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 November 21, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

We heard the calls and we responded. Today here in Sharm el-Sheikh, we established the first ever dedicated fund for loss and damage, a fund that has been so long in the making.

MATT GALLOWAY: Negotiations went into overtime, and in the end, the U.N. climate conference in Egypt led to a breakthrough creating that fund for poorer nations to help them pay for the damages of climate change. Activists, though, see the fingerprints of fossil fuel lobbyists all over the final agreement. In 30 minutes, what was and wasn't achieved in Egypt and where that leaves us. All of us in the fight against climate change. Also this morning, 24 Sussex Drive has officially been closed down due to health and safety concerns. Coming up, how the official residence of Canada's prime minister was left to slide into disrepair. And later,

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: You invited the whole world to come here. Why can't we film. It's a public place.

VOICE 2: Bring the camera [unintelligible].

VOICE 1: So you're threatening us by smashing the camera.

MG: The World Cup is underway in Qatar and an hour away. Organisers hope the focus is on the game and why activists hope it's anything but. We start though in Labrador and complicated feelings about home. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Revisiting promises made to former Innu community Davis Inlet

SOUNDCLIP

[Children singing]

ARIANA KELLAND: Are you looking forward to the move?

CHILD: Yeah.

ARIANA KELLAND: How come?

CHILD: Because it's much better than Davis Inlet.

ARIANA KELLAND: Can you tell me what some of the good things and some of the bad things are about Davis?

CHILD: Yeah. The sniffing and drug lead. Smoking weekd.

ARIANA KELLAND: Do you have good memories about Davis?

CHILD: Not really.

[Children singing]

CHILD: Sounds from a grade four class at the former Nukum Mani Shan School in Davis Inlet in Northern Labrador. The reason for the excitement there. It was December of 2002, and the children were only days away from leaving the troubled community for good. Moving into new homes and a brand new purpose built community further down the coast. The Current visited the Innu community 20 years ago to chronicle the exodus. And this morning we're going back. Davis Inlet had become a place of despair for many, an international symbol of indigenous injustice in the 1990, embarrassing the Canadian government into taking action. Big promises were made today. Some are still unfulfilled and the new community of a Natuashish sits at the crossroads. The CBC's Arianna Cullen visited earlier this fall.

SOUNDCLIP

ARIANA KELLAND: Gregory Rich's small boat cuts clean through an ocean flat like glass. It's early September on Labrador's north coast.

GREGORY: We're living in the middle of that.

ARIANA KELLAND: The blue building?

GREGORY: Yeah

ARIANA KELLAND: A flock of Canada geese fly in formation overhead as small houses come into view. A hidden community now abandoned.

GREGORY: Yeah, that's David Inlet. I was born here.

ARIANA KELLAND: Gregory Rich is in his fifties. He's the former grand chief of the Innu Nation. Davis Inlet was his home until 20 years ago.

GREGORY RICH: A lot of good and bad memories here. A lot of drinking here when we were growing up. A lot of tragedies.

ARIANA KELLAND: Decrepit homes still stand behind trees and under overgrown willows. It is beautiful but broken. Rich was born here. Married here. His children died here.

GREGORY RICH: You guys remember the tragic story that the house fire. Those were killed.

ARIANA KELLAND: On February 14th, 1992. Rich's five children and another child died alone while Gregory and his wife weren't home.

GREGORY RICH: That first couple of years, I couldn't I couldn't come here. I couldn't go back to my house. Instead, I finally did after two years to the house. That's when I began my journey. For 20 years now.

ARIANA KELLAND: Davis Inlet garnered national and international headlines three decades ago for another tragedy. Children sniffing gas to numb the pain of a life ripped away.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: How come you like sniffing?

CHILD: I don't know.

ARIANA KELLAND: By 1993, only five homes in this island community had running water reserved for outsiders like police, teachers and the priest. And with no sewer system, buckets of human waste hung outside homes or in honey buckets inside. Addiction was rampant, health was declining, and the government finally agreed to do something about it. They signed an agreement to relocate the mutual, you know, to a community of their choosing. All big promises.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Are you guys ready now for the camera?

ARIANA KELLAND: Hank Rich, Gregory's older brother, heard similarly big promises before when he was a child in Old Davis Inlet.

HANK RICH: Used to be all these years.

ARIANA KELLAND: Right in front of you?

HANK RICH: Used to be only one house. The priest. My house and all the houses with tents.

ARIANA KELLAND: Tucked away behind the carved out hills of Davis Inlet is the community's first home old Davis Inlet. It's just a five minute boat ride away. The [unintelligible] were semi-nomadic. Hank Rich lived his first six years in the tent there. His family and other Innu followed the George River Caribou herd. They traded at a Hudson's Bay Company outpost that's still standing today. But the provincial government wanted to settle the mutual Innu in one place and it entice them with promises of a new community, one with running water and heat. That relocation happened in 1967, moving the Inuit to a new Davis Inlet, an island away from the Cariboo, away from purpose. In the 1990s, the promises began anew to relocate the anew from the failure of Davis Inlet to a new community of their choosing. Today, Gregory and Hank Rich and the rest of the community live in Natuashish. A suburbia dropped in the middle of nowhere that brought the Innu back to the barrens. The move was 20 years ago this December.

JOHN NEWEY: So it's a lot of work though. We haven't give up.

ARIANA KELLAND: John Newey is the current chief of the Musha Innu First Nation. He was re-elected for a third term this month.

JOHN NEWEY: We may have a lot of challenges and the struggles in Davis Inlet are this test what the struggles take us to where we are right now.

ARIANA KELLAND: Newey says strides have been made in Natuashish. Its homes have running water and heat. More kids are going to school and graduating. Fewer people are drinking. But Newey says short sightedness on behalf of the Federal Government has left Natuashish in a predicament that appears to be repeating history.

JOHN NEWEY: A housing issue is a really big problem in our community and that's where the social problems start to develop right.

ARIANA KELLAND: Two men carefully remove screws from each piece of plywood that protect windows on a dozen brand new homes. They wait to remove the wood until the last minute, the workers say. Otherwise, they'll be vandalised. Two new families will soon move into these three bedroom bungalows filled with new furniture and a wood stove. But the chief says in a town of more than 1000 people, there are about 100 more families in need of a place to live. The federal government says it uses a formula to determine how much money a reserve receives based on population and remoteness of the first nation. In the last five years, Ottawa says it has spent an additional $8 million on housing in Nantwich. But Newey says with 30 to 40 babies born each year, it's hard to keep up.

JOHN NEWEY: I know one single parent who has about five grandchildren and children living in one place. This is a three bedroom house. 13 kids. You know, this is sad. Sometimes, [unintelligible], still living this way. That's what bothers me.

ARIANA KELLAND: Many of the original homes in the community are now in need of repair. Spray paint and broken windows mark a large number of homes and town boards where basement windows used to be. Plaques bearing family names above the front doors are now scratched and worn. Shingles on some roofs are curled up at the ends crumbling after two decades of unrelenting winters.

SOUNDCLIP

NEWSCASTER: The Human Rights Report released today comes from a complaint the ENO made to the commission more than a year ago, and the report backs up the ENO claims that they are a forgotten people.

NEWSCASTER: In 1993, the Canadian Human Rights Commission tabled the first of three reports about the Innu of Labrador. Three in three decades, federal and provincial government failures peppered throughout in housing, education, child services, health care and addictions. Basic right.

SOUNDCLIP

DON MCRAE: It shouldn't have been done that way. And that the people who have suffered in part, I think, as a result of this are the Innu, and there's no reason for that to continue.

ARIANA KELLAND: That's Don McRae speaking nearly 30 years ago. He co-authored all three reports outlining the hurt and damage done by ripping the Innu away from their way of life. One of the biggest harms, he says, was the Federal Government's refusal to bring the Innu under status agreements. When Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, which meant the Innu weren't provided the same benefits as other first nations.

SOUNDCLIP

DON MCRAE: When you didn't do your job for 50 years, surely you can try to make up with it by working faster and more efficiently.

ARIANA KELLAND: Don McRae is older now and doesn't think he will author another report, but if things don't change, he hopes someone will.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER PENASHUE: Until they get a treaty. Until they get the ability to have self-government, until they have the ability to make decisions about themselves, they feel, I think with some legitimacy, they're never going to be able to move forward.

ANNOUNCER: Mr. Peter Penashue, president of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada...

ARIANA KELLAND: It's 2011 and Peter Penashue takes an oath at a swearing in ceremony for Stephen Harper's caucus. Penashue has taken on different roles as a leader for the new people. Grand Chief Member of Parliament. Cabinet Minister. But no job has lasted this long.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER PENASHUE: What you quickly realise is that governments have the time, have the people, and they really, at the end of day don't care. So they can...

ARIANA KELLAND: For 30 years he's been negotiating land claims and self-governance with the federal and provincial governments.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER PENASHUE: We want to have a full say over child welfare. We are in full say over education. Anything that affects our communities. We want to have a say over that. And that's what self-governance means.

ARIANA KELLAND: Penashue lives in [unintelligible], another nearby Innu community, which faces similar challenges to its cousin and Natuashish. Issues surrounding health, addictions, housing, child welfare and to many giving the Innu back control of their own lives is the most critical piece to a successful future. But Penashue says he doesn't believe Canada and the province will relinquish total control, at least not without clawing back benefits.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER PENASHUE: Is it trust or is it racism? Racism to me is that one group of people feel that they're superior over another group. They know what's best for the other group, and I think that's what's happening. Canada and Newfoundland feel that they're superior to the Innu, therefore they don't want to let go of that authority.

ARIANA KELLAND: The Government of Canada says it acknowledges the existence of systemic racism and that it recognises that it's critical to conclude this agreement between Canada and the [unintelliglbe] Innu.

SOUNDCLIP

GENANI DAVIS: Well, good morning, Paula.

ARIANA KELLAND: Good morning. More than half an hour away in Happy Valley Goose Bay, Penashue's sister, Genanani Davis, is celebrating a bittersweet victory. Davis runs the Innu Education Board and 13 Innu students spread between Sheshatshiu and Natuashish just graduated from a teaching assistant programme in Ontario.

SOUNDCLIP

GENANI DAVIS: This is a huge milestone for our community, for our schools. One of the reasons is because we want to educate our own people so that they can teach in the schools, so that they can teach in a way where they can teach the culture, you know.

ARIANA KELLAND: In June, both Innu First Nations and the Innu education body filed a Canadian human rights complaint. It estimates funding from the federal government is short seven and a half million dollars from what it should be and doesn't consider the cost of teaching in remote areas with a different language and different needs. Indigenous Services Canada tells CBC News it's open to identifying financial support required beyond the existing formula based education funding.

SOUNDCLIP

GENANI DAVIS: The government just doesn't trust the First Nations. They don't believe we could do it. That frustrates me. We work so hard as far as a school board. Parents worked so hard to get their kids to school and those kids work so hard to get through school. And when you have a government that basically says, we don't trust you to run your own schools. But we can only give you this much. See if you can manage. And I think we're doing pretty good since we've taken over. But we're still not there. There's still a gap. And we've got a lot of work to do.

ARIANA KELLAND: It may seem like an unconventional way to get to school, but here in Natuashish. Hitching a ride on an ATV is the norm. Phyllis Katshenak wears a camouflage jacket and big hoop earrings. Her hair pulled back. She holds her young son's hand as her daughters and eldest son walk behind. It's the first day of school, not just for her children, but for Phyllis, too.

SOUNDCLIP

PHYLLIS: I got to finish my school. I got 19 more credits. I want to be a child youth counsellor because there's nobody for the kids here.

ARIANA KELLAND: The 32 year old carries a heavy load one of intergenerational trauma addiction, memories of sexual and physical abuse. As a child, seh sniffed gas in Davis Inlet to numb that pain while her parents drank.

PHYLLIS: Because I didn't feel loved by my parents because they chose alcohol. And I didn't understand that back then. Today. I understand the hurt they carried.

ARIANA KELLAND: She moved to Natuashish as a pre-teen with her parents and was swiftly taken into the child welfare system, moved out of the community and into a foster home in Ontario. Away from her family and her culture.

SOUNDCLIP

PHYLLIS: I missed home. I don't know why. I didn't understand myself. I missed my people.

ARIANA KELLAND: Years later, history repeated. Some of her children were removed from her care and from that was she too taken to the island of Newfoundland. She fought to get her children back. And now they're all together.

SOUNDCLIP

PHYLLIS: But I look at my kids. I watched them and I cry. I cry to stay alive for the. So many of my generation, my people, my relatives took their own lives.

ARIANA KELLAND: It seems nothing is easy in Natuashish, no perfect solution or easy fix. Chief John Nui says it's a struggle to get what the community needs from governments.

SOUNDCLIP

CHIEF JOHN NUI: Almost every meeting that I attend, we have to fight everything that we get. But that I don't think that should be the case. Of course, that we have to do address some of the issues, but still be available to everyone. The health issues, the housing, all of these things, education issues like we have to fight every time we meet these guys.

ARIANA KELLAND: And the stakes couldn't be higher. Just outside the community, on the main road is a cemetery. But this one is filled with colourful toys laid out on the graves of babies, children and young people. It's a stark reality, but one Peter Penashue says is not a shock to the people who live it.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER PENASHUE: On average, no one, Innu people don't live any any longer than 48 years old. That's a very, very, very low mark. Canada in Newfoundland can deal with all the social issues that happen in our community there. There are issues they may have caused it, but there are issues. We just need to have the resources to be able to address those challenges.

ARIANA KELLAND: When the Mushuau Innu Relocation Agreement was signed in 1996, many promises were made. As part of that, the federal government agreed to decommission Davis Inlet to dismantle its decrepit homes and buildings board by board. But that work never happened. And now, nearly 30 years later, some input wishes are reconsidering what to do with the abandoned community. Here again is Gregory Rich, the former grand chief of the Innu nation.

GREGORY RICH: That is a big thing for us because it's a project that's never been completed. One of them is decommissioning. And this is an important opportunity, therefore, for locals. And, you know, I guess the community needs to sit down together and see what they're going to do with the houses and so on.

ARIANA KELLAND: Inside the homes that still stand, linoleum flooring is buckled and raised. A toilet sink and tub are all visible in the priest's old home. Signs of privilege from a not so distant past. The walls are scrawled with the names of young Innu who returned to visit. Some people return each year by boat or snowmobile to remember to pay respects to the family that are still buried here. For those looking in, Davis Inlet was a symbol of despair. But for people like Gregory Rich, even with the tremendous loss of his children's lives, Davis Inlet is more than that.

GREGORY RICH: It used to be a favourite spot for elders. They sit right here waiting for the church to start.

ARIANA KELLAND: There were happy memories of families, of love, of life.

GREGORY RICH: Some people are, uh, are traumatised here. That's happened in the past. Uh, some are. Some really hate Davis Inlet. But I do love me. I love it here.

ARIANA KELLAND: You do?

GREGORY RICH: Yeah. Even though, even though I suffered a great loss. But I miss this place sometimes.

[Music]

MG: A documentary was produced by the CBC's Arianna Kelland in collaboration with CBC's audio documentary unit. And if you'd like to see some of the images and video gathered by Ariana and her videographer Katie Breen in Davis Inlet and Natuashish, you can find them. Go to cbc.ca/nl. The CBC News is next. And then what was accomplished and what was not? At the COP 27 Climate Summit and what is the role of Canada in helping to address climate change? We'll talk more about that coming up in six minutes in Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

What’s changed and what hasn't coming out of COP27

Guests: Simone Foxman, Rothna Pegum, David Jeanes

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Soccer game commentary]the ball with Estupenan... Sending it to the penalty area and Al-Sheeb coming out and not getting hold of the ball and the first goal of the world cup... scored by Enner Valencia...

[Sound: Crowd cheers]

MG: And with that play has begun at the 2022 World Cup. Organisers no doubt hoping that what happens on the pitch over the next month will take the attention away from the controversies in the lead up to the tournament in Qatar. Controversies like this scene.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We are live on Danish television. Mr., you invited the whole world to the you you invited the whole world to come here. Why can't we film? It's a public place. This is the accreditation. We can film anywhere we want.

VOICE 2: Only for the Qatar. Because the Qatar is...

VOICE 1: No, no, no. We don't need permit.

VOICE 2: No but but the police.

VOICE 1: You can break the camera. You want to break it? Okay. You break the camera. Okay?

VOICE 2: You [unintelliglbe] the camera, you [unintelligible].

Yes. So you're threatening us. Bye bye. Bye bye. Smashing the camera.

MG: It's a Danish TV crew in the middle of a live broadcast being told by security staff to stop filming. Organisers have since apologised, but it seems to be a signal that perhaps covering this event may not be as simple as people might like to believe. Simone Foxman is a middle East correspondent for Bloomberg News and is based in Doha. So no now. Simone, hello to you.

SIMONE FOXMAN: Hello.

MG: You surprised the journalists? I mean, this is before the tournament actually started. We're running into issues from authorities about what they could and could not film.

SIMONE FOXMAN: Absolutely not at all. And when I saw that video of the Danish journalist dealing with security, it just seemed obvious to me that that was bound to happen at some point. You know, look, when you live in this region, you deal with a lot of restrictions that are not placed on Western journalists by Western governments. For example, to go out and film in the middle of public places in Qatar. Normally you need to go get a permit from the local news agency. You need to not only allows you to film in specific areas. Where that journalist was, it's called Qatara. It's a development project. And you need a special permit on it in addition to what the QNA will give you in order to film there. So it sounds like, from what we understand, that security guards were just not briefed on the fact that suddenly everything's open for business. You can film everywhere. That is pretty much the directive that the organisers have given, but no surprise that the security forces did not make it down to the security guard.

MG: That's around journalists. What does it tell you about the broader situation? You use the phrase open for business. There are thousands of fans who come from around the world for this event. What is going to be unfolding when it comes to those fans and where they can go and what they can do?

SIMONE FOXMAN: You know, this is a place that's quite conservative and far more conservative than Dubai. It is very much a muslim country. And while it's not as strict as Saudi Arabia, it does mean that there are certain codes of conduct that people who live here abide by, that, you know, foreign fans are not necessarily going to respect. I've been asking organisers for a long time, so, okay, you are going to have all these fans coming. Does that mean, you know, a woman in a tank top and short shorts, she's going to be let into a mall for for this month? And this has always been something that they've had trouble answering because they insist that fans are going to, you know, respect their culture, respect being in Qatar. But, you know, this is a World Cup. I don't know that you can actually say that. That said, you know, the message from them has been, we are tolerant, we're open, please respect us. But, you know, we're not going to, you know, be too strict with you. You know, fans are really still just getting here. This is day two of the tournament. And will we have yet to see how this actually plays out in their life?

MG: We know that Qatari law criminalises sexual acts and relationships between persons of the same sex or unmarried people. How concerned should fans be about those rules?

SIMONE FOXMAN: You know, this is very much a privilege oriented conversation. I am white, I'm an American and I live here. And I know people who are in same sex relationships. Some of them even live together and no one pays them any mind. But the problem is that this doesn't apply to everyone equally. I should mention as well, there are heterosexual couples who live here as well without being married and live together. You know, the problem is that, you know, Human Rights Watch and the like will bring up reports about about, you know, people who are LGBTQ being, you know, detained, beaten up, you know, forced to go to conversion camps and those things. You know, for some parts of society that, you know, people look the other way and for other parts, they don't. You know, I would say, though, this is a culture that is rapidly transforming. You know, these discussions have not been in even in the U.S. or Canada have not been around for that long. Think of where we were 20 years ago. The idea that culture is a bit slower to come around to tolerance, you know, shouldn't surprise us necessarily, considering how conservative we were just ten years ago here.

MG: The fact that this tournament is being held in Qatar has been the subject of fierce criticism in the country and its rules, its laws have been the subject of great scrutiny as well. Gianni Infantino, who is the head of FIFA, the organising body for world soccer, delivered what I think a lot of people thought was a wild monologue at his opening press conference this weekend about that criticism and whether he thought it was fair or not. Here's a little bit of what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

Today I feel Qatari. Today I feel Arab. Today I feel African. Today I feel gay. Today I feel disabled. Today I feel a migrant worker.

MG: He talked about how he understood discrimination because apparently when he was young, he had red hair and was discriminated against for having red hair and having freckles. What did you make of that in the context of what we've been talking about, the criticism that Qatar has faced?

SIMONE FOXMAN: Well, I thought his speech and particularly that parallel that he drew a little tough to handle. But I think that there is a line of thought here that that is that does mean something. I think there are some journalists, some folks who some viewers, some fans in you know, in a place like Canada or the U.K. or, you know, who are going to look at Qatar and say they're so backwards, they're so uncivilised, etc.. And I really don't think that that is the way to go. It's a very it's a racially charged way of looking at this country. And it's unfortunate because it doesn't respect other cultures. I think that there is some dialogue that's motivated by negative prejudices of these people are different and these people are the other. That's not all. The criticism is that way. And just because we didn't criticise or and I didn't cover Russia in 2018, but because journalists didn't criticise Russia as strongly, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be critical now.

MG: Now is the hope from the officials at the tournament that that criticism will bubble under now that the tournament is actually underway, now that play is actually unfolding on the pitch.

SIMONE FOXMAN: Absolutely. And frankly, you know, from organisers, they were hoping that the criticism would go away a long time ago. I think they're looking today to add the really meat of the tournament for this, the criticism, the controversy off the field to kind of go away. The thing is, we're just not seeing that. We saw FIFA say that rainbow armbands would not be allowed in the pitch and that any any players who wore them would face sporting sanctions. I mean, I think that just add fuel to the controversy around FIFA trying to, maybe the hosts- I don't know that they're involved in this case, that FIFA at least trying to suppress sort of the free speech of these players who are at the same time being told by activists to go out, make a stand. This is your moment to make a difference.

MG: Simon, good to talk to you about this. Thank you very much.

SIMONE FOXMAN: Thanks so much for having me.

MG: Simone Foxman is a middle East correspondent for Bloomberg News. She's based in Doha. Fans, activists, even some players have expressed concern about the games being held in Qatar. Rothna Begum is a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, has studied women's rights in Qatar. Hello to you.

ROTHNA BEGUM: Hi. Thanks for having me.

MG: How would you describe what culture is like in Qatar has been described as a we heard a conservative country. There are people who have applied various terms to what life is like there. From your perspective, how would you describe that?

ROTHNA BEGUM: Well, as Simon said, it is a conservative culture. But let's be frank, the bigotry. Authorities have been really responsible for the situation that we see today for women in Qatar. The discriminatory male guardianship rules that they impose in women means that women need mail guardian permission in order to marry, study on government scholarships, work in many government jobs, travel until certain ages and even for forms of reproductive health. Now these rules are imposed by the court to the authorities themselves. It's their way of saying if you as a family and as a male guardian want to be a progressive, then your daughter or your sister or your wife can work and she can have a progressive life.

MG: We've heard the emir of Qatar say that the criticism of the country hosting the World Cup is an unprecedented campaign. The president of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, said that it is hypocrisy and racism to criticise Qatar. What do you make of that language?

ROTHNA BEGUM: This is language is the main need to deflect from its critical human rights record and in order to absolve FIFA of its responsibility to actually remedy the abuses that we have seen the past 12 years to actually build and deliver the World Cup. You know, what criticism are they talking about? It's one thing if they point to very specific things that they could demonise racism, that would be perfectly fine. But what they are saying is simply because there is so much criticism that in itself is racist or is problematic, rather than actually dealing with the criticism, really responding to it. They've had 12 years. FIFA, in its own statutes, statutes, talks about just that. They prohibit discrimination against people, including for sexual orientation. But what have they actually done to ensure that people of LGBT backgrounds are able to have their freedoms and not just for businesses, but for people actually in the country. And for women in the same situation for women. They have done nothing on women. I mean, you see the situation for women in Qatar, it's actually quite restrictive. And, you know, the male guardianship walls that exist over them is a court that is a way of ensuring that so that families and male guardians get to decide what women get to do is not that dissimilar to Saudi Arabia, although the rules are somewhat different, but they are kind of getting away with it and they haven't had much to do to change it really. And you've got Qatari women and foreign national women who live their lives sometimes under these very similar rules, who while fighting was saying, you know, it's been so long and yet very little has actually changed for us. The progress that we see today is largely because women themselves have done it. They have got themselves educated, they're progressive, they've actually gone on to become entrepreneurs and so on. So you see these amazing women, but because of themselves, not because the authorities have done much for them.

MG: So when you hear the advocates for this tournament say that this is, you know, soccer for good, that that by having the tournament here, we can help bring change to the country just by actually being there. What does that say to you?

ROTHNA BEGUM: What change have they brought? Let's have a look at that. I mean, on the eve of the World Cup, this was a moment for FIFA to actually reckon with what has happened and to have taken the moment, the opportunity to say, we understand that we have made we've helped to push for some reforms, but these reforms have not done enough to actually deal with the fact the vast majority of my co-workers who came from South Asia and Africa did not get their rights, and we will remedy that. That is what they could have done on the eve of the World Cup. Instead, they said that they got assurances from the country authorities on something that they will have a legacy fund for some random education projects. That is not compensation for families of workers who have died, for workers who returned home without the pity wages that they given while they built every single thing you see in fighting causes. Instead, they use that moment to deflect criticism, to talk about what about we. We can absolutely have a conversation about the terrible migration policies in Europe. But this was a moment for FIFA to acknowledge its responsibility, which it does have.

MG: And so we saw it today. The players were going to go out on the pitch wearing, and these are the European teams, wearing an anti-discrimination armband. They abandoned that plan after FIFA threatened players with yellow cards, which could then suspend them from the tournament. And so they're not wearing those armbands. What should FIFA's response be to what players themselves want to do in terms of speaking out about conditions there in the country?

ROTHNA BEGUM: I mean, I think it was quite shocking because it's just such a- even it's a symbolic gesture of solidarity with LGBT people. It's a very small thing. For the FIFA authorities to spend time to create new bonds that they must wear and tell them that they will sanction the football associations. And the coaches were willing to take a fine to do that. They were willing for that, but to know that they could potentially be booked, that's something that they can't take a chance on, and that's fair enough. They should not be in that position for FIFA to actually be in this position where they're trying to actually restrict the freedom of expression of footballers who just want to show support is completely against their own statutes, around non-discrimination, against people with sexual orientation, and their own obligation to promote inclusion in the in the World Cup in Russia, for instance, they actually went out of the way with this with the office civil society, pushed them to get banners on women's rights. You know, they they were open to that. And this time round, we're seeing the complete list. We've seen them trying to shut down debate, trying to deflect what they're doing. And we're really seeing a regression, if anything, for what's happening regarding human rights in the World Cup, particularly with FIFA at the helm. And I just want to say, in terms of the reforms that we've seen with Qatar on particularly around migrant rights, we haven't seen reforms when it comes to women's rights and LGBT people. But migrant worker rights, all of those reforms really came as a large part of trade unions and civil society organisations. You know, they were kicking and screaming to get to the point of reforms. FIFA were not part of that. They just took any assurances they were given and claimed that the things were enough. But people have died. People have had their wages stolen and they are still not remedied.

MG: This is just the very beginning of this tournament. Amnesty International accused Canada soccer of deafening silence when it comes to issues of human rights and not speaking out on human rights. What would you want to see from teams as this tournament continues?

ROTHNA BEGUM: I mean, we appreciate that there are symbolic gestures, but really at this point, you know, they should of all football associations are benefiting, as FIFA has, on staying in the hotels, on playing on these football pitches for everything they see around them has been built and delivered and is still being serviced by low paid migrant workers at this moment. All they'd be awesome to do is call for a remedy for migrant workers who have faced abuses in the past 12 years, including wage theft, death and injuries with their families have not been compensated. There is money on the table. We've got billions in revenue that FIFA is about to make from this World Cup alone. The money is not the issue. The issue we have is that Qatar and FIFA are not willing to come through with the Remedy fund.

MG: I guess just finally, we're almost out of time, but despite the best intentions of the organisers to deflect the attention to what's happening on the pitch, people are still talking about these issues. And so is there some hope that you have that this international attention will do something for the people in Qatar?

ROTHNA BEGUM: I hope that the international attention continues that, you know, we don't stop talking about this until we start getting some real wins here. I mean, you know, every single day that can be planned, they're going to be meeting migrant workers. You know, are they going to see the incredibly racialized structure that existence is in the country? And you wouldn't see a single white person who's going to be cleaning the toilets there. Right. This is a completely racialized structure. And they are paid a pity wage in this country and many of them are not getting it. So the best thing you can do right now is to at least push for a remedy, find call for those people to get their rent, to be remedied for such abuses, and to build on what has been brought about for the last 12 years to make sure that anyone coming into the country has their rights protected, whether you are a migrant worker. LGBT or a woman in Qatar. And it should not be based on your nationality, whether your country or foreign nationals, rather.

MG: Thank you very much.

ROTHNA BEGUM: Thank you.

MG: Rothna Begum, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.

[Music]

MG: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: 24 Sussex that I wrote in one of my first books was it was the crown jewel of the federal penitentiary system. It needs an awful lot of upgrades in its electrical. It's plumbing, its windows, a lot of, you know, deep hidden things, not decorations, not silk on the wall and fancy decor. It needs really substantial work.

VOICE 2: This house is only 11 or 12 years old. It was remodelled from an old house that was here. And they kept the stone walls of the outside and we did the inside, which was quite a difficult architectural problem. And it might have been more practical to tear it all down and begin again.

VOICE 3: And we're talking here making it liveable. We're talking about making sure it doesn't fall down. The toilets work, the asbestos is gone. We're looking at between ten and $20 million to renovate a house without any architectural significance.

MG: Those are Margaret Trudeau, Maryon Pearson and Maureen McTeer, all spouses of Canada's former prime ministers. Politically, they may not have had much in common, but when it came to the place they were required to call home. There was, as you heard, consensus 24 Sussex Drive just wasn't up to snuff and it hasn't improved. That's partly what prompted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to settle his family into nearby Rideau College, foregoing the official residence when he took office. That official residences condition has been in steady decline. It needs over $30 million in repairs. And the commission that manages the official residences says it's gone too far and it's shutting it down due to health and safety concerns. David Jeanes is a retired engineer and board member of Heritage Ottawa. His group has been advocating for fixing and maintaining the building. David, good morning.

DAVID JEANES: Good morning, Matt.

MG: This is the official residence of the Prime Minister of Canada. It is a building of national significance, just based on that alone. How did it get to this point? Where. It's beyond repair. Some people believe, or at the very least needs to be shut down because of health and safety concerns.

DAVID JEANES: Well, as you say, it's the official residence has been since 1950. Every prime minister has lived there except Kim Campbell, who wasn't prime minister for long enough to move in. And even Justin Trudeau lived there, of course, when he was a child. But but the problem is that since 1950, when the major renovations were done, that you've just heard about the electrical systems, the plumbing and so on have been ageing. And back in the 1950s they didn't worry so much about fire codes and particularly about handicapped accessibility. So there are big issues which we're. We're thankful that the NCC is now going to address and they've had to move the people who were working in the building out because it's not safe during the renovations. It's not so much that the building is not safe. It's just that during the renovations you have to have a vacant, vacant building.

MG: But why has it been so difficult to find not just the will, but the money to keep up and repair this house? I mean, anybody who's a homeowner knows you let it go. And suddenly the small problem that you had is an enormous problem.

DAVID JEANES: Yeah, well, that's that's true. The the government owns many buildings that are considered classified federal heritage buildings. And this is one of them. It's the top category of federal heritage buildings, together with the parliament buildings, the old Union Station, which is now the Senate and so on. And an interesting example was that for the nearly 40 years that the Union Station was the government conference centre, maintenance was neglected in the same way that it has been for Sussex Drive. The Federal Government has a rather poor track record there, so it cost nearly $200 million to fix it up to make it into the home of the Senate. And we're facing the same thing here, but it's really no different. The Federal Government should maintain its heritage buildings.

MG: But this is about I mean, at the heart of it, a lot of people believe about politics. Right. The politicians don't want to be seen to be spending money on fixing up the official residence of the prime minister or the some of those other residences as well.

DAVID JEANES: No, that's absolutely right. It said that Stephen Harper, for example, wouldn't allow the NCC to come in and make the the renovations that they felt were necessary. But Heritage Ottawa recommended in back in 2019 in a letter to the Prime Minister that there should be a non-partisan advisory committee set up that should be above those political questions and should look seriously at what should be done to and what should be done in the future with 24 Sussex. And we actually recommended that a former governor general, perhaps David Johnson, should chair that committee.

MG: Is there any other nation that you know of that goes through these sort of. You know, difficulties and try to figure out how to spend the money and whether the money should be spent in the first place.

DAVID JEANES: I don't think so. If you look at Britain. Lots of money has been spent to maintain the official residence and office of the Prime Minister at ten Downing Street. And of course, the White House performs that that function in Washington and huge renovations were done to the White House. The entire interior at one point was removed. The building was completely gutted and recreated inside the heritage exterior. And it's really the heritage exterior of 24 Sussex Drive that needs to be preserved. It's a landmark overlooking the Ottawa River. It lines up with other important landmark buildings, including urns cliff, which, as you know, was once the home of Sir John McDonald, National Research Council, the French Embassy and so on. It's really in a in a line of heritage buildings that are important to Ottawa, particularly the views from the river and need to be preserved.

MG: And yet again, you could imagine there are some people who would say, look at the lines at food banks right now. Look at how difficult times are for many, many people. How could you justify spending millions of dollars on this building now?

DAVID JEANES: Well, one important thing is that preserving our heritage is not only about investing money to improve and repair old buildings, it's avoiding the cost of demolition and moving usable buildings into landfill. That's a heritage matter that we're really concerned with, and that's also an environmental concern because the the most environmentally efficient building is the building that already exists, rather than demolishing it and replacing it with something new.

MG: And so in the last minute or so that we have, the National Capital Commission says the building should be replaced. There are people who have been speculating about this for years. Knock it down, build something new. What do you think should happen with it? What does your organisation think should happen with it?

DAVID JEANES: No, there have been plenty of good ideas. There is one recent proposal for using the grounds to construct a new and adjoining building that would provide the necessary additional amenities. That's being done right now by the British High Commission, who are replacing their stable blog at Urns Cliff with a new chancery building that will be their high commission. So that's doable. But really the legacy of the building goes back to the lumber industry right back to 1868. The house was the home of important Ottawa lumberman from 1868 right through till 1946. So there's that history that is very significant. All the people who lived there were members of parliament or senators as well. So it has a long political history as well as it's used by the prime ministers.

MG: David, good to talk to you about this. Thank you very much.

DAVID JEANES: You're very welcome.

MG: David Jeanes, retired engineer, former president, and he's now current board member of Heritage Ottawa. No shortage of ideas on what to do at 24 Sussex. We will be happy to take yours. You can email us thecurrent@cbc.ca. That's The Current for this Monday. q's up next on CBC Radio One. If you missed anything, you can get caught up on anything you hear here through the CBC Listen app. We also have a podcast that's available through the various podcast apps that you might use Apple Podcasts or what have you on that feed. We have a special podcast which looks at the power of photography, features our conversations with National Geographic photojournalist Lynsey Addario and the great filmmaker Ken Burns. Again, look for that special podcast wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Back To Top »

Hauman rights concerns at the 2022 FIFA World Cup; and 24 Sussex Drive closes due to health and safety concerns

Guests: Catherine Abreu, Abigael Kima

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, there is a lot of excitement about Canada playing in the World Cup, but there's also criticism of how Qatar is welcoming the world. We'll hear about restrictions and concerns coming up. Also, what to do with 24 Sussex. The crumbling building has sat empty since Justin Trudeau took office in 2015. What could and should become of the Prime Minister's official residence? But first, a breakthrough at COP 27.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

We have struggled for 30 years on the spot. And today in Sharm el Sheikh, this journey has achieved its first positive milestone. The establishment of a fund is not about dispensing charity. It is clearly a down payment on the longer investment in our joint futures. It is a down payment and an investment in climate justice.

MG: Pakistan's Minister of Climate Change, Sherry Rehman, had one goal going into the COP 27 UN climate conference, and that was getting the world to set up a fund for loss and damage to compensate developing countries like her own, which are suffering through the catastrophic impacts of climate change. There is still debate about how that fund will work, but after decades of pushing for this, many are welcoming the accomplishment of this first step. Catherine Abreu is founder of the climate advocacy group Destination Zero and a member of the Net zero advisory body. It provides independent advice to the Canadian government. We've reached her in Luxor, Egypt. Catherine, hello.

CATHERINE ABREU: Hi. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. You said in some ways that this has been a tale of two cops. What did you mean by that?

CATHERINE ABREU: So the top issues being discussed at COP 27 were loss and damage and the phase out of fossil fuels. And these are both issues that this process has failed to address for over 30 years. And so it was really significant to see them coming to a head here in Sharm el Sheikh. However, we unfortunately got a great outcome on one of those issues and a not great outcome on the other. We did establish a loss and damage fund, but calls by multiple parties to include language in the final outcomes of COP 27 that would suggest all parties have to phase out fossil fuels. So that's coal. Oil and gas didn't make it into the final text.

MG: How significant is it the establishment of that loss and damage fund? People have been pushing for this for years and we have seen the urgent need for it when it comes to the effects of the climate crisis right now, the floods in Pakistan, the drought in the Horn of Africa. And so from your perspective, how significant is this?

CATHERINE ABREU: This is a landmark achievement for this process, particularly in a year like this, which, as you say, has witnessed so many devastating climate impacts on communities around the world. I mean, you mentioned a few examples from outside of Canada, but we here in Canada have experienced loss and damage as well. When I took a look at the coastline of Prince Edward Island after Hurricane Fiona, I thought that's loss and damage right there. We're never getting that coastline back. And so having a fund that helps the world's most vulnerable and poorest nations to address those devastating impacts is so critical to climate justice.

MG: What do you make of the fact that the U.S. climate envoy, John Kerry, said that the United States does not concede any liability for climate change? So this fund, they agreed to the creation of this fund, but they're not saying that those richer nations in any way are liable.

CATHERINE ABREU: So that's the important question that we have to address in the coming year. Countries have now said we will establish a fund, but the details of that fund, who pays into it? Who is eligible to be a recipient of it? You know how big it is, the kinds of compensation that it might be able to provide. All of those questions remain unanswered and they will, of course, be contentious questions. And so a part of what this process also indicated is that over the course of the next year, some of those questions will be dealt with in a series of meetings. And then we'll come back to COP 28 next year and have a further conversation about how we actually operationalise this fund.

MG: Just finally on this point, what should Canada's role or what do you think Canada's role will be in this fund?

CATHERINE ABREU: So I think it's important to note that on both of these key issues that I mentioned, Canada actually showed up at COP 27 much more constructively than it ever has before. And that's particularly true on the issue of loss and damage. So Canada actually had some good things to say this year on loss and damage, and it provided $7 million in funding to a project called Global Shield, which is linked to issues of loss and damage. So what Canada needs to do is to keep being that constructive player and to think about how to bring real money to the table. $7 million isn't a whole lot to deal with these kinds of crises, so we're going to have to figure out how to increase that funding.

MG: So that's the positive that has come out of this cop. On the other side of things, when you look at the final text, you said the weasel words were in full force. What was wrong? What was missing in the final text?

CATHERINE ABREU: So with loss and damage and a good outcome there, we see that this cop had something meaningful to say about dealing with the consequences of climate change. However, it still missed the boat. On having something meaningful to say about the cause of climate change, which is fossil fuels. Unfortunately, despite that, at the end, about 80 countries in total were. Asking the presidency of this COB to include a phase out of all fossil fuels. In the text, just a handful of parties, really less than ten, were able to stall that progress. And instead we got text in the final decisions that calls for a phase down of unabated coal and a phase out of inefficient subsidies and makes lots of references to things like low emissions technologies. And all of these we know are secret loopholes or back doors that can really open the door to keeping up the production and consumption of fossil fuels, which we know we have to dramatically decrease and transition to renewable energy if we're going to address the climate crisis.

MG: Canada's Federal Environment Minister, Stephen Guilbeault, said last week that this country would not agree to adding that language, calling for a phase out of all fossil fuels. What do you make of that?

CATHERINE ABREU: So that has been Canada's position for, you know, as long as we can remember, of course, resisting any calls to really double down on the cause of climate change and to use the U.N. climate talks as an opportunity to think through how we move away from coal, oil and gas and toward renewable energy. But it was really interesting, I think, to see Canada kind of change its position at the last minute at COP 27. So while we heard earlier in this week that Canada would not support that statement, in the end they did actually voiced their support. And I think that that's a sign of Canada coming around along with its major allies, including the U.S. and the U.K. and Australia. They also said let's include a phase out of all unabated fossil fuels. So they included some of that weasel language, but they were willing to let the oil and gas element of it come into the text.

MG: You've been very critical and others as well of the presence of lobbyists from the fossil fuel sector at cops, including this COP 27. What does that look like if you wander the halls of the conference? Do you see those lobbyists there?

CATHERINE ABREU: Yes, you see the lobbyists there. And in fact, part of what was so enraging, if I may say, about this cop, was that they weren't just there, but they were actually given a stage by the presidency. So at the end of the first week of COP, we had decarbonisation day. And on that day counterintuitively there were actually three separate events put on by the Egyptian presidency that featured gas lobbyists on the stage, and that's really just offensive. We come to these spaces to imagine our way out of the crisis, to try and get all the countries of the world together, thinking about what is possible beyond the current status quo that we know isn't working for people or the planet, and having influences there that really are trying to drag us back and say, let's just keep going. Business as usual, I think can be quite detrimental to the process. And so that's why I think we saw such a large pushback against that presence, not just from civil society folks like me, but there are actually a lot of countries who are also saying, hey, this isn't appropriate and we maybe need to start thinking about a conflict of interest policy for the U.N. after policy.

MG: You said that this is the last desperate act of men who initially denied climate policy in climate science. What does it tell you about how difficult this existential fight is going to be if those industries have such a major role to play in a conference that is ostensibly about addressing that crisis?

CATHERINE ABREU: So here's the thing. No one's saying that this transition is going to be easy. And I actually heard in the statements of many countries who were calling for the final outcomes of this text to include a phase out of all fossil fuels, saying, we're not calling for this because we it's going to be easy for us. Columbia, for instance, said, you know, 40% of our exports come from the export of oil and gas. And so this is going to be challenging for us, but we actually need to be using this multilateral process to have a conversation about how countries cooperate on this transition. And so when we see Libya showing up in this space, I actually think it's maybe a reflection of the fact that they've noticed that this process might start to do something useful on the front of the energy transition. And they've now decided, okay, well, I guess we got to get in there and try to stall progress.

MG: Should they have any role whatsoever, those industries, given the fact that they're going to be the ones that have to wind their operations down, that when we talk about a just transition, they will have some role to play in what that transition looks like. So shouldn't they have some some skin in the game here?

CATHERINE ABREU: Absolutely. So when it comes to conversations about just transition there, we're talking about a tripartite social dialogue that includes employers, employees and government. And so, yes, the oil and gas industry will have plenty to say there also. And this was, again, a conversation, a cop 27, when we're thinking about where, you know, large amounts of wealth are in the world that we need to mobilise for climate solutions, a lot of that is also in the hands of oil and gas companies and major producers. So that's they do have to be part of the conversation, but do they have to be part of the conversation at a conference that is designed specifically to talk about climate solutions? I don't think so. They don't invite climate activists to their long term planning strategies.

MG: When you talk about wealth, there's a lot of wealth as well in the hands of big banks. And this has been discussed in this country, and I know it's been discussed more broadly as well. Is there any progress in the role of those financial institutions in helping to get to net zero?

CATHERINE ABREU: I'm glad you asked this because I think that this is actually one of the outcomes of this court that's kind of flying under the radar. So we also in the final decisions of this cop, we got a commitment to a just transition work programme and we got some pretty strong language about the kinds of transitions that need to be happening in the macroeconomic space as well. So with multilateral development banks, the World Bank, etc.. And so I think that we may be in in the outcomes that we didn't get everything we need and want. We start to see a little bit of a package here like, okay, we're going to be thinking through how we use just transition processes and economic reforms in those financial institutions to try and shift the global economy away from being so invested in the problems that cause climate change right now to being invested in solutions and helping communities adapt.

MG: What is this all going to mean? Because this is the 27th version of these conferences. They've been happening for almost three decades. And emissions keep going up and up and up, not down. So there can be a meeting of minds, there can be an urgency. And we heard that from Antonio Guterres in in very pointed language. But in the grand scheme of things, is there value in these sorts of negotiations?

CATHERINE ABREU: I've been asked this question so many times this year. This is my seventh cop, and I've probably been asked this question more this year than ever before. But I think that the the the reason that people ask that question is the very reason that we were talking so much about the causes and consequences of climate change at this cop, because this process was designed to speak exclusively about emissions. It has actually been missing the boat on the practicalities of how we address the climate crisis for 30 years. And so you see this pressure to finally turn these talks around and make them useful applications for how countries cooperate on meaningful things like the energy transition and financial reform. And so I think if we're able to turn this process into that kind of implementation conversation where, you know, we know it's really back to the countries and action at the domestic scale that's going to solve the climate crisis. But no one country can do it alone. And so the the way that the U.N. climate talks and COP stay relevant is by finally being able to create a space where countries can talk about how they do this together when their national policies rise up to that international scale.

MG: I guess one of the reasons why people might ask you this question now and it's not to be cynical, certainly, but the next cop is taking place in the United Arab Emirates. And the president of that country said at this conference that his country will continue to supply oil and gas for as long as the world needs it. So what signal does that send not just to the attendees, but to people who are, you know, feeling the real urgency of climate change? We talked about loss and damages when the next conference is going to be held in a country that's just going to continue to pump oil and gas out of the ground.

CATHERINE ABREU: It's true that we heard some very worrying comments from the next cop presidency at this at this set of U.N. climate talks. They were talking about providing oil and gas for as long as the world needs it and how clean their oil and gas is, which is, of course, a narrative that Canadians might find very familiar. Here's the thing, though. It is the case that every single country in the world has to be a part of this process, because, like I said, climate change is a collective problem and it requires collective solution. So what I'm really hoping is that this cop sent a strong enough signal to the UAE that they won't be able to avoid a conversation on just energy transitions that they will figure out over the course of the next year how to accommodate that conversation, given their national circumstances. And, you know, it's going to honestly require a lot of work from civil society and from other countries, really making it clear to the UAE presidency that this is the conversation we know U.N. climate talks need to be able to have if we're actually going to use them to address the climate crisis, which, frankly, they have been failing to do to a large extent for the last 30 years.

MG: And I guess just finally, the message that that is directed to those who are feeling this crisis right now. What do you think they should be thinking coming out of this conference? Will they feel as though the discussions met that urgency match that what they're feeling right on the ground?

CATHERINE ABREU: I'll be honest that as much as we might have some critiques about the failings of this cop to really step up to the plate and have the guts to finally talk about phasing out all fossil fuels coal, oil and gas. The fact that we made this leap on the issue of loss and damage does really give me hope. I wouldn't have believed that we would be here, not let alone a year ago, not even two weeks ago. So would I have believed it? And we were able to push to land this outcome and loss and damage. And we got so close to landing an outcome on fossil fuels as well. And so, you know, I actually am walking away from this conference feeling a little more hopeful that it will be a constructive space for countries to really grapple with the depths of the climate crisis from now on. That being said, the reality is what matters is what we do when we go home. And so for Canadians listening in on this, my message is the same as it often is, which is tell your elected official that you were expecting them to take action on climate change regardless of their political affiliation.

MG: I appreciate the hope that that you feel it's important in the face of all of this, and we'll see whether that leads to action. Catherine, great to talk to you as ever. Thank you very much.

CATHERINE ABREU: Yeah, you too, Matt. Thanks.

MG: Catherine Abreu is the founder of the climate advocacy group Destination Zero, a member of the Net zero advisory body. It provides independent advice to the Canadian government. We had also hoped to speak with Canada's Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault. He was not available today, but we're looking to find a time to speak with him as soon as possible. Abigael Kima is a climate activist from Kenya and the host of the podcast Hali Hewa. She is in Nairobi. Abigail, hello again.

ABIGAEL KIMA: Hello. How are you?

MG: Well, I'm well. It's good to talk to you again. When you and I spoke, you talked about the impacts of climate change that you had already seen in your country and you were calling for the establishment of a fund like this loss and damage fund. What is the establishment of the fund at COP mean to you?

ABIGAEL KIMA: It's one step towards the right direction, because I understand that the establishment of this fund has been pushed for for about 30 years, and that is way before I was born. So it was an exciting thing to see that countries are actually coming together and building solidarity and recognising the need to help the most vulnerable communities who are now at a place where they are not able to adapt because they are beyond the capacity to adapt because of the impacts of climate change. And I think when we spoke earlier, I shared some of the experiences visiting communities and also my own experience where I come from, where we're experiencing loss and damage. So this was quite an exciting move, but of course I feel so much more to be done.

MG: Now that there has been at the very least, an acknowledgement of the need for a fund like this. What has to happen next?

ABIGAEL KIMA: So figuring out where the finances will come from and how they will flow to communities, because we know the systems that are already there make it very difficult for communities to access. The fund, for example, of the GCF usually takes about three to four years to actually access funds, and it's not even the communities who are able to get a hold of these funds because the systems are quite complicated. So now what we need to figure out is how we are going to make sure the finances flow to the people and also where the money is coming from. So I guess this is something that will be negotiated in the coming years.

MG: When you spoke at COP, what was the message that you were hoping to deliver to world leaders, world leaders who have been resistant in past to establishing a fund like this?

ABIGAEL KIMA: So through the podcast, which I started earlier on in the year, I was really trying my best to amplify African climate stories, which I've always felt like we really describe climate change in terms of numbers and statistics, but then really looking at communities and personal experiences and human experiences of the climate change. So my message going to COP27 was that actually climate change is affecting real people and it's not an impact that is so far away from us. We're literally living through this crisis. And so apart from, you know, asking for the establishment of a loss and damage finance facility, I was also looking to see what would come out, especially in the lens of adaptation, because I feel like a lot of attention was shifted to loss and damage. And so adaptation did not receive the love and attention that it deserves because, you know, Africa needs adaptation more because are already experiencing the impacts of climate change. So that was my message. Unfortunately, I feel like an addition didn't quite get the attention it deserves.

MG: Do you feel as though you were being listened to by leaders there?

ABIGAEL KIMA: This was a bit different because there was a lot of solidarity building amongst young people from across the globe. It didn't matter whether we are from Africa or from the global north countries, but the real solidarity and collaboration amongst young people and I think during the entire experience we just saw how important our voices were because there's a lot of people wanting to hear from us, a lot of people wanting us to join that movement and build solidarity together, especially with the push for fossil gas in Africa, which was also quite contentious. So I'd say they do recognise our importance, but it's not enough to be given a seat at the table. We also want our solutions and our voices to be heard and to be included in places that matter the most.

MG: In a speech that you made, you said you asked leaders to be real and accountable, but that when you walk the. Corridors of cop, you see space of smoke and mirrors, and that smoke and mirrors betray the people who are at the frontlines of the climate crisis. Tell me more about that.

ABIGAEL KIMA: So over the years, we go to COP and there are a lot of promises and commitments that countries and organisations make, and usually it's picked up by media. And by the time we leave COP, nobody does a follow up, does zero accountability on whether these things are actually being acted upon? And so for this particular speech that I made was towards accountability and transparency because in all honesty, I feel like it doesn't make sense to come to another cop, make new promises, and nobody actually followed up on what was promised last year. And I feel like that has been a trend. And when we ask now whether some of those things that were promised at Glasgow and delivered, nobody can actually tell if they were. So what's the point of starting from a clean slate every other year when there are a lot of things that we we could possibly be, you know, taking some clubs to actually just sit down and review with that. Some of those things are being implemented before we move forward and make new promises and new pledges. We can't constantly do this thing where we are not accountable, we are not transparent, we are not open about what we are doing, especially based off of what we promised to do in the previous cops.

MG: How do you avoid becoming cynical about this?

ABIGAEL KIMA: It's really hard. It's really hard because I think especially after COP 27 was over more than ever, I felt like this particular process is becoming pointless. It's like we keep in one of the sessions that we had those elections where we were asked to write a message to COP 37 and that momentarily took me. I like I had a moment of of of reflection. I'm like, could they possibly be speaking about the same things in ten years? Like Cop 37 would still be saying, Oh no, we haven't figured out how finances for loss and damage are going to flood communities. I really would hate to be in that position and looking at younger people who will be who will come after us, if they'll be fighting for the same things that we would have failed. Because ten years is a long time. And clearly this process is not one that will deliver the solutions that communities really need at this, at the present time, because we really do not have time. They're living through the crisis. Some need to migrate because their homes have become completely unliveable. So it's very hard to keep hope. And I don't know, I feel like we really need to rethink, re-evaluate whether this process is what we need and whether this process is what will actually deliver solutions for communities. But I also must say I recognised the the importance of having this platform, because then it means countries are still willing to have a conversation, still willing to do solidarity. It's important, but we also need to review how the process will go to ensure that it's faster and can deliver solutions to communities.

MG: I'm really glad to talk to you again. It sounds like it was quite an experience and I hope people are listening to what you were saying. Abigael, thank you very much.

ABIGAEL KIMA: Well, thank you for having me.

MG: Abigael Kima is a climate activist in Kenya and the host of the podcast, Hali Hewa. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

One historian called it a dubious piece of architectural adventuring in the 19th century. Far from dubious is its future. As long as it's about beams and gravestones still stand by act of parliament, it will house only the foremost Canadian citizen.

MG: Dubious, perhaps still standing, barely. What should become of the official residence of the prime minister, a crumbling 24 Sussex. We'll talk about that, coming up. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Back in 90 seconds. Stick around.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Monday November 21, 2022 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This