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 October 6, 2021

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Arguing over what systemic racism means won't help those who face it every day, says political scientist

Guests: Michele Audette, Daniel Beland

SOUNDCLIP

That's one of the things that I want to say to them. I want them to look at me in the eye and tell me, where is my mom? Where did they bury her? I want to... I want to find her.

MATT GALLOWAY: Wendy Mendez survived the Guatemalan Civil War in the 1980s. Her mother did not. In 30 minutes, the story of what her family went through and how a landmark trial there could help provide a roadmap for those seeking the truth about residential institutions here. Also this morning school is in session. covid cases are spreading inside the fight to get more rapid tests into the hands of parents and students. And later, it was a year ago that Montreal's Laurent Duvernay-Tardif shocked the National Football League by skipping a season to work in a long term care home. At the height of covid.

SOUNDCLIP

I don't think I could have gone through balancing football with medicine for the past eight years if I didn't love what I was doing on both sides medicine, I know I'm going to be able to practise it for the next 30 40 years. Football, when it's over, it's over.

MG: Now, back with his team, he's here to talk about the power of public health, promoting the benefits of vaccines to his sceptical team-mates and planning for life after football. We start, though, in Quebec with the thorny issue of systemic racism in La Belle province. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Joyce Echaquan died in a Joliette, Quebec hospital on September 28, 2020. Yesterday, Quebec Coroner Gihane Kamel held back tears at a press conference. She said that if Joyce had been white instead of indigenous, she thinks she would still be alive.

SOUNDCLIP

From the first minutes of her arrival at the hospital, Madame Echaquan was infantilized and treated as a drug addict. The care offered to Madame Echaquan was prejudiced. Consciously or unconsciously. Some people offered harsh words in her presence. Others were silent witnesses, and some endorsed what was said by doing nothing.

MG: The findings of Jihan, Carmelo's enquiry were based in part on the videos filmed by Joyce Echaquan herself as she lay in a hospital bed and repeatedly asked for help from the nurses and hospital staff. The report is now calling for action from the provincial government.

SOUNDCLIP

My recommendation to ensure that no other deaths occur in a similar context and to protect human life, man, I recommend that the government of Quebec recognise the existence of systemic racism within our institutions and make a commitment to contribute to its elimination.

MG: For Carol Dubé, those words were both validation and a call to arms. He was Joyce Echaquan's husband.

SOUNDCLIP

[French speech]

MG: He says to see in this report the proof of what our hearts knew comforted us a bit. Our healing will also come through hope that other families like ours will never have to live what we lived. Joyce is dead because she was indigenous. She was a mother to seven wonderful children. Justice for Joyce. Clearly for Carol Dubé and many others, justice means more than just one enquiry. Joining me now is Senator Michele Audette. She's Innu from Quebec and attended the coroner's enquiry in support of Joyce Echaquan's family. Senator, good morning.

MICHELE AUDETTE: Good morning to you.

MG: Carol Dubé and the coroner both said that Joyce died because she was indigenous. From your perspective, how important is it to have that finding made public?

MICHELE AUDETTE: It's so important because for so long, so many indigenous babies or kids were hospitalised here in Quebec and never came home after either the church or the government didn't give them the answer of what they die and how and why they never came back home. And also, it happened in that same family and happened also in that same hospital. So some will say it's not new. But still every day when I hear a tragic story like this one, I'm shocked. I'm devastated, but I have to stand up and walk beside the family and this is what I'm trying to do with the Echaquan and Dubé family.

MG: And you've been doing that over the course of the past year. What's your sense as to how the family is holding up now?

MICHELE AUDETTE: Well, they're very exhausted. To be honest, they're very strong at the same time. And I think they hope that the society will remind the Premier Legault that if his definition is not what they're living on a daily basis on, you know, every day, even before the tragic the death of their wife or mother. We have so many examples to share to the Premier that if he's using the rubber, you know, definition that it comes from the top and goes to the bottom. Well, the national enquiry, I hope you read it. I know the family read part of it. And if you read also the National Enquiry Quebec report where we talk about the stolen babies that never came back. Maybe he will understand how we live this every day.

MG: This definition that you mentioned is the definition of systemic racism, and that's something that the Premier still denies the existence of in your province. Let's hear just briefly part of his response to the coroner's report. Take a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

What happened to Mrs. Echaquan is terrible, and it's unacceptable. So I do agree. The only place where I don't agree is when we say that there's a system. Because for me, a system is coming from upstairs, coming from the top people. And I don't see this in the health care network, for example.

MG: This morning, Quebec's minister of indigenous affairs said that action is more important than words. But senator, how do you understand this, this semantic debate and a refusal by the premier and his ministers, presumably to admit the existence of systemic racism in Quebec?

MICHELE AUDETTE: Well, for me, since last night, I said to myself, I started to write to some indigenous amazing person across Quebec saying, Why don't we do what happened in 2015 with rock the vote? The Indigenous nations across Canada for the first time, they voted because they wanted to change. So why don't we do something that could be the same here? Not saying you have to vote this political party exactly, but rock the vote. If we are asking a Quebec government to accept a definition and to apply this definition or principle in their laws or rules and procedure and programme and, you know, services, then I'm going to vote. Personally, I know I'm going to do that. And when I hear a premier saying this, I think deep inside knowing the person also, I'm sure he knows what we're talking about. Just go back. Let's go back to the the the voices of the indigenous women in Val d'Or when they denounce it. What the F you were doing to them or imposing or, you know, all that, that the unacceptable thing that they had to go through.

MG: That's the police, the police force in Quebec.

MICHELE AUDETTE: Thank you. Sorry about that. Yes. And the state, the government denied that the institution denied. So it was at the top, top, top level. Many police officers or people were saying something is wrong. We have to do something. Well, it it needed to have CBC Francophone to to have a- I want to I don't want to say a show, I don't know what we see in English.

MG: An investigation

MICHELE AUDETTE: An investigation. Thank you. Then we had images. We had voices and then we said, Oh my God, it's happening here. Same with Joyce. Can you imagine how many of indigenous people went to the hospital, same across Canada? It did happen before that, here also in Quebec. But because we didn't turn on our cell, we were treated or people presume we were a drug addict or alcoholic and this and this and that. So for me, when the status quo, something we denounced in the national enquiry, when the institution or the government key in the inaction, how do we say doesn't act? Well, the coroner yesterday mentioned that it is a fact. The government didn't act, the the Joliette hospital didn't act. So it's a way that goes through that definition where we seem to have a strong or a sad debate. But for me, SQ Surete Du Quebexis an example, but also the enquiry of Commissioner Viens, who is a white Quebecois, who said in the words that I'm sure the Premier understand it is happening in Quebec. Let's not deny.

MG: Let me bring in another voice into our conversation. Daniel Beland is a professor of political science and director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. Daniel, good morning to you.

DANIEL BELAND: Good morning.

MG: Help us understand this. More broadly, the senator has been talking about what she sees and what she has experienced in Quebec. What do you think is behind the premier's reluctance to accept the term systemic racism as it applies to your province?

DANIEL BELAND: When I think there are two things, the first thing is that the first time he heard that term, systemic racism, and that was a long time ago, he just rejected it off the bat. And now he doesn't want to contradict himself and recognize that there is systemic racism in Quebec because he rejected that term even before he came up with his own definition of it, which is a bit [unintelligible] and it's certainly problematic. But there is another I think deeper reason is that - and he said that yesterday at the press conference. He said that one of his legacies as a premier will be to make sure that Quebecsdz are proud of themselves, they are proud of Quebec. And as he said last week on the floor of the National Assembly,[French speech], The Quebec nation is open, it is not too racist, end of quote. And so what it means here is that for him, if you want to be, you cannot recognise systemic racism and be proud of Quebec at the same time, which is again something that can be contested. If you look at Quebec right now, the two main opposition parties, the Liberals and Quebec Solidaire, Quebec's Solidaire which is a nationalist, the sovereignist party, they recognize the existence of systemic racism, and there is a Leger poll that came out last week 66 per cent of Quebec has recognised the existence of systemic racism. So the premier here, it's his position, but it's not the position, it seems, of the majority of of Québécois and of other major parties in Quebec. So I think that he's struggling facing questions, tough questions from journalists and not just Anglophone, but Francophone journalism to defend this position. And you know, the press conference was a bit hard to watch.

MG: He pulled up his dictionary, that Petit Robert dictionary, and drew his definition from that. I mean, help me understand that. Why would he use that dictionary and why would he get stuck on that word, systemic?

DANIEL BELAND: The truth of the matter is that they are series of definitions of systemic racism that exist in Canada and in Quebec, more specifically. So the Human Rights Commission in Quebec as the definition that's very sophisticated and that is often the definition that Gehane Kamel, the coroner used. And so but The Premier said, Oh, it's not my definition. I have my own definition. And then he uses this, you know, it's like a general French language dictionary that all people know, Petit Robert and he takes a word, so the definition of systemic. And then he puts his own spin on the definition. And so it sounds really arbitrary. And frankly, it is.

MG: The coroner said yesterday that saying systemic racism exists doesn't mean all Quebeckers are racist. Is there a fear, I mean, you've hinted at this, but is that a sentiment that people worry about that if you acknowledge the existence of systemic racism, then that blankets the entire province, tars the entire province?

DANIEL BELAND: Well, some people certainly believe that's probably the Premier does, and some people on the on the some right wing intellectuals and columnists do think that this is the case. I do not share that view, and many Quebecers don't agree with this. And you know, even if you you love or you like your society or you're proud of your society, you can recognise that there is a dark side to it and and that, you know, racism is something that is institutionalized, that it's something that is baked in, something that has been around for a long time. And the Premier does recognise that and even said yesterday that residential schools, they were an example of systemic racism, but that there is no longer systemic racism in Quebec today. So you can see that he's, you know, is moving in the direction of recognising the existence of systemic racism he doesn't say doesn't exist because it doesn't exist in Quebec today, but it existed in the past. But he faces a lot of criticisms and he struggles really to defend this position when asking on many, many occasions. It's been a long time that journalists have been asking about this and other people in Quebec and resorting to using it a common French language dictionary and then come up with your own definition and saying openly that you are aware that there are other definitions that we're formulated by experts in the field, like people at the Human Rights Commission of Quebec, which is a public body in your province. And you say, No, I will come up with my definition. And he didn't say that people who use a different definition are wrong. He said, Well, we don't agree. I have my definition, they have theirs. And you know this is something that's quite problematic.

MG: Senator, you mentioned young indigenous people. What message do you think it sends to young indigenous people in your province when a conversation about a tragic death descends into semantics?

MICHELE AUDETTE: There's many messages here again, ah, it's not my government anyway, ah, why should I bother? I know I live, I taste or I can touch this racism that we're facing, you know, it could be very, oh my god, not again. Or. Yeah, seriously. Well, I'll stand up and I'll use my capacity to vote and and rock the vote. Because if you disagree with something, well, we have too many example or too many fact because this coroner enquiry brought again and again fact of it is happening here in Quebec, and I'll use my vote. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's something I think we really need to consider. Because if he thinks that we cannot shake his base or his way of thinking, at the end of the day, yes, it's important that we do interview or we do educate or we do advocate. But at the end of the day, they're the one making the final decision where I go back to who is at the top of that system. It's the premier. So if he doesn't want to change how the system act or react on us or inaction on us, well, I'm concerned.

MG: The Coroner said that in not addressing systemic racism and acknowledging it in her words, we're missing an historic opportunity. Do you think, senator, that the government can actually tackle the huge problems that are in front of it coming out of this enquiry, coming out of the Vien Commission a couple of years ago, without actually accepting the fact that systemic racism exists?

MICHELE AUDETTE: It will help any action, any initiative. And I I see it to them. I say it publicly. I salute them. It's very important. But when we don't accept the principle of this or that is existing, I will create - let's say I'm the government, I will put in place policy or program, not thinking that the system is not in favour in you. I'll think you're all equal when it's not the case. Because nothing forced me to relook how I do things with and for indigenous people.

MG: Daniel, just in the last couple of minutes that we have, what is this really about?

DANIEL BELAND: Well, I think it's really about the definition of of really what we should do to address a major problem. And the premier, you recognise, you recognise the fact that yesterday again, that there is racism in Quebec and that it has to be addressed. But he doesn't want to go a step further. And I think it's a lot of this battle is about words, but it's also about political will. And just fighting over words I think has become detrimental to addressing the real problem. And I think that we need to move beyond that and to really work together with indigenous peoples and with racialized minorities and other groups in Quebec and with the the majority of Quebecers to say we are proud of of of Quebec as a society, but we have a lot of challenges to face and it's our duty to make our society better, to improve our society. And in order to improve our society, we need to fight systemic racism.

MG: Do you see him moving off of that position? I mean, again, his minister of Indigenous Affairs this morning suggests that that action is more important than than words.

DANIEL BELAND: Well, both are important. Symbols, words matter. We know that, but certainly I hope that the Quebec government will take the measures recommended to buy a Gehane Kamel, the coroner in the report, which I think is excellent and that people should read. But the first recommendation is to actually recognise a systemic racism because I think that The Coroner also acknowledges the fact that the words matter.

MICHELE AUDETTE: If I can add something just briefly.

MG: Yes, go ahead.

MICHELE AUDETTE: Sorry about that, Daniel. A good example about Minister [unintelligible], where it's the first time I see a minister very in action. It's true. But let's go back to Surete du Quebec when they were wearing those orange bracelets in solidarity with the police officer who were removed from their job. For many, many, many months, the national enquiry, myself, other family members across Quebec ask and urge the Quebec government and the SQ, please tell your staff or your people to remove the bracelet. Words were important. Remove the bracelet. They didn't do it. It took too long.

MG: It's great to speak with you both about this. This is an issue that a lot of people are trying to wrap their heads around. I appreciate you walking us through your perspectives on this. Thank you very much.

DANIEL BELAND: Thank you.

MICHELE AUDETTE: Thank you.

MG: Senator Michele Audette, in-you from Quebec, served as commissioner of the enquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. Daniel Belanger, a professor of political science and director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, will be fascinated to hear from people from Quebec in particular on this. You can email us at thecurrent@cbc.ca. The CBC News is next. We're back in six minutes with a story of a Guatemalan civil war. One Canadian woman's testimony at a trial there and the effects that could have here in Canada. That's coming up.

Back To Top »

Survivors of Guatemala's civil war one step closer to justice

Guests: Wendy Mendez, Kate Doyle

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come like thousands of other medical grads across this country, Laurent Duvernay-Tardif stepped up when the pandemic hit. He volunteered in a care home outside of Montreal. What was quite remarkable about this story, though, is what he gave up to be there. He stepped away from his starting position as an offensive lineman for the Kansas City Chiefs in the National Football League. This year, he's back with the team and he'll join me in a little over 30 minutes to talk about how his perspective has changed. But first to Guatemala, where the ghosts of a war that's been over for decades are finally getting their time in court.

[Music: Theme]

MG: In 1984, Wendy Mendez's mother was taken by the Guatemalan military and her family never saw her again. She was one of thousands of people labelled enemies of the state during that country's civil war. Their true crimes were being leftists and union organisers at a time when the fear of communism was at its peak. It has taken decades, but now some of the soldiers accused of atrocities are on trial in a Guatemalan court. Wendy Mendez dedicated her life to fighting for justice, for her mother, for herself and others, and she's getting ready to testify at that trial. She joins me now from her home in Vancouver and just a warning. Some of the details in this story are disturbing. Wendy, good morning.

WENDY MENDEZ: Good morning.

MG: Tell me about your mother.

WENDY MENDEZ: My mom was a very beautiful person. She had studied to become a teacher initially and later on in her university years. She was very much involved in the university newspaper, speaking and writing about what was happening in Guatemala around organising communities. And so she she was always very active. She was also quite the person that was very disciplined. You know, my bed had to be made every morning. She was quite loving. And so, you know, I miss her a lot, actually.

MG: And I know that you have, as I mentioned, dedicated a lot of time and energy to her memory and fighting for justice for her. This is difficult. And so say what you say and say, which you're comfortable in saying. But tell us if you can. What happened on the 8th of March 1984?

WENDY MENDEZ: That day I was coming home from school. I was nine years old at the time. And instead of finding my mom at home, I found around 12 soldiers, as well as people dressed in civilians, which turned out to be intelligence officials in my home. And so they had raided our house. At the time, I didn't realise that my mom was there, hidden in one of the rooms. When I walked into my home, I began to be interrogated by one of these military officials wanting to know what my mom's name was, which I responded, Mom, when my dad's name was and I would just say, dad, they were kind of angry about this, and a lot of the information that they wanted was around who they knew where they were, what time they were coming home, etc. And because we didn't, you know, I didn't really have any of that information or wouldn't provide that to them, they were quite angry about that. I remember that one moment my mom does come out of the one of the rooms where she was being held and as a way to force her to tell or to speak or to know, to say who knows what kind of information these military officials tortured her in front of me. This is something that I will never forget. It's an image that has stuck in my head ever since I saw the way that one of these military officials pulled her nails out in front of me and I was forced to see. Of course, you know, there's more things you can just imagine a torture session. And so these are things that I remember at the time thinking, I'm going to record the face of this person in my mind. And when I am older, I will return to bring about justice for my mom and for what had happened.

MG: And you were nine years old.

WENDY MENDEZ: Yes, I was nine years old at the time. And of course, I knew that there was a war happening in the country. This was something that had been going on for decades by the time that I was born, and I understood that there was a lot of violence against people that were speaking out against a government. Anyone that was opposed to the authoritarian governments that were or the military dictatorships that were happening in the country were seen as enemies of the state.

MG: You were in that house. Your mother is there in, as you mentioned, obvious distress and in an appalling situation. How did you get out of that? I mean, what was the circumstances that that got you released?

WENDY MENDEZ: So there was a moment during this whole ordeal where I was forced to eat bananas that had already been peeled. I suspect that they drug me somehow. And after that, a lot of my memories are just like a bit of, I don't know, pieces of a puzzle, you know, photos that come in and out. And there is a moment where I am taken with my mom to a police station or a secret police station detention centre. And this is the last time that I see her. I see her there. The next thing that I remember is waking up in my home, waking up in my home and realising that they're no longer inside the house or around the neighbourhood. And after that being taken by my family members in different vehicles towards where one of my grandmothers lived and living there for around a year and a half with her until I was allowed to and given permission to be here in Canada as a political refugee.

MG: You went back to Guatemala in 1999. When you went back, what happened?

WENDY MENDEZ: So the peace treaties had already been signed in Guatemala in December of 1996, and after that I felt that maybe there was a little bit of hope too for me to return. Until that moment, I didn't know my Spanish was really bad. I didn't know much of the history of Guatemala or my own personal history. And ever since my mom was abducted and disappeared, I always had many questions around who she was and what had happened to her. And so in '99, I decided to return to Guatemala to look for her. Up until now, I thought that she was a political prisoner. I thought that if she was being accused of something or some sort of crime, that maybe she had been detained and she was in some jail somewhere, as a political prisoner. Of course, once I returned to Guatemala, I realised that that didn't happen. There weren't political prisoners in Guatemala during the war. On the contrary, there was like forty five thousand people that were abducted and disappeared. And so I slowly began to meet other people that had also had a similar experience as myself. And that particular surge began once the military diary was made public. I returned two weeks before the military diary became public, which was it was an odd coincidence. A lucky coincidence, I suppose. I realised then that it was important for me to become organised, that I had to tell my story, that this was a good opportunity for me and others to begin our healing process.

MG: This is the military diaries, this leaked document that I mentioned in the introduction. What is it?

WENDY MENDEZ: So this military diary or that's squad dossier is a document that was elaborated by the military intelligence during the dictatorship of Gen. Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores so from 1983 to 1985. And I guess they kept a log of all the work that they were doing to present to theirboss, how well they were doing in their counterinsurgency, I suppose. This document has entries with information on, for example, my mom, a photograph of her. It state, the date that she was abducted March 8th, 1984. And it also has a note at the bottom written, handwritten, that says on May 2nd of that year, she was moved to another area to another section. So like that, like that entry, there's others whose photos appear on there, whose names appear on there as well, as well as their supposed pseudonyms and what organisation they belong to. And in some cases, codes that say whether they were extrajudicially executed or moved to another military base let's say.

MG: What was it like to see your mother's photo in this leaked document?

WENDY MENDEZ: At first, it was quite terrifying because I realised that the surveillance that she had had and maybe all of her family had had had gone on for quite some time. And this was just a report of the end of that, reporting that they had finally abducted her and detained her. On another hand, I also felt a lot of anger because the photograph that is there, I don't have that photograph. That photograph doesn't belong to our family. I'm not really sure where they obtained it. Maybe from an I.D. or a passport, I don't really know. And so up until then, you know, for me, the photographs of my mom or even just anything that belonged to her were these treasures that I found. Because in her family, no one ever spoke about my mom again. No one ever spoke about the fact that she had been disappeared. One of my other uncles was also disappeared. Another one was killed later.

MG: What do youy mean nobody spoke about it?

WENDY MENDEZ: It was just too painful. And you know, at that age, I was always asking about her, especially my teen years. I was always asking about her. You know, what was she like? When was her birthday? You know, can we light up a candle for her? And the family never really talked about it on the one hand, because it was too painful to remember what had happened. And on the other hand, also because it was dangerous to speak about the disappeared, to tell the story about a family member that is disappeared could mean that they could come for you. And it was really difficult for me to find information around her. And so, you know, I would sneak into my dad's stuff or my grandmother's stuff to see if I could find a photo of her or a letter. I don't know something, news clippings, you know anything. And so to find that photograph there that they had, for me, I just felt really angry because it was something, like another treasure that they were taking from us.

MG: That word disappeared, I mean, has such power. These people are just, they just vanished, taken without really any idea as to where they go, what may have happened to them. One of the things that this diary has done is it's helped lead survivors and some of the families of the victims to mass graves around the country, where perhaps some of the victims of the state may have ended up, and I know that you've been on on some of those journeys as well as the sites have been exhumed and some of the bodies have been exhumed. Tell me a little bit about that and why it's important for you to be part of that.

WENDY MENDEZ: Well, the first time that I participated in an exhumation was close to the military base in [unintelligible] side of Guatemala City, and I remember that, you know, the instructions for us were dig two metres below, and if you don't find any changes in the soil or in the, you know, the Earth that is there, then move over a little a few steps over and then start again. And I remember at the time when I was there, we didn't find anything in the particular place that we were looking for. However, years later, they were able to find six people that are documented in this dossier were found in that military base. In other cases, for example, like in the military base of [unintelligible] military base on twenty one, there many people have been found. Their communities and family members are sometimes allowed to go and see the actual exhumation process, lighting candles, doing a lot of the healing and spiritual work that needs to be done when those things are taking place and observing what is happening. And sometimes, as the person is being uncovered slowly being uncovered by these forensics teams, you're able to begin to see the clothing that they were wearing. And in some cases, you know, there would be a family member that would just start bawling their eyes out because they would have recognised the blouse. Or they may have recognised the last, you know, pieces of clothing that their family members were wearing when they last saw them.

MG: It's so chilling to think about.

WENDY MENDEZ: It is very scary, but at the same time, very comforting in the way that you're being returned to the family member that you're missing. And so I think the recognising for a lot of the family members that now the bones that you're looking at are the family member that you remember. It's very difficult to do that.

MG: Twelve former members of the Guatemalan military are now on trial. This began in September, and they're charged with torture and murder and forced disappearance. What does that mean to you?

WENDY MENDEZ: Oh, many things. I think one of the strongest feelings that I have about this is just joy because I can't believe that after over 20 years and actually 37n years since the events took place, that we're finally bringing them to justice. It is also very healing to begin to see the trial. This is something that I dreamt about for a long time that an actual court with a real judge and you know, the whole the whole thing, right, is actually taking place. And it's something that our parents or family members that were disappeared never had. They never had the opportunity to be brought in front of a judge and tried for whatever crimes that they're supposed to be accused of.

MG: And you're going to you're going to be part of this. You will testify at the trial in the new year.

WENDY MENDEZ: Yes, I will be one of the persons that is testifying as one of the witnesses because I was there during the abduction of my mother.

MG: What do you think that will be like to stand in that court in front of the people who are accused of these crimes?

WENDY MENDEZ: Well, I've been thinking about that, and I'm going to need to bring something to squish in my hands because, you know, sometimes when I'm hearing the public hearings through online because they're being, you know, we're I'm seeing it from Vancouver, right, online, you know, my body just wants to shake. I want to be there. You know, I'm really nervous and anxious about it. And then I feel very happy of the fact that the truth is finally coming out and that they're sitting there forced to listen to the things and the atrocities that they've done. And so I think on the one hand is, is that right? I think it's going to be very emotional. But at the same time, I'm not really sure how that's going to work because of covid. You know, we never really thought that if we ever reached this trial that there was going to be a pandemic taking place. And so that's that's something that I'm not really sure how to organise around that. And I think it's going to be very, very powerful in terms of having the people that I remember sitting there and being able to speak to them, being able to to ask them if there's any ounce of compassion in them to please tell us where our family members finally are.

MG: And is that what you feel? Is that what you'll say to them?

WENDY MENDEZ: That's one of the things that I want to say to them. Definitely. I want them to look at me in the eye and tell me, Where is my mom? Where did they bury her? I want to, I want to find her.

MG: Is that what justice looks like for you? I mean, given what you've gone through, given what your mother went through and the questions that you still have about her knowing where where she is, is that justice to you?

WENDY MENDEZ: I think that's one part of justice. An important part of the of this process, of course, is for us to obtain or for them to be sentenced, to be sentenced for the crimes that they committed. So we're talking about crimes against humanity and forced disappearances. For them to be sentenced accordingly for what they did. And another part of the justice that we're searching for is to find our family members for them to be returned to us. Another piece of that is also for stories to be told. For me, that is social justice, because one of the policies that these governments have had is that of forgetting for us to totally have amnesia about whatever happened during the war. And we cannot do that without a form of justice is for us to continue remembering what took place, to signify all of those atrocities into something positive, right? And saying that, you know, the best way of remembering the people that were killed and disappeared during the war is to continue that struggle for social transformation and justice in the country.

MG: I wish you strength. It will be difficult, but it's incredibly important as well, and I'm really glad to have the chance to talk to you about the work that you're doing. Wendy, thank you.

WENDY MENDEZ: Thank you very much for the opportunity to have this interview.

MG: Wendy Mendez's mother, was killed in the Guatemalan Civil War. Kate Doyle has been listening in. She's a senior analyst of U.S. Policy in Latin America at the National Security Archive and one of the first people outside of the Guatemalan military to see the military diary. Kato, good morning to you.

KATE DOYLE: Good morning, Matt.

MG: You've been working with these documents for 20 years now, more than 20 years when you listen to Wendy Mendez and her story. I mean, how common is that compared to what other people went through in that civil war?

KATE DOYLE: Unfortunately, Matt, there are, as far as we know, documented 200,000 people that were killed during the civil conflict in Guatemala and some 40 to 45 thousand of them were disappeared. And so, as Wendy pointed out, that leaves 45000 family members who have never had the chance to learn the fate of their beloved ones have never had the chance to face the people who did this in court or any kind of setting. So Wendy, sadly, is not alone in Guatemala amongst people who have experienced this kind of loss.

MG: Tell me more about this military diary. I mean, what seems to be unique about this story? It's appalling and chilling and awful what Wendy and her family went through, but the fact that this was being documented is another matter entirely. So what do we know about the diary itself?

KATE DOYLE: Well, the diary is one of many, many, many millions of documents that have slowly come to light in Guatemala. Yes, the military diary was leaked to someone and eventually made it into my hands to bring out of the country and to make public. Because even in 1999, the trepidation inside Guatemala was so great that I think people felt they could not keep that document there. It is very unusual and very powerful.

MG: What role did the United States play in what was happening in Guatemala in the 1980s?

KATE DOYLE: The United States was one of the great backers and supporters of the Guatemalan regimes beginning in 1954, when the Eisenhower administration, through the CIA and the embassy in Guatemala supported, promulgated, promoted a military coup against the elected president at that time, Jacobo Arbenz. The U.S. began a project to build an intelligence heavy Guatemalan military. We hoard tens of millions of dollars into helping construct a military intelligence apparatus, support the army itself, train officers arm the institutions and most, I think, troublingly taught how intelligence operations targeting what we're known as enemies of the state could be carried out, and that directly led to the first cases of forced disappearance that we know of in Guatemala.

MG: What do you think then given, what Wendy was talking about what justice looks like. Is there the possibility that the United States would be held accountable for its role in this in terms of what unfolded in Guatemala?

KATE DOYLE: I think given U.S. power, given the absolute refusal of the United States government today and then to acknowledge the sort of criminal dimensions of what we participated in, it's very unlikely U.S. officials would be held to account in a court of law. I feel it is our greatest mission to at least bring about a kind of historical accountability to reveal what happened, to allow people like Wendy to speak, to shine a light. Obviously, not only on what happened to Wendy's mother and many other victims, but how the United States participated in the creation of this murderous apparatus.

MG: Let me ask you just briefly about historical accountability in this country and the importance of records like this. You testified during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission here in Canada. What role do you see documents playing in a process of reconciliation when a country has gone through something as traumatic as what happened with residential institutions here or a civil war in Guatemala?

KATE DOYLE: I look at the discovery and publication of historical records about past human rights atrocities as another kind of exhumation. Wendy spoke really movingly about the experience for her to actually attend an exhumation and experience of other family members when confronted with the remains of loved ones that they haven't seen in 20, 25, 30 years. That is one incredibly powerful component of what opening these cases can do for people. Return the body, allow a mourning process and a burial. I actually look at the process of uncovering archives about the past in similar ways. You finally get to see a confirmation of something that you've believed for decades. When you see records emerging from an archive that has been secret for so many years and you see the name of your former sweetheart, your daughter, your brother in these records, named as people who were hunted down, captured and trapped, whether in the secret detention facility or in a residential school. And you see the words set down there by the authorities about your loved one. I mean, I think that can be as powerful as finding the remains of your family member. So I see it as a kind of exhumation and an equally important part of this process.

MG: Kate Doyle, it's good to speak with you about this. The work that you're doing is fascinating. Thank you very much.

KATE DOYLE: Thanks. Appreciate it.

MG: Kate Doyle is a senior analyst of U.S. Policy in Latin America at the National Security Archive in Washington and one of the first people outside of the Guatemalan military to see the military diary. Your regional update is next and then, a conversation about testing and covid in schools and the conversation as well about football, long term care and a journey from being an offensive lineman in the NFL to a doctor. All of that to come on The Current. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

The pros and cons of rapid testing in schools

Guests: Dr. Barry Pakes

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. It has been a nerve wracking back-to-school season for parents, students and teachers everywhere. Children under 12 are still not cleared to get the COVID vaccine and a month in, there have been outbreaks in classrooms, and some provinces are turning to rapid testing. Ontario announced a new plan this week. Quebec has been testing since September. Alberta is asking for six million rapid tests to be sent home with parents of unvaccinated children. And now parents in British Columbia and New Brunswick are saying they want their provinces to follow suit. Dr. Barry Pakes is with the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health Dr. Good morning.

DR. BARRY PAKES: Good morning, Matt. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. When does it make most sense to use rapid testing in schools?

DR. BARRY PAKES: So, you know, it's a challenging question. It's something we've addressed a number of times, you know, throughout the last year and a half. And when it makes sense for this screening tool, the rapid test is when you've got a certain percentage of the population of these unvaccinated kids that do have COVID, so that the tests are actually getting more more good than harm. Potentially if our if our goal is to keep kids in school and that what that means is that we want to make sure that when we're testing, we're actually finding those true positive cases and not testing absolutely everybody in the province. All, you know, two million kids in Ontario, you know, if we were to do that, we would definitely be keeping more kids out of school than keeping them in.

MG: OK, help me understand that. Why not? I mean, do you have parents who - this is across the country - who have been pushing for kind of regular surveillance testing of all students in all schools? What's wrong with that idea?

DR. BARRY PAKES: So, you know, it's really just about the kind of tests that this rapid test is, and the test dynamics, which is it's something that people are getting a little more familiar with but it is hard to understand. And to be honest, we've got many parents, physician parents who've been advocating this, you know, as we know for quite some time. The problem is that when you test thousands upon thousands, millions of kids who haven't been exposed to COVID, who don't have symptoms, it's very unlikely that any one of them is going to be positive. It is more likely that they will actually have a false positive. And when you have those false positives and you're in an unvaccinated class, you may have to send the whole class home. And in fact, that's going to be pretty disruptive. So the key to the Ontario programme that was announced the other day yesterday is that, you know, it really needs to be targeted to places where we think that there is a higher risk that there may be low vaccine coverage and that it is going to be really beneficial to find those kids who are positive at earliest.

MG: So in schools that are located in areas that have a high number of cases but have low vaccination rates, you think that this is this is a good way to get a sense as to what's actually happening in those schools?

DR. BARRY PAKES: So it is a good way to get a sense of what's happening in the schools overall. Again, this is not a testing programme, it's really a surveillance program. And so we can get a sense overall of what's going on. But what it doesn't do is necessarily help us make decisions in specific situations. So it really is about how it gets deployed and we're figuring out that right now. And of course, there's the challenge in terms of how is this are going to actually be done. The schools are dealing with a lot right now and putting this burden on the schools and delivering them and on the public health units of deciding where to deploy them and also how to manage the results. You know, it is complicated and we want to really make sure that it's again, it's more benefit than harm.

MG: In the scenarios where you see these tests rolling out in the best case is the goal to keep kids in school or is the goal to get a sense as to what's happening more broadly in the community?

DR. BARRY PAKES: Obviously, the goal is to keep kids in school, I think that's been stated goal. We do have a pretty good sense of what's happening around the province right now. People who are symptomatic, they're getting kids at least are getting screened out of school and they're being asked to go for testing. So we are getting a sense, I think this programme is about using this tool appropriately, and it's also about responding to parents and potentially schools that are concerned and think that this may help, and it's about helping them make sure that we can do it in the most appropriate way.

MG: I guess the point is sort of how do schools use that information that they get from these tests to handle it outbreak? We're seeing a fourth wave sweeping across the country more extreme in certain parts than others. So how would schools then take this information that's gathered through this surveillance?

DR. BARRY PAKES: Well, what's going to happen is if if a child tests positive on the surveillance testing, then they're going to go for PCR testing. And if they are, if they're positive, obviously, then we're going to have to dismiss the class. And it is still an open question that we're dealing with at the local public health level, whether we're going to consider a child who tests positive on a rapid test as a probable case, meaning we have to dismiss everybody or whether we're going to wait for that definitive test. And then there's, of course, the question of what happens if that child or that family decides not to go for definitive testing. So there's still a couple of questions to be worked out, and that's what's going on right now in public health circles.

MG: The programme in Ontario will give the test kits to parents. In Quebec, they're testing students in the schools themselves. Which one is more effective?

DR. BARRY PAKES: Yes, so that's a really important point. And you know, they are very different. So with any screening programme, it's not just about the tests by any means, it's how you deploy it. You know who is going to be tested. So in Quebec, where you're testing in schools, where it's not going to be something that's going to be dependent on the parents both doing it themselves and agreeing to it which which may be a little bit more tricky. It's much more of a screening, a population wide screening approach, which is going to be probably more effective. In Ontario, we have the the issue with the programme as it's conceived now as has always been the case, the people who are more vigilant, the parents who are more vigilant about their children's interactions generally. They're more anxious about COVID and in many times, understandably so. They're going to be the ones that are both protecting their children from exposure as well as being more enthusiastic about testing. So if those people on the other end of the spectrum were a little less vigilant are not going to want their kids to be tested. You're going to miss a lot of those cases. So you know, when you have it voluntary, when you have it done at home, it's different. I'm not going to call it better or worse, but we need to sort of construct the programme around the parameters that the government has given us.

MG: What about in the prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, increasingly Manitoba, where there's a real surge in cases? Do you think that having these tests in schools could help their keep kids in the school?

DR. BARRY PAKES: Certainly, the higher the prevalence is in the population, the more likely it is that these tests are going to be effective. So, every province, every even local jurisdiction is going to be somewhat different. I think that's what we've learnt from this pandemic is while we we have these general sort of principles it's really hyper local when it comes to managing. But certainly, it's possible that those would be helpful in a place like Alberta or Saskatchewan. I think in a low burden place, potentially like B.C. and even in, well, in Ontario itself. It's not really clear cut that this is going to be important for us. It certainly isn't going to be a game changer. I think we need to continue to recognise that vaccines are the game changer. If we can get an extra five to seven percent of families vaccinated, then then their children who are unvaccinated are not going to bring the infection into schools. And that really is the most important way and the most effective way to keep kids in-person learning.

MG: Well, just finally, in the last minute or so that we have, I mean, you've hinted at this, but what would you say to those parents, not just in B.C. and in New Brunswick, but parents across the country who see some of these tests around? They're intrigued by the tests they're pushing for the tests to be made available. Some are going and getting the tests themselves because they do see this as an extra layer of protection. What would you say to them?

DR. BARRY PAKES: I can tell you not only theoretically what I would say to them, but in my children's own school. Many parent physicians have been very enthusiastic about it. And a group of us just yesterday spoke to the principal and health sort of, you know, talk that down because we realised, you know, our kids school with a low prevalence as it is and with the really high vaccination coverage, it actually isn't worthwhile. And in fact, if the goal is to keep kids in school, this may actually lead to them being out of school, false positives and unfortunately sending them home when it's not necessary. So, you know, governments do have, governments and certainly local public health authorities in all jurisdictions have the best interests of children in mind. And I think it's really important to listen to them when when thinking about rolling out a programme, if it really is important, match it to have a programme rather than just haphazard testing.

MG: We'll just leave it there. That's fascinating. But I think a lot of parents will be intrigued to hear what you're saying about the good and perhaps the negative consequences here. Thank you very much.

DR. BARRY PAKES: Sure. Have a good day.

MG: Dr. Barry Pakes is with. The University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

Back To Top »

NFL's Laurent Duvernay-Tardif joins healthy eating program to improve kids' health

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif

This is The Current on CBC Radio one. My name is Matt Galloway still sort of with health, but a bit of a different take on this. Laurent Duvernay-Tardif is one of the people with a resume that demands a bit of a double take. He's an NFL star offensive lineman for Kansas City. He was draughted in 2014. He's a medical doctor, having balanced a football career with his studies at McGill University, and he's also a volunteer taking time away from pro football during the pandemic to work as an orderly in a Montreal care home. The last time I spoke with him, he was contemplating what it meant to step away from his sport.

SOUNDCLIP

Working for 10 weeks in the long term care facility in the spring for sure made me realise that the impact COVID was having on patients, on their families, on the health care community. And then at some point I feel like I kind of ask myself the question like, after everything I witness, does it make sense to cross the border go, you know, in Kansas City Travel and week to week basis, potentially exposing different community just do to play a sport that I love. And and it's tough because you put that and of course, when you look at it, you're like, No, I shouldn't be playing, but then you're like, I'm coming off a Super Bowl. The teams looking good. I'm probably at the peak of my career. It just makes it almost impossible to know what's the right move, you know?

MG: That was back in January, and after that strange season spent away from the gridiron, Laurent Duvernay-Tardif is back with the Kansas City Chiefs. He's also launching a new project teaching kids and young athletes about health and nutrition. Laurent Duvernay-Tardif. Good morning. Good morning. Welcome back to the programme. Glad to have you here.

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me.

MG: The last time we spoke, you had taken the season off and you were working, as I mentioned in long term care home in Quebec. When you think about that now, I mean, what are the things that stick in your mind about that experience?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: I think it was honestly a tremendous sacrifice, and not only for me, for the thousands of people that went back and help in long term care facilities that are still there today, helping, you know and I feel like. Yes, we feel like there's a light at the end of the tunnel, but there's still some people working so much, you know, and taking care of our elderly, the vulnerable population and and I think we still got to do everything we can to support them. That's kind of my feeling right now is like, still wear your masks, still do everything you can because there's there are people that are still suffering from this pandemic.

MG: Do you see the world differently having gone through something like that at the acute edge of of a crisis like a pandemic?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: I think so, yeah. I think it gives you like a bigger perspective on on life. And I know it sounds cheesy, but that's really are feeling, you know, and when you go back in Kansas City and you play football and you try to get a spot as a starter and so on, you like at the end of the day, it's football, you know, and then I'm not giving myself 100 percent to the team and trying to, you know, perform at the highest level. But you're like, there's also something else there's something after, and that's a that's really a powerful feeling for me because it helped you manage the performance anxiety related to playing professional sports. I think it helps you rationalise some of your decisions. You know,

MG: you're back playing football. And I mean, I'll ask you more about this in a moment. But one of the things maybe that it changes your perspective on is is making sure that everybody is protecting each other. There isn't a vaccine mandate in the NFL. What do you make of that?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Well, that's I feel like we could talk for hours about that, but you know, I was part of the COVID task force of the NFLPA and helped put in place those those protocols. So I know them pretty well. And you know, I think at the end of the day, it's got to stay a personal decision from my personal background. Like, of course, if you ask me, everybody should be vaccinated. But you know, at the end of the day, it's a personal decision. And from a public health perspective, I feel like everyone who doesn't want to. Get the vaccine, it's it's in the sort of way like kind of a failure from from us, the medical professional, to communicate and transmit all the knowledge we have about the benefit of the vaccine itself. So I really think it's it all start with a conversation. And you know, in Kansas City, we're pretty lucky 100 percent of the staff and coaches are vaccinated and I think like 99 percent of athletes are. So that's a great thing. But but it came with a conversation with the trainer, with the doctors, and I think that's what we need. You know, we got to stop dividing people around the issue and come together and talk about it.

MG: What would you say if one of your team-mates given what you've gone through and what you've seen up close, what would you say to one of your team-mates who perhaps was reluctant to get the vaccine?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Well, I think you got to look at the bigger number, you know, from a population standpoint, the benefit of the vaccines are pretty clear, you know, and I feel like sometimes we look at individual stories or anecdotes, but anecdotes are not science, you know, and you've got to look at the bigger number. And that's that's what I try to do. And I had a good conversation with a couple of team-mates in training camp and and it's good also for me, I think because it gives me insight on what other people think like. Sometimes you take information for granted, but I think that conversation with your team-mates, with your coaches, it just gives you the ability to others, understand the other side and then hopefully make sure that everybody comes together.

MG: Are you surprised that this is still a controversial issue like 18, 19 months into this pandemic?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Yes and no. I feel like the magnitude of the controversy is what surprised me the most. You know, you look at the the numbers in the states and even in some part of Canada, like it kind of plateau way lower than I thought they would. But I think there's, like, when you start making the action of wearing a mask and taking a vaccine, a political action and you mix politics with science, I feel like that's that's a recipe for for disaster.

MG: You're somebody who is really interested in public health. And I mean, that in part was how you ended up going to do work in the long term care home. But you're also studying public health and now you're doing work with young people. How do you see that continuum from from the work that you're doing now to what you're studying to be down the road in a public health doctor?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Well, I don't if I want to be a public health doctor, but right now you're right, I'm doing my master's in public health and a lot of people think that I'm choosing this route because of the pandemic. But honestly, that has nothing to do with that. For me, public health has always been kind of the way I see it as a way for me to communicate with a greater audience. And the NFL is pretty good at giving their player a platform to promote things that they believe in. And for me, it's helped, you know, so being able to to have the knowledge and the credibility to put in place programmes that are going to have a concrete impact on thousands of people instead of, you know, meeting with patient one on one. I think it's for me, it's going to be my way of having the greatest impact.

MG: In speaking with kids in particular about eating and healthy eating, what do you see as as the opportunity there? I mean, kids would look up at you as a hero, as somebody who won the Super Bowl, as you know, a guy who's playing professional football. What do you see as your opportunity to talk to them about being on the right foot when it comes to taking responsibility and choices, healthy choices in what they eat?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Yeah, I mean, we know that there's another epidemic that's that's devastating to the youth and its obesity, you know, and not only the youth of everyone. An I feel that we can do a lot and I want to do something to help those kid help college students. And it's not only a matter of like feeding them better, but also empowering them with the knowledge so they can make better decisions. You know, and that's why the partnership with SO is so in line with my core values because they put in place to really great programme and they want to they really want to make nutrition a priority for the kids all across the country. And for me, like joining my voice through their project is is really an honour because I think there's a lot to be done, you know, and you look at me when I was studying medicine at McGill. I was relying so much on shooting the right stuff at the right time to optimise my performance on the field, but also off the field like it's hard to like go through a two and a half hour of practise and then go and study for another three hours and then wake up at 6:00 in the morning and go back to school and so on. Like, you got to make sure that you optimise your sleep and your nutrition. And people sometimes want to do that, but I feel like they don't have the tools to do it, and that's really what the programme would select. So it's going to bring to the table.

MG: Do you think that young people want to do that? I mean, I think and I was a young person a long time ago in university, but you're hustling around and you're you're kind of grabbing whatever food you can. And often the less healthy things are put right in front of you where you have to reach a little bit further. You have to do your own work to get something that's healthy. Do you think young people really are looking to take that step?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: I think more and more, you know, and that might be one of the great thing about social media. There's so much emphasis on on, you know, eat clean and train and exercise. And but you're right, like it's harder and harder to find the right thing. And that's why you cannot put the blame and the responsibility only on the student and the kid. I think you could also put the you got to give them access. And that's why, for me, it was great to be part of the planning and exactly how we're going to do this and where are we going to put the food and which stations are going to provide what and where on campus and so on. That way, you can really like facilitate the life of of a student athlete, for example.

MG: You're going to be going and visiting schools as part of this.

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Yeah, yeah. We're going to travel all across Canada, starting probably next off season. We're going to visit different college campus. I'm going to interact with the kids. I'm going to give advice to the student athletes because, you know, we have two different programmes we have powering performance, which is for student K-12, and we have also the circuit, which is for the student athlete in college. So the goal is really to go and meet them and and kind of explain that my journey, you know, how nutrition really helped me both as a student, but also as an athlete to optimise my performance both on and off the field. And I think, you know, I think it's going to be great because it's not only about feeding them the right stuff now, it's about, like I said earlier, empowering them to make the right decision in the future. And you know, we spend a lot of our energy like gathering the food, cooking the food, but also like less and less time picking the food, unfortunately. So I think that's what we want to do with Sodexo is to also give the students some tools that they can use at home.

MG: Do you practise what you preach? I mean, you're a professional football player, and the assumption is that, you know, players like yourself are eating a mountain of food every five minutes to stay energised for what you're doing. So what is a healthy diet for an NFL player look like in 2021?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Probably not the same in terms of amount as what you would eat and consider healthy yourself. But I'm eating around like 6000 calories a day. We are followed by nutritionists and in Kansas City, and I take that really seriously. For me, I always promised myself I was not going to take all those supplements, protein powder and so on. I want to eat clean, I want to eat fresh, I want to cook it myself as possible. And that's that's really what I'm trying to do on a on a day to day basis.

MG: Are you a good cook?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Ah... decent. Ask my girlfriend. She'll tell you.

MG: You're back with the team after time away. What has that been like?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Honestly, it's been great, like stepping on that field. Last May, when I flew to Kansas City for the beginning of OTAs, it was really like for the first time I was stepping on the field during a practise and telling myself how privileged I was to be able to practise, like when we were talking earlier about covid and giving me a different perspective on things when it comes to football. Like, I embrace every moment of it now, and unfortunately, I'm not. I'm not starting now because I broke my hand during training camp, but the hand is getting better. I'm getting better and and it's just so nice to be back at doing something that I really love and and also like my team-mates like, it's crazy being away for you year. Like, I thought I was going to come back to a new unit with new guys and so on. But yes, we do have a lot of new faces, but everybody kind of respect my my journey, you know, and and that's I think the camaraderie is what I was missing the most.

MG: Did you start to take it for granted? You say that you're not like that. You kind of, you know, enjoy every moment. Did you start to take playing for granted at that level?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: You know, but at the same time, there's a constant, you know, there's so much pressure on us to perform and sometimes you you take the fact that you're on the football field for granted in the sense that you're always like a snap away from an injury or being pull away and replaced by somebody younger and cheaper and healthier. And sometimes I think you forget to fully embrace and enjoy the moment. Play by play a game by game, by playing in front of 80,000 people at Arrowhead Stadium is one of the greatest feeling in the world. You know, I have chills, you know, talking about it, it's amazing the amount of energy, the chemistry that you build your team-mates and and that's the part that sometimes you're so focussed on winning and your performance individually that you forget to embrace that moment. And that's really what I'm doing now, because because we were, you know, for a whole year, I was away from it. New, your fans were never able to get into the stadiums and so on. And I think now it's just a a big reunion and that feels awesome.

MG: With injuries, but also, I mean, people have been kind of musing about whether trade rumours should be taken seriously and whether you will be staying at that team or perhaps moving to a different team. Do you start to think about life after football? Like is that something that that you can start to put together in your mind?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: I think the picture is becoming clearer and clearer. Not because I don't want to play football, but just because you know it since day one, when I got to the NFL, my goal was to graduate in medicine. So I was always thinking about life after football, whether you want it or not, you know? And and I graduated in 2018 and now I'm starting my master's degree. Like you said earlier in public health at Harvard, and at some point, you know, I'm going to have to go back to to residency training and move on. And I don't know exactly what I'll be doing, but for me, it's always a challenge because you never know when a career is going to be over. So it's always going to like, put in place like a scenario plan A, plan B, plan C over the next couple of years and making sure that I stay in touch with the medical world because I don't want to lose that knowledge either.

MG: It sounds like you're excited about it. I mean, you could imagine there would be people who would think the end of a football career would be the worst thing possible. But you have this other whole, this whole other universe that is kind of waiting there for you.

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Yeah. Yeah, of course, and I don't think I could have gone through, you know, balancing football with medicine for the past eight years if I didn't love what I was doing on both sides, and yes, I'm excited, but I'm also, medicine, I know I'm going to be able to practise it for the next 30 or 40 years. Football, when it's over, it's over. You know, and I was privileged enough to be able to step away from the game and getting back into it. And that's probably one of the reason why I embraced it so much. Now it you know, I saw what it was a life without football, and I know that some football left in me because when you hang your cleats, it's over.

MG: What do you tell younger players about that? About that journey?

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Well, we do have a lot of younger player on the unit right now on the offensive line, you know, are the whole right side is is are basically rookies. So it's it's a great opportunity, you know, for me, even though I'm not starting now to to, you know, pass on that knowledge, that culture that that the importance of like the little thing that details the game plan, building yourself your own routine that works for you and that you repeat like weeks in and week out. I think that's that's where I can be really helpful, you know, and I'm the oldest guy on the unit right now. I've been in Kansas City for eight years. I think the the second after me has been there for like three years, so I can really bring something to the table and and I enjoy that role. You know, even though I want to play, I think, you know, at the end of the day, what I want is a Super Bowl ring. So I'm going to do everything I can to help the team win.

MG: I hope you get back out onto the field soon. In the meantime, it's always great to talk to your perspective, not just on the game, but who you are as a person and the impact that you can have is really powerful. Laurent, thank you very much.

LAURENT DUVERNAY-TARDIF: Thank you so much, Matt.

MG: Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, an offensive lineman for the Kansas City Chiefs. That is the current for this Wednesday. Coming up next on CBC Radio one, it's Que. Stanley Tucci, star of I think, the greatest film about food ever Big Night taught me how to make an omelette by watching that film. He also became an Instagram star during the pandemic, making cocktails. He has a new TV show in which he eats his way through Italy and a memoir out as well. He'll talk to Tom Power about his love of food and how that has gone through his personal, emotional and professional adventures. He'll make you hungry. Trust me, Stanley Tucci coming up in just a few moments on CBC Radio One, I Matt Galloway thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Wednesday 6 October, 2021 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This