ormiston, sitting in for Matt Galloway and thank you for listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Wednesday, October 30, 2024 Full Transcript

Social Sharing