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 2022

The Current Transcript for April 1, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Allegations of price fixing among Canada's largest meat-packing companies

Guests: Ambarish Chandra, Sylvain Charlebois

SOUNDCLIP

It is vital that the Catholic Church and First Nations peoples have the opportunity to share the truth of the past and for the church to apologise for the wrongs that have been committed.

MATT GALLOWAY: All week, First Nations meet and Inuit leaders, elders and youth have been in Rome to meet with Pope Francis about the Catholic Church's involvement in residential schools. This morning, the pope apologised in his final audience with the Canadian delegation and promised to visit Canada in an hour. Residential school survivor and former AFN chief Phil Fontaine and what he asked of the pope and what an apology truly means. Also this morning, your letters on jackalope, sasquatches and other peculiar animals of legend and later.

SOUNDCLIP

We're not very good in Canada about talking about death and dying. And many of my patients have not had the opportunity to have a frank open conversation about end of life.

MG: Dr. Stephanie Green is fluent in the language of death and dying. She's here in 30 minutes to talk about how a maternity doctor became a pioneer in medical assistance in dying in Canada and why she believes what she does is as much about life as it is about death. We start, though, with an investigation into the sticker shock of your grocery bill. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: A consumer protection group in Quebec is accusing North America's four largest meatpackers of collusion option, Consommateur alleges that Cargill, JBS, Tyson and the National Beef Packing Company have formed what it refers to as a beef cartel. And it's launched a class action price fixing lawsuit. Sylvie De Bellefeuille is a lawyer with the group and lead plaintiff.

SOUNDCLIP

The four companies control about 85 percent of the market in Canada. What we believe is that because of the agreements they made together, instead of going against each other, they have the power to control the price of the beef in order to increase it. So basically what it means is that we're paying too much for the beef that we're buying. It is a league that the cartel has been going on since 2015. So it's not just the pandemic, it's been the price have been increasing for years now.

MG: This is not the first time these four companies have been accused of price fixing. The same meatpackers are currently facing lawsuits filed in the United States and in British Columbia. The class action has yet to be approved by a court in Quebec. In a statement to CBC, a spokesperson at Cargill meatpackers said the claim lacks merit. At the grocery store, consumers shopping in Vancouver yesterday said that they had noticed higher beef prices.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We're not eating as much beef, for sure. Definitely. The last time we purchased this was probably, oh, two months ago, maybe I would say easily two months ago. So we're eating lots of vegetarian items and chicken, some seafood as well, too. Yeah. So it's been a while since we've purchased beef for or like a grocery item.

VOICE 2: I'm a Muslim. We eat a halal food unhelpful, always cost more before and now he's getting more. Way more than before Ramadan is coming on. A lot of Muslims would need a meal and the price is so high and that it's getting more way more in there. But that was expensive and we can tolerate for that. But now he's going to more again, so we don't know how we're going to keep the halal again.

VOICE #: So I still buy beef. We've just cut back our consumption and especially high priced beef steaks and things like that. My son introduced us to rib eye steaks, and they're very expensive now. So unless it's a really special occasion, I don't buy those anymore. I'll buy sirloin or I'll buy a lesser priced cut.

MG: Sylvain Charlebois is a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University in Halifax and director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab. Ambarish Chandra is an Associate Professor of economics at the University of Toronto, specialising in competition and public policy. Good morning to you, both.

GUESTS: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Sylvain Charlebois, anecdotally you hear those stories of higher beef prices. How surprised were you to hear about these allegations of a beef cartel?

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: Honestly, I'm surprised it didn't happen before. Honestly, there were some rumblings about about higher prices of the meat counter of the last little while, especially since the start of the pandemic. In the U.S., the approaches is much more aggressive. The White House itself looked into the matter, released a report in December. A damning report really suggesting that profits are in the beef packing sector were up 300 percent since the beginning epidemic, and they were able to do that with with access to good data, which is something that we don't have in Canada, which is why there were a lot of rumblings. And now we have this group of [unintelligible] moving forward with allegations

MG: Ambarish Chandra given those similar allegations in the United States and B.C.. Are you surprised to hear about it?

AMBARISH CHANDRA: Well, at some level, no, because you know, there is a lot of scrutiny right now on grocery store prices. I mean, there is clearly inflation at the supermarket, and so people are naturally going to be focussing on prices. But yeah, it's disappointing. But at some level, I agree. It's not surprising. I mean, we've seen similar allegations in the supermarket industry at both the retail and wholesale level in recent years, including, you know, large cartels that have been alleged that if you confessed to and with no action being taken, it's at some level not surprising that, you know, bad actors might try to continue to exploit the situation.

MG: I want to talk about that lack of action in a moment. Sylvain, what have we seen specifically when it comes to changes in beef prices? The proposed lawsuit alleges that the price fixing amongst these four major beef packers has been going on since 2015.

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: Yes. Now, when you look at prices at retail, some items have actually jumped more than others the number since 2015. Baby food and potatoes are on top of the list, followed by beef. Beef has gone up anywhere between 30 to 50 percent since 2015, which is probably why I decided to pick January 1st, 2015. When you look at chicken and pork, the other two components of the meat trifecta, prices have been quite stable, which is which is indicative that something is is up with beef because typically at the meat counter, all three components that trifecta would compete against each other and one will be on sale during one week, while another week the other one would be on sale. And so it's you can see that something, something is not right with beef prices.

MG: If you take these allegations and put them to the side for a moment, is there anything that could reasonably explain why, as you say, one part of that trifecta seems to have significantly higher prices or a jump in prices?

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: Well, there are many factors, starting with farm gate. Grain prices are up. Feeding animals is more expensive. Labour has been an issue in processing. We saw many shutdowns during the pandemic and of course, the supply chain problems that we've seen. Many people have blamed supply chains, but when it takes longer to move things around, whether it's on water, on land, it tends to cost more. So in a very vast country like Canada, distribution costs are very, very high.

MG: Ambarish, there were, as you've hinted, allegations of a so-called bread cartel in Canada. This goes back to 2007. Some of the country's big grocery chains accused of colluding with bread makers to increase the price of bread, there are class action lawsuits proceeding in Ontario and Quebec. The competition bureau is still investigating this. Why is it taking so long to see a resolution in this, particularly given the fact that that Loblaws admitted to being part of this, this price fixing scandal?

AMBARISH CHANDRA: Yeah, absolutely. That's the question we should all be asking. Loblaws admitted. So it's not just, you know, a mere allegation. At least one key player admitted to fixing prices both upstream at the wholesale level and downstream at the retail level.

MG: They offered these $25 gift cards as a way.

AMBARISH CHANDRA: I mean, in the big picture, Canadians have paid way more than $25 dollars over a 15 year period. They have paid, you know, the sum total of damages is probably easily in the billions. So the $25 gift card, which you can only spend at Loblaws stores, is not exactly, you know, it doesn't make up for that. But no, that's right. They've admitted to this and you can't fix prices on your own. You can only fix prices in conjunction with somebody else. So, and at the wholesale level, Canada bread has more or less admitted under previous management that they might have been involved. It's at the retail level that the other retailers are denying it. But that's right, it's been six years. The competition bureau still hasn't brought a case. It's baffling. This is the biggest cartel in Canadian history, and it's worth billions of dollars.

MG: Do you have any explanation as to why it's taking so long?

AMBARISH CHANDRA: I mean, the bureau says, and I'm a little bit sympathetic that they are severely underfunded and understaffed, and they've been asking for resources and more resources from the government for years, and they finally granted that last year. So I would like to see we would all like to see some progress. We'd like to see charges filed and we'd like to see, you know, fairly aggressive move against this, this big cartel

MG: if we were in the United States. Obviously, very different countries. But I asked, I'd just given the fact that there are similar allegations around the meat price fixing issue. If this was in the United States, what would be happening when it comes to an investigation?

AMBARISH CHANDRA: It would be very different. The US is far more aggressive about pursuing price fixing in particular. And to be clear, the U.S. is not exactly, you know, light on. I mean, they're accused of being light on big business, but they take Price-Fixing very seriously. They would have brought criminal charges by now. You know, to be clear, in Canada, they have the bureau has this immunity programme. So Loblaws and George Weston confessed, and so they're granted immunity. But that's not how it works in the U.S., the U.S. has a leniency programme, so you know, they they may wrap wrapping the knuckles. They may bring a civil case rather than a criminal case, but they'll still be repercussions. There'll be fines. Top executives have to admit to wrongdoing in the U.S., and none of that is in place in Canada. I mean, you know, it's shocking that the biggest supermarket and the biggest upstream wholesaler can admit to this and just get away scot free. So yes, the U.S. would have absolutely brought serious charges by now. And by doing so, they would have deterred similar bad behaviour in the future to some extent, at least. Whereas in Canada, by not pursuing this case for six years, you're basically saying, look, go ahead and fix prices that are going to be consequences.

MG: Sylvain, is that the message to consumers in terms of not seeing real action? But then the larger message to producers is that, you know, the stick is not particularly severe when it comes to fines or punishment for this kind of behaviour.

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: I completely agree with Ambarish. In fact, we, our lab, has had an opportunity to work with the Competition Bureau on this on the bread investigation, and you can clearly see that the bureau is under-resourced. And and that's one thing. The other thing that we should mention, which is very different in the U.S. and currently I'm actually a visiting professor at the University of South Florida, and I can tell I can tell you, Matt. Access to data is much easier in the U.S. and when it comes to prosecutions, when it comes to building a case against an industry or against a company, not have access to data is quite critical. And when you look at the landscape in Canada, we have Statistics Canada. But when it comes to food in particular, the the information the data provided by [unintelligible] is very it's very it's not as detailed as as the data you would get in the U.S., for example. And that's been the problem. So we've been able to provide some data, some information to the bureau. But obviously it's not enough seven years into the investigation because the investigation started in 2015 and we still have no fines. Nobody has gone to jail. No, nobody's been punished. While in the U.S. within months, you saw the political class move on beef packers in the fall of 2021, and now JBS settle out of court for $52 million. Just a few weeks ago, without admitting guilt, but still they had to move because of political pressures.

MG: When there are these sorts of allegations, again, you heard the. As shoppers in Vancouver talk about how they're experiencing higher prices and what it means to them. What impact does that have so that on consumer confidence?

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: Well, I think there's a legacy that needs to be recognised from the bread scandal before 2017. I would say that most Canadians would believe that cartels, quote unquote would be possible in the food industry, and actually, I would include myself in that group. Honestly, I trusted the industry. But since 2017, which is now five years ago, a lot of people are sceptical. And I remember in 2017, when the bread price fixing scandal erupted when Galen Weston admitted guilt, a lot of people were shocked and surprised today with the B story. Not as much

MG: Ambarish. Do you worry that people become cynical? They think that that these big companies, if this alleged behaviour is proven but there aren't serious fines, as you see in the United States, that they're just going to get away with it.

AMBARISH CHANDRA: Yeah, I think that's the only thing a little bit of that in the reporting, not just the clip that you played, but even, you know, some of the news stories of consumers sort of hearing about these stories about the bread cartel, the beef cartel and saying, Well, what are you going to do? We know nothing's going to happen and that's really damaging. We, you know, citizens should have trust in government to enforce the laws. You know, there have been various instances. Savannah mentioned a few, but just supermarket. There've been other allegations of bad behaviour, including wage fixing recently, not just price fixing.

MG: Well, this is in particular around the idea of what was called hero pay when during the pandemic, people who worked in a grocery store got a bump in wages, and then that was rolled back by many employers within a day of each other in June of 2020.

AMBARISH CHANDRA: I mean, that's exactly right. In fact, they admitted to emailing each other to sort of coordinate that or at least one player, Loblaws admitted to sending emails. And you know, what's actually shocking is wage fixing is not illegal in Canada. It is very much so in the United States and in Europe and around the world. But in Canada, we actually don't treat it as an illegal activity when it absolutely should be. So, you know, it's just another example of, you know, us not really taking competition law seriously enough or enforcing them or even, you know, writing them into our competition act to deter what is actually not just bad behaviour, but what should be criminal activity.

MG: What's the effect on smaller players in a market if if that is happening?

AMBARISH CHANDRA: Well, you know, you often see the smaller players bring lawsuits and complaints, whether it's class actions or tipping off the bureau. And in fact, very often the small players bring these complaints and, you know, the bureau declines to pursue them. And so the smaller players, you know, are frustrated as well. In fact, you generally want to rely on the small players to, you know, blow the whistle because they can see what's going on in the industry. But if nothing happens as a result of it, it's really quite dispiriting. So yeah, that's that's another reason we should be taking these far more seriously.

MG: So you can have enforcement after these allegations are proven, but what needs to be done average to to prevent price fixing in the first place, particularly on staples like meat and bread that so many people consume?

AMBARISH CHANDRA: Well, I mean, I would say two things, at least one of which is underway. I do think the Competition Act needs a complete overhaul and that is being discussed right now, although honestly, it's taking so long and so wondering who is going to get done. But we need an overhaul and we need certainly more resources to the competition bureau. They need to be given, you know, it's it's really a case of penny wise and pound foolish. If we were to fund the bureau better, they would bring in, you know, huge settlements from these companies and it would more than fund more than cover the cost of funding the bureau. So. And that's how it works in the US, the Department of Justice has a huge budget, but they also manage these massive class action settlements, and they're absolutely worth every penny we put into them. So we need to fund the bureau better. But of course, the bureau also has to eventually bring in some settlements. They have to bring these cases to court. They have to make an example of some of these companies. And, you know, top executives can't just, you know, act as big philanthropists and donate money to, you know, public causes and museums and expect to be treated as captains of industry. They should be brought to account for the actions of their corporations.

MG: Sylvain, is that what you think is going to happen with this? I mean, you talked about what's unfolding right now in the United States. How does this resolve itself, do you think?

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: I think we need to have a broader conversation in Canada about about, you know, moral issues related to the food industry. And what I mean by that is, you know, how do you measure greed? In the food industry. And how much is too much? And that's the real question. I mean, people are actually walking into a grocery store right now buying steak at $40 an item willingly. And they're still complaining. But is that too much? How much is too much? And I think that's really the real question we have to ask ourselves in the United States. They've they've actually come a long way defining what greed is, how how abuse looks like from a corporate perspective. And I think that's the conversation we need to have in Canada. Canada is that is data for and without data. You can't really measure greed as much as what they're doing in the United States.

MG: Do you think the context that we're having this conversation in with inflation at a 30 year high and economists and I know you've been talking about this, talking about the increasing price of food, that these the cost of living is going to continue to go up. Is that going to provide the political will, not just for action, but Sylvain, to your point, that larger conversation?

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: I think it will. I mean, scepticism will continue to grow in Canada. And by the way, Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court just approved a class action lawsuit against the bread industry just a few months ago. This is the second one we're seeing right now, and we are expecting more to come as a result of higher inflation rates. Canadians are desperate. I mean, a lot of Canadians are falling behind, and they're wondering whether or not the food industry is on their side or not. And there's always been a very, very delicate balance between profits and food security in the food industry and and that balance that has to be preserved by institutions like the Competition Bureau, for example.

MG: Ambarish, last minute to you. Do you think that this is an opportunity in this context as people are really feeling the pinch of inflation for politicians to to take the action that you've been calling for?

AMBARISH CHANDRA: I think it is the reason. For example, the U.S. has these strong anti-trust laws. It goes back to the 19th century, the area of robber barons when there was essentially the Gilded Age or extreme income inequality. And I think a public backlash caused the government to pass these strong laws to rein in the big corporations and break up big conglomerates like Standard Oil. And we might be in the era of that here in Canada, and I think it would be high time.

MG: It's great to speak with you both about this. This is very real for people at the checkout counter. Thank you very much.

AMBARISH CHANDRA: Thank you.

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS: Thank you very much.

MG: Sylvain Charlebois, professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University, director of its Agri-Food Analytics Lab. Ambarish Chandra and Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto. Have you been affected by this? Are you changing your shopping habits because in particular of the high price of beef? And do conversations like this get you thinking about this event's point? How much is too much when it comes to profit and that line between the food industry and food security? You can email us thecurrent@cbc.ca. The CBC News is next.

SOUNDCLIP

And then there are so many little gestures and moments and expressions and goodbyes that people share with each other that I have the privilege of witnessing. It is extraordinary.

MG: My conversation with a pioneer in providing medical assistance in dying in Canada. In six minutes, Dr. Stephanie Green on life and death and the connexion that she sees between the two. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One.

Back To Top »

Canadians need to get better at talking about death, says pioneer in medically assisted dying

Guest: Dr. Stephanie Green

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, indigenous delegations in Rome wrapped up their meetings with the pope with a papal apology this morning in just under half an hour. The impact of apologies in the healing process. But first, a doctor's bedside experience with assisted dying.

[Music: Theme]

MG: It is not often that most of us get to witness people's last words before they die. But Dr. Stephanie Green has on many occasions, as one of Canada's pioneers in medical assistance in dying or MAiD as it's become to be known. She recounts many of those last words in a new book.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Take care of each other.

VOICE 2: I'm so ready.

VOICE 3: Give it to me. Let's go.

VOICE 4: See you on the other side.

VOICE 5: Goodbye, my sweet.

MG: Dr. Stephanie Green started performing assisted deaths in 2016, just after the practise was made legal in Canada. Her new memoir reflects on what it's like to share this incredibly intimate experience with her patients and their families, and what she's learnt about death and living in the process. The book is called This is Assisted Dying, Dr. Stephanie Green. Good morning.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Good morning, Matt.

MG: As you listen back to those final words from your patients, what's going through your mind?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Well, I have to say I've never heard them played back like that, I've got a bit of a chill. They certainly remind me of a lot of different people. They are, in fact, very precious moments.

MG: How would you describe what it is that that motivates your patients to choose an assisted death?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Everyone is so unique, but I think the common thread between all of my patients is that they're there seeking some. Some, some solace from their suffering that might be contemporary, suffering a physical pain, or it might be an emotional suffering, but there might even be an anticipatory suffering, suffering, suffering that they're expecting might be coming up in their future. But they're all fearful of something or something they're experiencing, and they're looking for help in reducing that suffering.

MG: How did you fall into this work? You were a family doctor that was focussed on maternity and newborn care.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yeah, I've always been interested in the intersection between medicine, ethics and law and in my family medicine training. Even after that training, I did some extra care, some extra training in both maternal, maternal and infant newborn care as well as palliative care, but always been interested in both ends of life. And of course, I pursued my career in maternity care and loved it. But while I was a medical student, Sue Rodriguez was actually in the headlines. Many people will remember that story that first challenged assisted dying in Canada. And while I was in my biomedical ethics course, we were actually discussing her case. It was the first time I'd come across that issue. And so I put most of that aside for most of my career, but always followed along. Like most Canadians as the issue progressed and by 2011, when the Carter case came in, the one that would ultimately change our law in Canada. I already had 20 years of clinical experience, and so I had a new lens on the issue. And the more I learnt about it, the more I was drawn in. I was at a time in my career when I had already spent over 20 years doing maternity care, I was doing 24 hour call shifts. It was difficult physically to recover from those shifts. My husband had been encouraging me to pull back a little bit. My children were getting older. I knew they'd be leaving the nest soon. A lot of these things were happening, all at the same time. And the more I learnt about assisted dying, the more I was drawn into learning more about it.

MG: Let me just go back. You mentioned Sue Rodriguez, and she was somebody who she was diagnosed with ALS, and she fought ultimately unsuccessfully to get the assistance of a doctor to end her life.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yes, that's that's exactly correct in the early 90s, that was exactly the case she she challenged the blanket prohibition in Canada against assisted dying, and the courts didn't feel society was ready for that change at that time. And they ruled against her.

MG: What was it about her case that moved you so much?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: I think the most compelling piece was when I watched her video, she had prepared a video for parliament where she asked the question, Who owns my life if I don't know my life, who does own my life? And it really struck home with me. I really started to grapple with that question and we talked about it in our class. You know, do people have the right to do with their lives, what they wish? Does that include smoking and drinking and doing things that others may disapprove of? And we all seem to agree? And does it extend to taking one's own life? And the law was reluctant, but but clear on the point that you could do that. So why is it that assisting someone to do so was illegal? I think those types of questions became very interesting to me as a young adult.

MG: You write in the book about how you answer the question. This is a question that we all get if we're at a dinner party or an event and somebody says, What do you do? What do you say back when somebody asks you that question?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: I have to tell you my answer has changed over the years. When I first started doing this work, I was a little bit concerned about how people might react to what I was doing, and I was a little bit more cautious. I might say I'm a physician and then let it go. But if they pursued it more than I would be very transparent these days, I'm a lot more transparent. If someone asks me what I do, I tell people I help people at the end of life, and they usually look at me a little bit confused, trying to figure out what that means. And if they're interested in finding out more, I'm quite explicit in explaining that I work in assisted dying and help people to die.

MG: You talk a lot in the book about the language that you use. I want to get to that in a moment, but part of this refers to the arc of your career, and you say that you have been involved in many ways in the most intimate moments in people's lives, and part of that is in maternity and newborn care. Part of that is at end of life, but you refer to them both as deliveries. Can you tell me more about why you use that word?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yes, I think I have I've been very privileged in my work, I'm one of those doctors that's very satisfied with their careers know to be able to be involved with families and women as they're pregnant and preparing for the changes that come with delivering the babies. It's very, very special time and to be invited into the space to to deliver them and to actually be the first person to place that baby on their chest and to see their reactions. It's really very privileged work and those deliveries were really a transition, a life transition that was happening. And I find myself in a very similar situation at End of Life, and both of these situations involve intense emotional experiences that are some of the most important days in their lives that dredge up family dynamics. And I'm supposed to be there guiding these moments and helping people through them with whatever is supposed to be my knowledge base. But in the truth, I'm not the most important person in that room. I need to gracefully remove myself from these moments when someone's dying. They are the most important person in the room, and all those same dynamics that were there at the birth are they're at a death. And again, I'm feeling very privileged to be invited into it. To me, they're both deliveries.

MG: You tell in this book the stories of some of the patients that you've worked with and the first assisted death you performed was with a patient you call Harvey. Tell us a bit of Harvey's story.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Sure, so the patient that I call Harvey was essentially a self-made man, a man who had worked very hard to create his own work and family and success in life. And he was very proud of that. He was surrounded by family, had good support, good friends, good family. But he had been watching the law and knew that he was dying. He had an end stage. Organ failure had liver failure. He was really waiting for the law to change and, you know, metaphorically standing there with papers in hand waiting to knock on my door. And when the law did change, he came to my attention very, very quickly. So he was the first person I really encountered, and I'm forever grateful for him and his family for for the way that they helped me through the experience as much as I helped them.

MG: In the book, you talk about the conversation that you had with Harvey and his family, and you're very direct in the language that you use and you talk about the importance of being direct. You say to him. We're going to talk about death today. We're going to talk about dying. We're going to talk about your death. And we're going to talk about assisted dying.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yes.

MG: Why do you speak so directly about that?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Well, a couple of reasons, first of all, at this stage in life, people don't have time for non-direct direct, non frank conversation, to be honest. I think they really appreciate it. We're not very good in Canada about talking about death and dying. And many of my patients have not had the opportunity to have a frank open conversation, especially with a health care provider, about their true options at end of life. People are very grateful for the opportunity to have a direct and honest conversation. And I find they really respond to this when I say those exact words to almost every patient I meet. And more than nine times out of 10 people, thank me. At that moment they say, Great, we're going to get along great.

MG: Can you read a little bit from the book as you describe Harvey's death?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Sure, so. So Harvey wanted to be - I'll just set the context Harvey wanted to be surrounded by his family. He knew exactly what he wanted. We were able to create that scene for him. And it was a very moving scene. He had a lot of support around him and so we were in a small bedroom with his wife sitting next to him and his children surrounded him, and I was on the side administering some medication through an IV. And this is what it looked like. "Then Harvey dies exactly as he wished, being held by his children and gazing into the eyes of his wife as he begins to feel sleepy. His wife of 52 years. They connecthere, forehead to forehead, whispering to each other as I continue. She holds his face in her arms, strokes his head and tells him it's OK. She tells him she loves him and she will miss him, but that she all right. She whispers inaudible words, evoking private memories. And he smiles. The intimacy of this moment is so absorbing that I struggled to focus on what I'm doing, she tells him to let go, that she's here with him. And as on most nights of his life, hers are the last words he hears as he falls asleep.

MG: What is it like to be there in that moment?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: I'd say awing, it's a little bit mesmerising at times, but it's really an extraordinary moment. There's so much paradox around assisted dying in the work that we do. You know, these are these are sad moments. People are dying, their ends, their lives are coming to an end. And at the same time, there's these moments of incredible beauty that I sometimes see. I'm not saying that every case is like this, but there are so many little gestures and moments and expressions and goodbyes that people share with each other that I have the privilege of witnessing. It is extraordinary. That's really the best word I can come up with.

MG: Some of these patients confide in you and tell you that they're scared, that they're afraid of what is about to unfold. What do you say to them?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: I'd have to say that most people don't say that. I mean, some people do, and we talk it out. We talk about what their fears are. Are they nervous about the procedure or are they nervous about the loved ones being left behind to try to get to the bottom of where their fear is so we can address that? But to be honest, most people when I show up on the day of their scheduled death, I always take a couple of minutes when I first walk in the home, which is where we usually are. And those private conversations that I have to, you know, to make sure they still have capacity, the decision to make sure they haven't changed their mind to really have that final, final conversation with them. Almost always, patients tell me something along the lines of, I'm ready, I'm really ready for this to happen. They're very much at peace with their decision. I'd have to say that the family and the loved ones, however, are really struggling on that day. For them, the grief is is ongoing or in some cases, just beginning. But I see a real difference between the patients and the families.

MG: Tell me the story of another patient. You call her Liz. Give us a bit of background on her and how this speaks to what you were just talking about, about the role of family in this.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yes, this was the representative of someone that I knew, someone who was my age, someone who has a similar sized and aged family, and she had a terminal cancer that was overwhelming her. She very much wanted to go ahead with medical assistance in dying and was quite able to express that to me. Her family was less certain of her decision, struggling to support her through that, but not entirely on board at the beginning. And so we we needed to facilitate a lot of extra conversations between family members.

MG: What are those conversations like? How do you facilitate that?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Well, there's definitely an art to that, and I'm not always the best person to do it, I try my best to allow the patient to speak for themselves to express what it is they're looking for, what it is they're asking for, why it is that they're asking for it. And at the same time, I need to facilitate that the other parties are also heard. And I try to encourage that in a very civil manner. The majority of times people can come to a respectful resolution together, maybe not agreeing with each other, but agreeing to at least disagree with each other.

MG: And ultimately, ultimately that happened. Liz's family, where they came to to support her decision.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Exactly, exactly.

MG: Yt's different with the family of a woman that you call Edna. What happened with her?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Unfortunately, there are times and again, there are far too between, but there are times when family does not support the decision and is potentially vehemently opposed to it. And that was the case with Edna's family. They had a moral code that just did not allow them to accept this, and they were quite vocal in their disagreement. I was unable to facilitate a successful conversation. We did have some counselling, but in the end there was some yelling and screaming and finger pointing. That is never a pleasant situation, but I am aware of the law and I am aware of what patients are allowed to do and not allowed to do. And after those conversations, if there's still disagreement, I will not be bullied into not doing my job and I will not allow my patients to be bullied. And so I take my direction from the patient who has the right to make this request. And if they meet the eligibility criteria for MAiD in this country, then I am willing to help them despite what their family might prefer.

MG: That's going to be really difficult. I mean, you used the word bullied twice.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yeah.

MG: There are are hot conversations and high emotions in this moment.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Absolutely. I think that is the right term. I've heard, I've heard. Opponents to assisted dying often talk about their fears of patients being coerced into requesting this care. And I think I have to as part of my job. It's very important that I make sure that's not the case. I take that very seriously. I know my colleagues do as well, but I have to tell you, in six years and many patients, there may have been one case where I suspected that might be true and that patient did not receive an assisted death. There are far more examples of patients being coerced out of assisted dying by family or friends, for whatever reason.

MG: There are many people who on moral grounds, perhaps are opposed to this practise and perhaps opposed to your role as a doctor in this as well, who say that your job is to save someone's life, not help someone end their life. What do you say to those who are who are vehemently opposed to this?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Well, I think that's a fallacy, but what positions do and what our role is as clinicians, I think most people go into medicine to help people. It's true that sometimes we can diagnose problems and sometimes we can treat those problems, and even sometimes we can cure those problems. But I'd have to tell you, that's not the majority of what doctors do. Despite what we might like to think, we care for people, we care for people in whatever way we can and when we can't diagnose, treat or cure people and we're left with only caring. One of the most important things we do is comfort people in the times that we can help them further. I think helping patients through all aspects of life from birth through the tumultuous rollercoaster that life is for all of us right through death and dying. This is the full spectrum of life, and the real role of a physician is to help patients.

MG: Some of that tension exists within the medical world as well. I mean, I've spoken with palliative care doctors who say that the focus should be on on better care at end of life rather than assisted death. What what how do you see that tension? Do you see that play out?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yeah, I think it's a really unfortunate tension. I think that palliative care is an essential essential service in this country, and I and I hope that we can continue to put resources towards making access to high quality palliative care available to every single Canadian and every place in this country. I'm a big supporter of it. I think that for whatever reason, some of the palliative care community have not been embracing of assisted dying, despite the fact that they are in fact the most patient centred physicians I've ever encountered. It's an odd conundrum to me. Having said that, I have seen a shift in the past six years. Remember, assisted dying laws in this country did not change because voters demanded it, or because the government simply felt it was a good idea. They changed because a patient or a number of courageous patients stepped forward to challenge the prohibition against assisted dying, and the laws changed. So it's always been on the backs of patients. I have seen patients come to clinicians and ask them about assisted dying, and we're clinicians may have been reluctant at first had been brought to this issue through their patients. And I've seen the same thing happen with palliative care doctors who once said I would never be involved in that care, who are now involved in the care because they're patients that they're connected to have demanded them to to take another look. I think we'll continue to see that shift. And I hope so.

MG: You have to be the one if somebody comes to you to say whether they are eligible or not for this. What does that like?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Yeah, that's a very weighty responsibility. I take my job very seriously, I know all of my colleagues across the country do the same. You know, there's a there's a criminal liability, actually, if I don't do it properly, this is conduct that's kind of outlined in the Criminal Code of this country. I tell you that having to tell someone they're ineligible for care is probably the hardest thing I do. These are patients who've approached me who very much believe and I believe that they are suffering intolerable. They've reached out for help. It takes a lot of courage to do that. They're often feeling they've been let down by the system and on care for, and they've reached out to me in a time of need. I feel very badly that they're in that situation. And as much as I may want to help some people, I will certainly not break the law to do so. I believe the legal system is in place for a reason. I believe our law is set up the way it is for a reason. People may argue about the law being too loose or too tight, and I'm sure those debates will go on for years. But it's my job to work within that law. And so when I need to tell someone that they're ineligible, it's often devastating for them. So it's always very difficult to do so.

MG: Are we getting better as a society? Are talking about end of life?

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: I thought we would one of the reasons I wrote this book is to help facilitate this conversation. I don't think we're very good at it yet. I live in what I call a made bubble, I think. You know, I talk and work and and and live in this world where we talk about assisted dying. But I don't think that's the case for most Canadians. And I think if I walked outside right now and ask the 10 people that walked by what they know about assisted dying, I would be shocked at how little that is. I don't think it's penetrated as deeply as I might think. I think that we are still very, very new to this conversation. I hope that my book can help facilitate, no matter what you think about assisted dying. I hope my my book can help facilitate conversations about what brings meaning to life, what brings meaning to your life, what brings joy to your life, what would you want in certain circumstances? I think we need to get better at those conversations.

MG: And that speaks to just finally what you say at the end of this book that your work in some ways is less about people's wish to die than it is about how they wish to live.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Absolutely. That's the one thing I've learnt through doing this work is, you know, the notion that that assisted dying is about death and dying is is a little bit superficial. And of course, it is. To some extent it's at someone's end of life, but it's really about how people want to live and what what is the most important thing to them. I've always been struck by the moment when I tell someone they are eligible. We talked about what happens when they're not. But when I tell someone that they're eligible for assisted dying, I can see the physical change in their body. There's an immediate relief. There's an immediate loss of fear of the unknown of what's coming of the decline that they're fearing. There's a there's an immediate sense of forgetting about how they're going to die. And and a grabbing onto the time that is left. And I find that people lived with the most intent purpose for the time that they have left because they know that they can. It's it's really about who they want to see, what they want to say to them, how they want to find closure. You know what's left on that bucket list. I'm always amazed at how people focus more on life and living once they know how they're going to die.

MG: Dr. Green, I'm really grateful for the chance to talk to you. Thank you very much for this book, and thanks for the conversation.

DR. STEPHANIE GREEN: Thanks for your time.

MG: Dr. Stephanie Green's new book is called This is Assisted Dying A Doctor's Story of Empowering Patients at the End of Life. Coming up after a regional update,

SOUNDCLIP

We hope that the Catholic Church will support this process of transformation and its relationships with First Nations and as a first step, offer the words of an apology so that many of our people can hear. I am sorry.

MG: the value of an apology. A conversation with the former chief of the Assembly of First Nations, himself a residential school survivor. Phil Fontaine joins me coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One.

Back To Top »

After Pope's apology, 'now the hard work starts,' says former AFN national chief Phil Fontaine

Guests: Phil Fontaine, Colm O'gorman, Karin Marley

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

SOUNDCLIP

THE POPE: [Via translation] The deplorable conduct of these members of the Catholic Church, I ask for God's forgiveness and I want to say to you with all my heart and I am very sorry and I join my brothers, the Canadian bishops, and asking your pardons.

MG: That's Pope Francis speaking to elders, youth and leaders from the Inuit and First Nations communities at the end of a week of meetings at the Vatican. Indigenous survivors told their stories to the head of the Catholic Church and then those words from him. I am very sorry. Phil Fontaine is the former chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and he joins me now from Rome. Phil Fontaine. Hello?

PHIL FONTAINE: Hello.

MG: Pope Francis says he is very sorry that he asks for God's forgiveness for the deplorable conduct of members of the Catholic Church. Are those the words that you and other survivors have been waiting to hear?

PHIL FONTAINE: For many, this is a moment come true after years of pursuing what's transpired before our very eyes. I heard, you heard those things, those words and incredible statements. At the end of the day, when we reflect upon what's transpired today, it will give us hope, inspiration. And for many like myself, we see this as a new beginning. Now the hard work starts. We never, ever believed that the apology was the final moment in this long, tragic story about residential schools have been. We always knew that once the apology was delivered presented to us, we would be compelled to engage with the Catholic Church and others, to begin anew this relationship that has been so completely shattered and we can rebuild that relationship. But more importantly, in my view, it will allow many, many people to say I forgive. Because an apology and in the end will be meaningless if the people that are receiving the apology are not compelled to forgive. And so I think that's at's upon our shoulders now, but we have the, I think, the words that will enable us to move in that direction.

MG: Can I just ask you personally what this week has been like for you? You as a survivor have been credited because your openness about the abuse that you suffered for many people is the reason that they were able to come forward and describe what happened to them in residential schools. This has been a very emotional week. What has it been like for you?

PHIL FONTAINE: Well. You know, I came here with great expectations [unintelliglbe]. Though that did not include words that I heard today. I thought that those words would be expressed in Canada and in our homeland. But the Holy Father had an opportunity to listen directly from survivors that spoke candidly and in a very straightforward manner about their own experiences. And for them and the people that they represent them back home, we're very hopeful that the Holy Father would apologise, but he went beyond my own expectations and I'm so incredibly pleased about that. And we renewed the commitment that he had received previously in coming to the Canada summit to our homeland. And when he's in Canada, he will expand on those words that he spoke today. And I believe we must be ready, at least with a framework of ideas and actions that we will be able to undertake, ideas that we've been able to realise, working with the church and other major institutions in the country. But this has been the missing piece for a long time as you know. People have expressed very clearly and strongly that they couldn't move forward until they heard the pope say, I am sorry they heard us today.

MG: You've said that now the hard work starts. What does the church need to do now to follow on those words? For example, we've spoken with people this week who wants the church to help in bringing abusers who are still alive to justice. People want action on reparations and on the money that the church has promised and has yet to deliver to survivors as as compensation. What is that hard work, from your perspective, need to look like now?

PHIL FONTAINE: Well, there are so many pieces to this issue, and the money is one part. But it's not the most important consideration. The church is already in Canada's already committed to raising 30 million dollars that will be transferred to a foundation that will support programmes related to cultural revival, language revival and other such issues. But we believe that the church has to open itself up, and do it willingly, to fashion a new kind of institution that speaks more positively about the cultural differences that exist between our people and the Church. And how those differences, particularly when it comes to spiritual belief systems, how both can be incorporated in a more positive way than has been possible up to now. Because, you know, there's been a strong revival in our communities about our traditions and the strong desire to revive our languages. And I think the church can be very helpful in that regard. At one point in our residential school in Fort Alexander, the other language school there were missionaries, and some of the missionaries there spoke fluent Ojibwe. And so if it's possible to establish that kind of centre in one community, possible to establish similar centre in every part of the country and the church can play a significant role in that regard. They have books, catechism and books in indigenous languages.

MG: Just finally, you mentioned the issue of forgiveness. How difficult do you think it will be to reach forgiveness? That's a hard, a hard place for many people to get to.

PHIL FONTAINE: Well, it was hard for the church to come to this place for this to say, I'm sorry, and no doubt it'll be hard for many people to say I forgive. But it wasn't impossible for the Church to say, 'I'm sorry,' and it's not going to be impossible for our people to forgive. Our people are a very resilient people, they're very open people, they're very forgiving people. And I think that that moment will come much sooner than people expect. By the way, we were talking about what what kind of initiatives that would make we might like to present to the Catholic Church Museum. A museum would be, in my view, quite appropriate. The Vatican here has thousands of Indigenous objects, sacred items and the like. And so repatriation will become a large part of the ongoing conversations between the Catholic Church and our communities and who there might be. I'd be a part of that might be part of this conversation.

MG: It has been an extraordinary week, and it's great to talk to you at the end of this week about what happened, but also what is to come. Phil Fontaine, thank you very much.

PHIL FONTAINE: Thank you,

MG: Bill Fontaine is the former chief of the Assembly of First Nations. If you are a residential school survivor or have experienced intergenerational trauma, there is a number that you can call to speak with someone. The residential school crisis line is 1 866 254 419. What is the impact of the words that the pope said this morning? In 2015, Pope Francis apologised for the historic oppression of indigenous people in Bolivia. Here is how Tania Ayma, who is an indigenous journalist in that country, sees that now.

SOUNDCLIP

The Catholic Church had a very strong, very sad and difficult relationship in colonial times. Without a doubt, I don't think the apology changed much because in reality, the Church continues to have a strong presence on many levels in social projects through the government, through NGOs and also through Indigenous organisations. Nothing's changed for better or for worse.

MG: Pope Francis was also in Ireland in 2018 to apologise for the children who are taken by the church from unwed mothers. Some were buried in unmarked graves. Catherine Corless is a researcher who investigated what really happened to those missing children.

SOUNDCLIP

All he said was we. I ask for forgiveness for what went on in Ireland and in that tragic past. So I mean, to say, asking for forgiveness is OK, but it should be... We should have said the words. He should have said, 'I apologise'. And there was no words of making amends or, you know, trying to make some amends. It's very easy to say, I forgive us. That's all we got, really. There was no apology.

MG: Colm O'Gorman is executive director of Amnesty International in Ireland, also a survivor of abuse from a Catholic Church leader, and he has been listening in to our conversation. Colm, good morning to you.

COLM O'GORMAN: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What do you make of what you've heard from Pope Francis this morning? And do you see a comparison in some ways with the apology that he delivered in Ireland in 2018?

COLM O'GORMAN: Thanks lot. I should, first of all, say that obviously I'm speaking here in a personal capacity and not on behalf of Amnesty International. So the first thing I would say is I really do want to pay tribute to sell to other indigenous leaders and indeed to the indigenous people of Canada who have shown such not just extraordinary resilience, but dignity and courage and humanity in how they have both dealt with the confrontation of of the abuse and violations that they experienced and suffered over so many decades and so many generations in Canada, it has been extraordinarily inspiring and nothing that I should should say now should in any way diminish the meaning of today to them. It's a unique set of circumstances and for them and also just to say, you know what, I think this will feed into what I have to say about Pope Francis's words. You know, it was a white European and in particular as an Irish white European and as somebody who would have been described in the past as an Irish Catholic. I also recognise the role that the Irish Catholic Church played in kind of the role of the Irish Christian Brothers, a congregation that was founded here in Ireland and the committed acts of savagery and brutality against indigenous people and other people and institutions in Canada. And I want to say that I am sorry for the suffering that they experienced. I am sorry, but some of my fellow citizens thoht that other Irish men and that institutions that came from this [unintelligible] subjected them to such violations. And I mean that, I mean from the bottom of my heart. But that's where I think it's important to say that when we talk about apology, apologies is about more than an expression of sorrow. Apology starts with an acknowledgement, first of all of truth and then acceptance of accountability and of responsibility. And the pope's words are powerful in terms of, and I don't doubt that he's being honest when he talks about his sorrow, but he talks about the sorrow at the conduct of some members of the Church. Pope Francis is the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. He is head of the Vatican City state. He speaks for the institution. He is the embodiment of the institution of that state. What he needs to do is to say I acknowledge the role. But the Vatican City state, the Holy See, and that the institution that had in creating the system that then subjected people to these abuse to this such abuse and such violation, that acted to cover up and deny that abuse and violation. But this was not accidental, that this was not part of some benign failing on our part that this was after had been established, as a matter of fact, systemic. And that it was undertaken in an effort to protect the authority, the power, the institution and the money of the global Roman Catholic Church, and that its head of Vatican City state and head of the Roman Catholic Church and as the Holy See, the current occupant of the Holy See. I acknowledge that fact and I apologise for our failures.

MG: Had you had had you heard that in Ireland, what would that have meant to you, that full full apology with the context that you just talked about?

COLM O'GORMAN: It would have been a naming of truth. I mean, for, well over two decades, I've been asking a simple thing of popes. Since I first took a legal action and sued the pope back in 1998 and began back in 1998, all I wanted was for a pope to tell the damn truth to just acknowledge not just the fact that abuse had happened, because at that stage the even denying that, but that that abuse had happened with their full knowledge and that systems had been developed not to prevent abuse, but to cover up abuse and to protect both abusers and the institution, its money, its power and its wealth. And in the decades that followed, we successfully proved that as a matter of fact, as a matter of legal established fact, and the Vatican has never acknowledged that fact. Indeed, when Pope Francis came to Ireland in 2018, he went so far as to say that he did not know about the mother and baby homes here in Ireland, which was, I'm sorry to say, a lie. It was a simple deceit because he was fully aware of the mother and baby homes here and on it. He had attended, for instance, the premiere of a film The Story of Philomena Lee, a film Philomena, which told the story of those and met with her afterwards. But equally, he's also the head of the Vatican City state, who's visiting a country which has been frankly convulsed and upended ultimately in very positive ways in confronting the fact of those abuses and where we had a decades long enquiry that established the truth of what happened in these institutions. So of course, he was aware of this, and we know the church law has since the early part of the last century and certainly from 1962 on required as a matter of law. But all such cases are notified directly to the Vatican. And so the Vatican has had not just been acknowledged, but has been the centre of a system and designed a system which colluded with which facilitated, which covered up and which denied these claims in order simply to protect itself its power, its authority under the money. And until that fact is acknowledged and then there is something to apologise for, it's not for the Pope to apologise for the actions of others on behalf of the institution. It's not for a pope to apologise as Pope for the actions of others, it's for a pope to apologise for the actions of the institution that he represents, and that has not happened anywhere in the world.

MG: We're just about out of time, but that speaks in some ways to the hard work that Phil Fontaine said needs to follow. That this is the apology is the apology. And Phil Fontaine was very moved by that. But there is more to come after that.

COLM O'GORMAN: But that's where I said that. I don't want to take away from what this means for Phil and for Indigenous people in Canada, it was not an apology. It was an expression of sorrow. He said he is sorry. He did not say he apologises. There was no acknowledgement of Vatican responsibility. No demonstration of a desire to be property accountable in a very human way. Never mind in a legal context for what had happened. And that's what we have seen in so-called previous apologies. They are not. Apologies. An apology is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on one's own part, or behalf of the institution one represents, and a genuine effort to demonstrate that one is prepared to be accountable for those failings. That has not happened. I'm sorry to say.

MG: Colm O'Gorman. It's great to speak with you. I appreciate your perspective on what has been, as I said, a momentous week with more certainly to come. Thank you very much. Colm O'Gorman is executive director of Amnesty International in Ireland.

[Music]

MG: You're listening to the current on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. We have time just before we go to get to some of your responses to what was a fun conversation I had earlier this week. It was about the Jackalope.

SOUNDCLIP

The original Jackalope was a taxidermy hoax mount that was made by a couple of teenagers in rural Wyoming during the nineties. They were out hunting and they came home with a Jack Rabbit they had bagged, tossed it onto the floor of their shop, where, as the story goes, it's lit up against a pair of deer antlers that were on the floor and they exclaim, Let's mount that thing. And that was the beginning of a cultural phenomenon that has spread around the globe. And there's a reason why every world culture has hybrid and imagined animals in its folklore. It's universal to human culture, and I think one of the reasons it is universal is, you know, we need our monsters, we need our invented animals because we need to believe that there's a world beyond what we struggle with every day when we roll out of bed.

MG: That's Michael Branch. He's the author of On the Trail of the Jackalope: How a Legend Captured the World's Imagination and Helped US Cure Cancer. With this conversation, it was really fun. We had a hunch at the end of it that you would have stories. And so we asked you to send us your tales about mythical creatures. The Current senior producer Karin Marley is here with some of your mail. Karin, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning. We're going to start with a bit of assorted to hear from Kevin Catton in Baden Ontario. So, he writes, another of these fun taxidermy fantasies is a Sasquatch, which is crafted from a deer's but that's inverted, so the tail hangs down in the form of a long white beard. The white rump comprises the face where the glass eyes are mounted appropriately, along with a puckered nose placed at the hole. I had one for years at our B and B near Kitchener and had a whole world of fun relating the story of how it was killed by a rural car accident. When wet and foggy night, a police inspector had ordered the creature's destruction so as not to alarm the community, but a rogue officer suffered its head and took it to a taxidermist friend. When that officer eventually died, I obtained the preserved head from his widow, who was a family friend. I can't tell you how many people fell for this tale.

MG: Grizly and pretty wonderful. And Linda Hull from Vancouver writes, Back in the 1950s in my hometown of Banff, Alberta, at the Banff Trading Post, along with the very dusty stuffed hides of bison and other animals, there was a grotesque, mummified creature purported to be part human or monkey and part fish housed in a glass case at the very back of the shop. This creature used to freak US children out. No matter how many times we wearily went down the overcrowded, dusty aisles to see it.

KARIN MARLEY: Bit of a nicer one here from Mary Munson in Sydney, Nova Scotia. She writes, I spent the last couple of years researching fairies or the little people in Big Scottish and Acadian cultures in Cape Breton. I was gobsmacked when I first met a farmer who discovered that the means and tails of his horses had been braided. He cut them off to preserve them, feeling that nobody would believe him. In fact, many people felt that the fairies had done the plating. Even a Catholic priest accepted the belief. A megamall woman told me that when she was little, she and her cousins found braids on a horse in akkadian culture. Some believe that the fairies are Luton's braided the horses and then took them for a ride at night.

MG: Geoffrey Cronin from Mannatech, Ontario, writes about a beast from Scotland. Would that be a beastie? If it's in Scotland, perhaps the beastie is called the haggis. He says to enable it to run across steep slopes, it develops shorter legs on its right hand side. This allowed it to outdistance any predator. Unfortunately, human hunters determined that if one lay in wait in ambush ahead of the haggis, it would have to reverse direction and would therefore tumble down the slope to its death. This is why the haggis is considered extinct and only commemorated by the dish of the same name.

KARIN MARLEY: I've eaten haggis many a time, and I had no idea.

MG: I know the rest of the story.

KARIN MARLEY: John Brown from Port Perry, Ontario, writes Mounted on the wall in a bar in Saulte Ste. Marie, Michigan is the fabled fur bearing trout, having developed a coat of white fur to provide protection from the extreme cold in the depths of Lake Superior. If you've ever swum in Lake Superior, you can easily relate to this. The trout was created by a resident of Soo, Ontario, a man known to some of my family who live there.

MG: Could perhaps be the same species Parker Smeltzer has seen, he says. Believe it or not. I've actually seen a jackalope. It was at a restaurant in northern Ontario. They also had a furry trout on the wall.

KARIN MARLEY: Finally, Dammy Damsrtom-Albach writes about growing up in Kootenays in B.C. in the tiny hamlet of Ja'afari. Here we were regaled with stories of the Side Hill, Gougers, where a kind of cross between a marmot and a mountain goat with a high, sharp whistle like a gopher. They were also known to whistle Hank Snow tunes and imitate train whistles. They had sharp claws like a lynx on big furry feet to ease passage in the deep snow and ice primarily. Herbivores they also particularly craved are wild mountain huckleberries and would also sometimes hunt for and suck on the eggs of blue growth. But their most distinctive feature was that their legs on one side were much shorter than those on the other. This enabled their hillside living, travelling round and round on paths they had worn into the mountain sides with their endless circling. Hence, the name "gouger". Some gouger were short legged on the right side and some shorter legged on the left, sometimes referred to as clockwise and anticlockwise gougers. They would topple over if they tried to reverse direction. If they fell from the mountain, they were easy prey. Grizzly bears are very much like to eat them. This was why we were never to set off looking for them when huckleberry picking in the mountains, as there would undoubtedly be grizzlies seeking snacks nearby. Our cuteness side held grouches were such a great way to take the mickey out of all the Alberta tourists.

MG: The imagination is a powerful thing. Also, thank you for using one of my favourite phrases anti-clockwise, which is just wonderful. Thanks to all of you who wrote in and thank you, Karin Marley, The Current senior producer.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MG: You can write in to The Current any time about anything you hear on the programme. Email us thecurrent@cbc.ca. You can find us on Twitter @TheCurrentCBC Go to the website. cbc.ca/thecurrent. I got some like old fashioned mail snail mail. I love to get mail. You can mail us a letter as well if you'd like. The Current CBC Box 500 Station A Toronto, Ontario M5W1E6. Old-Fashion is new fashion. Sometimes that is The Current for this Friday. Coming up next on CBC Radio one, its q. Of course, if you were listening yesterday, you know that Canada reads came to a close and this year's must read book for Canadians timely to say the very least five little Indians by the cree author, poet and lawyer Michelle Good. It is the story of life for five adults after residential school in British Columbia, and it's about trauma, but also what can follow trauma. It's an extraordinary book and you'll hear all about it. Tom Power will speak with Christian Allaire, who championed the book to success. That's coming up in just a moment on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend! We'll talk to you on Monday.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Friday April 1, 2022 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This