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 December 15, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I really do need caregivers now, but I just don't have the money for that. So I'm really daunted on what my future holds. I'm really overwhelmed and scared.

MATT GALLOWAY: Jacquie Holyoak lives with fibromyalgia. She receives disability support payments that barely cover the bills. She says her quality of life has disappeared and so she has applied for medical assistance in dying. Disability rights advocates say her case speaks to the dangers of expanding what's known as Made in 30 minutes. Jacquie's story and the fear that a lack of support for Canadians with disabilities is leading them to choose death over life. Also this morning, scientists and climate campaigners continue to meet in Montreal in an attempt to safeguard the Earth's biodiversity. A beautiful example of what they're fighting for is off the coast of Australia.

SOUNDCLIP

Mammals, turtles, whales all depend on this spectacular ecosystem and we're seeing stress in this ecosystem at a frequency, at a spatial scale that has never been seen before.

MG: In an hour. The push to put the Great Barrier Reef on UNESCO's endangered list and why preserving World Heritage sites at risk isn't as simple as it seems. We start, though, with a perilous journey to the UK for asylum seekers. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Migrants and refugees risking their lives to reach the U.K.

Guests: Nando Sigona, Christa Rottensteiner

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Water and indistinct chatter]

MG: That's the sound of migrants struggling to pull themselves out of a sinking vessel and on to a fishing trawler. The fishermen spotted the boat in the middle of the night and managed to rescue 31 of the migrants. Other vessels came to help, rescuing more than ten more people, but at least four died in the freezing waters of the English Channel. These are not the first migrants to have died or to have their boats capsize. According to the British government, nearly 45,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats in 2022 alone. Nando Sigona is chair of the International Migration and Forced Displacement Programme at the University of Birmingham. Nando, hello.

NANDO SIGONA: Good morning.

MG: What went through your mind when you heard of this latest tragedy in the English Channel?

NANDO SIGONA: I just thought it was inevitable, in a sense. Nothing significant has changed since the tragic accident happened a year ago. There has been a lot of talk. There has been a change of heart of home secretaries. There has been tough talk, but essentially the structural issue is still there. The British borders have become more porous as a result of Brexit, and the country hasn't found yet a way of managing the the arrival across the channel that are actually a relatively new phenomenon. The problem is there are no safe routes for claiming asylum. There is the possibility to apply through the refugee resettlement scheme, but those are only applied to specific nationalities. What happened to the rest? People that need to seek refuge are looking for new opportunities for rebuilding a life. And the crossing is basically what is left for the moment.

MG: You mentioned that tragedy of a year ago. 31 migrants died in a dinghy that was similar to the one that was used this week. I mentioned 45,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats this year alone. Tell me more about why this is happening. Why is it that people are taking extraordinary risks to get to the UK?

NANDO SIGONA: It's a change. So the opening up of the the sea crossing is motorboats, as it is called, is a relatively new phenomenon. We need to really see in any significant way until the pandemic, essentially. The UK never experienced the arrival with the small boats like that in Italy or in Greece during the refugee crisis. What happened was that as a result of the pandemic, with the closing up of any other route, the increasing the check at the border for the goods that transfer from Europe through to England because of Brexit essentially has become more difficult to cross on the back of the lorries or in any other way. And as it happened, also in other cases, when the first the few boats start to cross, they realised that basically they learnt from previous experience in the Mediterranean, they realised that the crossing of the boat may be an option in the absence of any safer routes. And since then you've seen that replicating on a larger scale. The problem, the issue with these actually is that the largest group that come through the boats until recently and I talk about the Albanians - because now everyone seems to be obsessed with Albanians in UK - aare the main nationality claiming asylum and be recognised as genuine refugees.

MG: What about the Albanians? As you mentioned, people in the UK seem to be obsessed with the fact that there are a number of Albanian refugees.

NANDO SIGONA: New sort of nationality appearing on this boat boat. I mean, up until last year they were almost a very small group. And then since the summer of 2022, we have seen thousands of Albanian crossing on this small boat. So it looks like there has been a new sort of smuggling network being created that this bleeding people from Albania to cross through on the boats.

MG: And is there any other way? These are people who are seeking asylum. Is the any other route or any other way that they could enter the UK through traditional immigration methods?

NANDO SIGONA: No, the problem with the people from Albania that there is very difficult access to to visa or any sort of labour migration routes, despite the fact that the country is really struggling for recruiting in many position as a result of the exit from the European Union. So it's almost paradox that the issues with the Albanians is that until recently in the number of asylum applications, a lot of them also get recognised as refugees. About 53% of the application from Albanian nationals are recognised as genuine a case of need of protection. Often it comes as a result of the back of modern slavery legislation of human trafficking as the main justification, the reason for claiming asylum. So is not true, as the government tend to say, that these are all unfounded cases. Actually, their own form of is recognising a lot of these cases as genuine, but it's clearly an issue of people using more and more the crossing in the sea that is extremely dangerous and can lead to deaths as we haven't seen. So there should be more safe legal routes even for Albanian to be able to seek protection if they need, but also possibility to migrate to the UK legally, especially because the country needs economic migrants as well, at the moment.

MG: This has become a humanitarian crisis. People are dying in the channel, in the freezing waters. But it's also a political crisis for the government. And this week, the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, made this pledge after the most recent deaths.

SOUNDCLIP

We will introduce new legislation to make it unambiguously clear that if that, if someone comes to the UK illegally, they should not be able to remain here. Instead, they can expect to be detained and swiftly returned. Either to their home country or to a safe country where their claim, where their claim for asylum will be considered. Late or spurious claims and appeals will not be possible. And once someone has been removed, they will have no right to re-entry, settlement or citizenship.

MG: So while a Braverman has called this an invasion, do you think the UK government using that language will discourage people from making this kind of journey?

NANDO SIGONA: It will not discourage anyone. I mean, this is a language that is just talking and serving their own sort of conservative support. It's basically, it is a talk to a specific audience. I mean, migrants, don' t really sort of care about Suella Braverman. I mean, they don't even know if she's that, she's the home secretary in a wasy as they change so frequently at the moment. But the point is that what she's saying, that it makes it look like they're taking a tougher stance, is basically reproducing what the Conservative government has done last year and the year before. I mean, they want to introduce new legislation, but the new legislation just came into force a few months ago. The British Border and Nationality Act that the Conservative government promised as the solution to the problem. When she talks about people being sent back to their country of origin, as I said, the country of origin that we are talking about for the large majority are a country that the UK recognised as a dangerous places where people are escaping with legitimate reasons.

MG: Reasons Afghanistan, Iraq and other nations.

NANDO SIGONA: And the case of the Rwanda that which is the other big issue that had been dealt. You know, they tried to send people to Rwanda that encounter a very significant resistance from the civil society, from the lawyers. Human rights issues have been raised. So no one has actually been sent to run the. But in many ways, the Rwanda deal has become a central item in their conversation with the the British electorate and with the conservative voters. They really think almost that they're one to do that. That is not just in the competition.

MG: You've mentioned Brexit. I mean, one of the you know, the slogans around Brexit was that the UK was going to take back control of its borders. What sort of support do you think there is amongst the British population for creating a safer route for those who are seeking asylum into the UK?

NANDO SIGONA: We must do okay. Brexit has made the control over the border more difficult, despite the promise was to take back control. So that's the one level. And partly the result is that the UK has come out of some mechanism that would enable the boat to control the border done in on land in the European continent rather than the actual border. So in many ways now is the easier to take the risk to cross in the in the sea because the UK cannot easily send back people. So people are taking this more risk because of this new circumstances that have also been produced as a result of Brexit. The point of the safe. It's interesting because the in the last a couple of years, the UK has received the record number of resettled refugees, for example, from Ukraine or also for Hong Kong. But these are only through very specific schemes that apply to very specific groups. As we know, forced migration. Refugee crises don't only apple in places where our government want them to happen. I mean, it's part of the nature of these crises that sometimes are unpredictable. So you need to have in place an asylum system that also enables you to cope with the unpredictable flows. At the moment there isn't one in UK because there is no way for people from countries that are not Ukrainian or not Hong Kong to come to claim asylum legally.

MG: And so in the absence of that, we're just about out of time. But do you believe that people will continue to die because they'll continue to make those those I think the people we?

NANDO SIGONA: Continue to take the risk, the you know, the cooperation with France. It's important to limit to the network the operation of the smuggling network. But the reason for people to take the risk are still there. I mean, you can remove a one provider, but the demand is still there. So another provider will appear to to basically do the job.

MG: Provider, being smugglers?

NANDO SIGONA: The smuggler.

MG: The smugglers who are helping to move these people across the border.

NANDO SIGONA: Yeah. You have to look at some cases that these people are providing a service. So it's there is a demand for people that are seeking refugee protection to cross. And if there is no legal route to look for options. And so if you may get rid of smuggling networks because the demand is still there, you will have an incentive for other people to try to put the boat in the sea and try to cross. So the solution cannot be just working against the smuggling network, but also providing other option for people that want to apply for asylum.

MG: Nando, it's good to have you back on our programme. Thank you very much.

NANDO SIGONA: It's a pleasure.

MG: Nando Sigona, a chair of the International Migration and Forced Displacement Programme at the University of Birmingham. Christa Rottensteiner is the Chief of Mission for the UK with the United Nations International Organisation for Migration. This agency collects data on migrants who have died or gone missing in the English Channel since 2014. Chris, hello to you.

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: Good morning.

MG: Are you surprised that people keep trying to make this perilous journey to the United Kingdom?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: Not surprised, but very shocked by the latest loss of life, which, you know, just came a few days after we were looking back at the biggest loss of life in the English Channel in history, which you already mentioned earlier, where 31 people died. But the desperation remains. People leave their homes because of very difficult situations and they look for safety and they look to come to the UK, sometimes for community link, sometimes to reunite with their families. So, you know, that situation still remains and this is why people keep coming.

MG: The CEO of the charity Refugee Action says that we shouldn't be surprised at all by this, that that this in some ways was predictable and inevitable that more people will die if safer routes to asylum aren't created. Do you agree with that?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: It's definitely a contributing factor. So IOM compiles a missing migrants report since 2014, and we have found that globally over 50,000 people have died during their migration journey, their international migration journeys. And that's a really shocking figure. Over 50,000 and it's the real figure is probably much higher. And half of the half of over half of them die on routes within or to Europe. So this is the deadliest region for migrants. So these are really shocking numbers. And definitely part of the problem is that people feel there is no other way to come to safety than to take these dangerous journey.

MG: Just briefly, paint us a picture of the conditions that they're travelling through. Again, it's been freezing cold in the UK over the last several weeks which which contributes to the danger across the channel.

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: It is a very dangerous journey at any part of the year, but particularly at the moment with the cold. The channel is one of the busiest shipping areas in the world. At its narrowest, narrowest point, it's 34 kilometres. And then people get on very unseaworthy little dinghies, their inflatable vessels that really cannot hold people, but they still get sold by smugglers. More and more people get crammed onto them because then that way they make more of a more money. About 50 migrants on average, and then we find them families with young children who find themselves on these boats where sometimes the engines stop working. They don't know how to work the engine. Sometimes the you know, someone would fall over because of the waves. So it's really, really difficult situation. So it just shows the desperation that people put themselves in. So what is really important is that we try to avoid that these journeys get taken, that we have more international cooperation to solve why people leave their home countries in the first place, but then also to have search and rescue efforts so people's lives can be saved.

MG: Where are the countries that these individuals are coming from? Again, Nando mentioned a few of them, but from your data, what do you know about where these migrants are coming from?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: Well, they mostly come from conflict affected countries from Afghanistan, from Iraq, from Eritrea, from Somalia. So many countries where people out of desperation leave and they have very long journeys and some of them take them to the UK.

MG: And have those patterns changed over the last little while in Europe?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: Not really. I mean, the numbers go up and down with what is going on in the world. But of course, Ukraine is making. Ukraine has had a big shift because of the millions of Ukrainians who have left their homes. So in Europe now, Poland is one of the countries that hosting the most refugees. We've also seen, you know, increasing situation in Iran with more protests there and people fleeing. So the numbers go up and down, but is clearly and increasing trends where we see continued conflict and people continue to leave their homes.

MG: Your organisation has said no one should feel forced to undertake such dangerous journeys. But is the reality? Not that until people have safer routes to claim asylum, which is their legal right, the UK is part of that European agreement and there's some talk from politicians that they want to perhaps leave that agreement. But but currently it is the right of people to seek asylum. So if people don't have a safer route to to look for that, that they will take those risks. Is it not fair to say?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: So yes, there is a legal right to seek asylum. In addition, we see that there are legal routes, but they're just not sufficient. So, for example, resettlement is is a route where people can come to different countries but only 1% of refugees globally every year are able to access that route. And that's because of the sheer numbers. So most people actually remain in the region and are not able to reach a country like the UK.

MG: So what is needed to be done then to create those safe and legal routes for people who are attempting to flee conflict, flee war zones so that they aren't going to be in those those flimsy dinghies trying to get across the English Channel?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: So we need more legal routes, but also better legal routes. They need to work better. So I've talked about resettlement. This is a really important route. So we're directly from a region where there is conflict. People can leave in safety. But as I said, it's just 1% of access to this. We need globally, not just in UK but globally. There needs to be a bigger number of refugees who can benefit from that. Then specifically family reunion in the UK. There is a process for getting families together, but again this needs expanding and it also needs to be easier to access. IOM supports families to come to the UK using this route. We have supported over 15,000 people in the last ten years, but we found that some families find it very difficult to access. They can't travel to a visa centre, particularly for women and children. This is very hard. So we need to look at making the existing legal routes, which in some cases are very generous, but they need to be easier to access so that people don't lose that hope and get on a dangerous dinghy instead.

MG: How is that complicated by the language that's used when people, politicians talk about an invasion. When people talk about this, you know, being illegal migration, how does that complicate what your what you're aiming toward?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: Well, generally, I believe it is helpful to think about people as human beings. And this latest tragedy reminds us of this. And I find it concerning when people often just talk about numbers, bringing the numbers down and forgetting that these are women, their children and their men who put themselves in difficult situations. And I am always advocates that people should be protected regardless of their migration status.

MG: In the absence of that, and this is the same question that I asked Nando do you expect that these tragedies will continue?

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: I really hope not. But we can see that people are still coming. We can still that conflicts are continuing. So unfortunately, we have to expect that we will still see deaths along routes that migrants take.

MG: Christa, I'm glad to speak with you. Thank you very much.

CHRISTA ROTTENSTEINER: Thanks a lot.

MG: Christopher Rottenteiner is the Chief of Mission with the International Organisation of Migration. It's an agency with the United Nations. Well, your CBC News is up next. And then choosing a medically assisted death. Critics worry that a lack of money and a lack of support are becoming factors when people are making decisions. And much of the concern right now is focussed around Canadians who are living with disabilities. We will hear one woman's story and talk further about why disability rights advocates are so concerned about that story and about the larger conversation around what's known as made in this country. That's coming up in six minutes. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

Back To Top »

Advocates warn poverty is driving Canadians with disabilities to consider MAiD

Guests: Jacqueline Holyoak, Rabia Khedr, Trudo Lemmens

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, it's one of the seven natural wonders of the world, but the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. What's being done to kerb the effects of climate change on the coral reef? That's coming up in just under 30 minutes. But first, how poverty and access to social supports are factors for some people seeking a medically assisted death.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Last year, Canada expanded eligibility for medical assistance in dying or MAiD. It opened up the programme to people with grievous and irredeemable medical conditions, including illness, disease or disability. Critics say these changes could push people with disabilities towards MAiD. Jacquie Holyoak has been talking to her doctor about MAiD. Jacquie has fibromyalgia and is on the Ontario Disability Social Assistance Programme, and she joins me now from Fergus, Ontario. A warning that this conversation deals with difficult subject matter. Jacquie, good morning.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Good morning, Matt.

MG: How are you doing today?

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Um, actually, today is a good day, which is rare. Usually I'm flat in bed on my back in pain, but today I'm able to sit up and do a few things. So today's a good day.

MG: Do you mind? Tell me what a bad day is like? What is life like generally living with fibromyalgia?

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Well, fibromyalgia is a disorder, I guess you would call it, where there's a lot of inflammation and there's a lot of widespread skeletal pain. And this pain tends to be quite relentless. It's quite distracting in my life so that I really don't get to have a normal life. And in the past three months or so, it has gotten quite bad so that most of my days now are spent in bed.

MG: And where that has led you to, is a place where you are on ODSP which is the Ontario Disability Support Programme.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Correct. Yes.

MG: What, what is, what is life like for you with that. I mean you have expenses that you have to pay because you have rent and the other expenses of life. But after you pay those expenses, when it comes to the ODSP, what are you left with?

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Pretty much nothing. Anyone on ODSP usually receives about $1228 per month. And then I mean, my rent is $756. You know, by the time you pay your internet and your, you know, everything else, I'm usually left with about $80 a week. And that's not just groceries, that's clothes, groceries, pharmaceuticals. And as you mentioned earlier, people with disabilities, myself, not having a family doctor makes it even more difficult. So we end up having to buy everything on our own; shower chairs, walkers. You know, fibromyalgia, we have tender points on our body. So I've got to get now a bed topper that's designed for that because it's quite painful to sleep now.

MG: And all that, all that costs money that you don't have.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: A great deal of money.

MG: What does that what does that mean for your day to day life? I had read you speaking about how you work to, in some ways, train your body to survive on a meal a day.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm not saying it's not written in stone, that that's all I eat is one meal a day, because obviously I'll eat whatever is put in front of me, but we have to get a month's supply of food and then I have to ration that for the month. So I can't eat it all at once in the first two weeks or I'll have nothing for the last two weeks. So I pretty much live on cereal in the morning and a hamburger in the evening and then if I'm lucky, you know, graze on fruit here and there. So. But I am noticing differences that I've actually lost almost 70 lbs now in two years. And I've been noticing in the last month my hair is falling out. And so obviously this is affecting, you know ... a not a very good diet is affecting me.

MG: What was it that - and this is really a difficult question to ask - but what was it that led you to have a conversation with your doctor about medical assistance in dying?

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: It was just the daily grind. There seems to be two ODSP recipients, the one that has the family and the support and they're taken care of through their family. And then there's myself and a bunch of other people I know where we don't really have anybody. Our friends are our disability friends, so they can't really help us either. So we were kind of fall through the cracks and are left to our own devices.

MG: And so how did that lead you to that conversation with the doctor about medical assistance in dying?

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Yeah, I just I was I finally went to her a couple of years ago. I've been thinking about this for the last three or four years, and we have talked about it over time. And then it was about a year ago or actually about three years ago when COVID hit and things got really bad, that I really started thinking my life is a grind. It's just too physically hard now. Every day I get up, it's a physical workout that I'm just getting too old to do. So I did talk to my doctor and The one thing about the the MAiD program is they do stress that they don't want to do this for people in poverty. This is not about poverty. But I argue that the poverty and the ODSP are intricately involved together, so that if I wasn't on ODSP, would I be seeking MAiD? I don't know that answer, but I'm leaning towards no, because my quality of life would be so much better.

MG: When you came to that that decision, that this was something that you wanted to seek, I mean. I don't know how you would feel in that moment. Where you angry, where you sad?

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: I think a bit of everything. I grew up in the church, so I am a Christian that believes in God. So that was one thing I have to deal with on my own, personally, but just the decision itself. I have children. I have a new grandchild. Do I want to actually die? Of course not. I have things to do. I'm a very busy person. I love music and soccer and, and things I want to do. But my quality of life doesn't allow me to do those things. So now I have to I have to outweigh my quality with the. Value of life, I guess, and It's not an easy decision, and I do flop back and forth. But right now I'm leaning more towards, I'm just really exhausted. I just can't do this anymore. I need someone to help me. And I've been asking everywhere. And unless you have money, you're just not going to get the help. Caregivers are anywhere from 15 to $40 an hour.

MG: What is your doctor said about whether you would be approved for this procedure?

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: The MAiD's doctor, she says the first one for pain. And I did my assessment about six months ago and she said I actually don't meet the credentials for the pain, but I have since gotten much, much worse. And we're working now to see if I followed, get the credentials for the pain now, because I don't know what's happened over the last three months, but suddenly I'm not really able to walk at all. Yeah. So we're just kind of going through that. But she does say that I do have mental health issues and even though I really do not want to go down that avenue. Come March we can. And she says for sure, I reach 80% of those credentials. But of course, these, these credentials aren't written by doctors, they're written by lawyers. And we're waiting to see what these credentials are. So she can't promise me, like, yes, you'll be eligible. But she says, in my mind, 80%, yes, she'll be eligible. So now we're just waiting.

MG: I'm really glad to talk to you. And it's important. This is a really difficult conversation to have.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Mm hmm.

MG: But it is important, given the larger conversation that's underway right now. I wish you the very best. Um, I'm glad that today, as you say, in the grand scheme of things, is a good day.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Mhm. It is.

MG: Jacquie, thanks for speaking with us.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Well, thank you for giving me the platform, Matt.

MG: Take care of yourself.

JAQUELINE HOLYOAK: Okay. Thank you. Bye bye.

MG: Jacquie Holyoak lives with fibromyalgia. She was in Fergus, Ontario. Disability rights advocates say stories like Jacquie's are becoming all too common. They want to see greater financial support for people with disabilities so they don't feel the need to seek out medical assistance in dying due to the economic constraints that we just heard about. Rabia Khedr is national director of Disability Without Poverty. It's a disability rights group. Rabia, good morning to you.

RABIA KHEDR: Good morning.

MG: What do you make of what you've just heard from Jacquie?

RABIA KHEDR: What a tough place to be, not as a person with a disability, with lived experience who grew up in a household of people with disability. I really, really struggle with even the fact that people have to contemplate medical assistance in dying. I'm spiritually conflicted. I'm ethically conflicted. And I'm conflicted as a member of a society in terms of, you know, what does our society value? What is going on here? Here's somebody who is wanting to live, feeling that they need to die. And in limbo, in legal limbo right now because of the way the legislation is designed and the lack there of support and services and resources that she needs to live a quality of life, you know, that's meaningful and basic for her with dignity.

MG: We know that there is a cost of living crisis right across this country. And we know that food bank use has spiked in in recent months, certainly. The CEO of the Mississauga Food Bank wrote a piece for McLain's magazine talking about that and talking in particular about people who are on disability support programmes. And she wrote, When people start telling us they're going to end their life because they can't live in poverty anymore, it's clear that we have failed them. Jacquie said she's living in pain, but she also said that if she had a better quality of life that she perhaps would not be considering maid. What does it say about us as a society when that is happening that people don't have enough and that that helps to be a contributing factor to the fact that that they want to seek medical assistance in dying.

RABIA KHEDR: It's actually disgusting as a society that praises itself on its life, liberty and security of the person, as a society that praises itself, as, you know, civilized and developed. It's really, really sad when people with disabilities have to go online to raise money to meet their basic needs. It's really sad that we have Bill C-22 in the House of Commons and that our Parliament is going to take a break for the holidays without ensuring that that legislation becomes law.

MG: This is the Canada Disability Support Benefit.

RABIA KHEDR: Canada Disability Benefit Bill C-22 is in the House. It hasn't even made its way to the Senate yet. We were pushing for its passage within this year that C-22 passes in 2022. That's certainly not going to happen. And it's you know, it's it's on the table. We wish that it would pass in parliament third reading and may and be referred to the Senate so that it can eventually become law in early 2023 and hopefully budget it so that people with disabilities actually get the benefit in 2023.

MG: Part of this is also the conversation around MAiD itself, which is a very complicated and nuanced discussion in this country, and one that is, as Jack said, evolving into the new year as well. Those who who support medical assistance in dying will say that there are safeguards in place that for cases that aren't terminal, there is that 90 day waiting period after approval that that's one of the people who's doing the assessment has to be specialist in in the condition of the patient. Do those safeguards provide the I guess, the barriers that you want to see so that people don't feel as though this is a choice they have to make?

RABIA KHEDR: No those safeguards, there's no safeguard against feeling compelled to choose medical assistance and dying. It's a very slippery slope when you're devaluing As a society we're taking, you know, sort of a cheap option out, for our responsibilities toward people in our society that are vulnerable, that are disabled, that have medical conditions, that need supports to thrive.

MG: This has been an issue that disability activists and disability rights organisations have spoken about since the debate around MAiD began in this country. And what you'll hear often on the other side is that issue of choice though, as well, that people will say that that that it allows some patients to regain a sense of control, that it allows patients to regain an element women not support, that you might not agree with that, but that it gives the patient some agency in whether or not.

RABIA KHEDR: Matt, when people are living in poverty, it's no longer a choice. It's not a choice. They didn't choose to live in poverty. They're living in poverty. They're facing more, deeper and deeper poverty. Over 50% of people who are food insecure are people with disabilities. Over 41% of people experiencing poverty are disabled people. People with disabilities don't have a choice.

MG: And just to be able to say, just to be clear, I mean, just the inadequate support or somebody who doesn't have supportive housing or adequate housing, that doesn't help. That doesn't qualify them for MAiD but your point is that that can be a contributing factor in steering somebody there.

RABIA KHEDR: It's just not giving them a choice, right? Like we're giving them a choice to look at medical assistance in dying because of the exacerbated pain and and symptoms that they may be feeling because of the barriers they experience to accessing healthy food and a reasonable quality of life. It's really, really a fine line. It's a slippery slope, Matt, where, where we're essentially saying, okay, we're not going to give you the supports you need to thrive, but here's an option for you. We're giving you choice. Is it really a choice?

MG: As this debate unfolds and having heard Jacquie's story, but also the concerns that you've raised, what do you want us as a nation to be thinking about as the debate around MAiD continues in this context of supporting people who are living with disabilities?

RABIA KHEDR: I want people to think about what they have in their lives. You know, I want them to think about the holiday season and how they're going to be celebrating and gathering and gifting. I want them to think about all of that and then think about what are we offering, as a society, to people with disabilities for them to live with basic dignity and respect in our society. What are we giving them? The option to line up at a food bank? The option to choose medical assistance in dying? What are, what are we giving them as an option this holiday season? We need to give them the resources they need to live with dignity. And that begins with the Canada Disability Benefit. That begins with some remnants of financial security. To give them choice.

MG: True choice.

RABIA KHEDR: True choice.

MG: Rabia, I'm glad to talk to you as always. Thank you very much.

RABIA KHEDR: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Take care. Bye bye.

RABIA KHEDR: Bye bye.

MG: Rabia Khedr is the national director of the Disability Without Poverty Group. It's a disability rights group. Trudo Lemmons is a professor of health, law and policy at the University of Toronto. Has been listening to our conversations. Trudo Lemmons Good morning to you.

TRUDO LEMMENS: Good morning. Thanks for organising this difficult discussion.

MG: Thanks for being part of it. You have argued that expansions to made are discriminatory against people living with disabilities. What I guess briefly, what is the legal rationale behind that argument?

TRUDO LEMMENS: Well, if you look at who qualifies now outside of the broad end of life, life context for medical assistance in dying, it's exactly the type of people we've been talking about. It's people like Jacquie who are suffering from a disability and have irreversible decline of capability. It's not a person without a disability, so people without a disability won't have access to maid even when they live in poverty. But people with disabilities disproportionately struggle with poverty and with intersections of intersecting components also of of of mental health struggles. And so it's towards those people that the state is now sending the message that death is an option for them. And the suicide prevention that we will continue to apply in towards other people will not apply to them.

MG: How does that compare to. Other nations around the world, particularly when it comes to to disability and living with disability.

TRUDO LEMMENS: Well, we have to be very clear that there are very few countries that have actually legalised medical assistance in dying, particularly of sort of the end of life context. And so the two countries that have had a practise for quite some time since 2002 are Belgium and the Netherlands. Spain has legally had a decision as well by the Supreme Court. But but most of the countries that have legalised some form of physician assisted suicide restricted to the end of life context. And so even more restrictive than the law that we had before, many several states in the U.S., for example, New Zealand, the state of Victorian Australia require a terminal illness diagnosis and in the prediction of of life left of of six months. So so there are not many countries that have legalised it outside of the end of life context. And in those where it has been legalised Belgium, the Netherlands could have practises outside of the end of life context have been more controversial and the countries have actually struggled to how to deal with this. For example, they didn't have for in the first ten years, about ten years of their legalised euthanasia laws, they didn't have euthanasia for for mental illness. And then it started being practised and very quickly a realisation in the societal debate followed that there were problematic applications and they strengthened the safeguards. If you look at the Canadian law, the Canadian law is already more flexible than Belgium and the Netherlands. One of the, one of the key reasons is that in in Canada, physicians do not have to agree that there are no other medical options left. In other words, if people, for whatever reason, for reasons of despair that are giving up on things that they feel that the social, societal messaging is sending them the message that that is a preferable option to them. Physicians may know that there are options left, that there are medical interventions possible, but they would still be allowed to provide medical assistance in dying. And I think that's that makes it, that makes it a much more flexible system than Belgium and the Netherlands.

MG: The argument, I guess partially, is that the Canadian law reflects in some ways what Canadians are looking at. There was a survey done from Ipsos last year found 69% of Canadians support removing the requirement that natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order to receive MAiD. 76% supports advance requests for MAiD even if no grievous or irredeemable medical condition exists. So why should the law reflect with the majority of Canadians appear to want?

TRUDO LEMMENS: Well, I'm I'm always sceptical about these polls. We have to see what exactly the question was, what people understood with medical assistance in dying. And I think there is a lot of uncertainty about that. And in and of itself, I would say when we were talking about human rights and the human rights of persons with disabilities, you know, whatever, whatever a majority would say doesn't really make a difference in the sense that we protect people's individual human rights, including the right to be protected against premature death. So what we're seeing now and in the context of Canadian law, is that we will we have removed protection for persons with disabilities outside of the end of life context by by basically creating a ramp to facilitate people jumping down the cliff in situations of socioeconomic suffering, intersecting with with disability and mental illness.

MG: We're well, we're just about of time. We only have a minute or so left. But is there a way then to create those guardrails? But that doesn't remove the agency and the choice that advocates say this provides?

TRUDO LEMMENS: Well, people always have a choice. And I regret a little bit the language that is always being used that we were creating a choice. We're creating an option to die for it to facilitate medicalized, dying of persons with disabilities. People can die. People can die, can have options. But we're basically sending the message as a state that when it comes to persons with disabilities, we, the medical system society, will facilitate premature death. And I think that's in of itself a terrible message that we send in the context of the broad socioeconomic injustice that we're faced with in our country, where we don't even recognise a positive right to health care. So I would see advocates for broad, expansive medical assistance in dying have framed a Supreme Court decision, which was really framing medical assistance in dying as an exceptional procedure that should be available in exceptional circumstances. They've treated it as somehow a kind of broad right to die, but it now only applies outside of the end of life context of persons with disabilities. I think that's a terrible message that we're sending.

MG: We'll have to leave it there. As you said, this is a complicated and difficult conversation to have. I'm glad that you were part of it. Thank you very much.

TRUDO LEMMENS: Thank you.

MG: Trudo Lemmens, Professor of health, law and policy at the University of Toronto. We did request a statement from the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Carla Qualtrough, on these issues in particular. Disability rights advocates concerns about people with disabilities seeking maid after being unable to access, supports or afford basics such as housing or food. She did not respond to our request. We'd love to hear from you. You can email us thecurrent@cbc.ca. Coming up after your regional update, we'll talk about the Great Barrier Reef, one of the natural wonders of the world. It's in trouble. Should it be put on the endangered list? It's more complicated question than you might think. We'll talk about that in 90 seconds on The Current.

Back To Top »

The push to list the Great Barrier Reef as endangered

Guests: Richard Leck, Lynn Meskell

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Australia's Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef ecosystem on the planet. And to see it up close is magical.

SOUNDCLIP

There's nothing like going to the Great Barrier Reef. Your eyes are just the most of all the colours you can think of, all the shapes. There's just fish buzzing around you. It's like going to a major city but underwater. So you would see thousands of schooling fish if you are lucky or see some sharks. We've got beautiful turtles, moray eels, stingrays, octopus, cuttlefish, lobsters. Pretty much just any creature that you think of when you think underwater, you can find it on the Great Barrier Reef. So, yes, this has this huge diversity of marine life. Every time I go out in the first time, it's like you've entered another world. It's just completely different. You have this sense of amazement and wonder and you just want to experience and be there and just soak everything in. It's quite breathtaking. And yes, it definitely does give me goosebumps to this day.

MG: It does sound magical. That's Marine photographer Lawrence Scheele. Scientists are warning that much of that beauty and biodiversity is at risk of being destroyed by climate change. And now a U.N. backed report recommends putting the Great Barrier Reef on the list of endangered UNESCO's World Heritage sites. Richard Leck is the head of Oceans and Sustainable Development at World Wildlife Fund Australia. He is in Brisbane. Richard, hello.

RICHARD LECK: Good. How are you?

MG: Well, I'm well. What is happening? We heard Laurence describe that as in some ways another world. What is happening to that world such that it would warrant this idea of adding it to the UNESCO's endangered list?

RICHARD LECK: You know, really sadly, over the last few decades, we've seen a slow decline in the health of the reef. We've consistently seen levels of coral cover decline. And largely that's been driven by threats coming from outside the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. Often pollution that comes from the coasts and the catchment can also be driven by unsustainable fishing practises. But in recent years that decline has really accelerated largely due to climate change. And in the last six years here in Australia we've seen four mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef. Coral bleaching occurs when you effectively have an underwater heat wave. The corals can't effectively handle that haze. They expel the the algae that gives them that colour. And unless those corals cool down quickly enough, it can end up being a large mortality event as well.

MG: How dire is the situation? The director of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation said. She's not on her last legs yet, but it sounds in your description and what we've talked about on this programme before, that there is a real danger that you could get to that point. So how how dramatic is the situation from your perspective?

RICHARD LECK: It's really interesting, actually. It's a great point, Matt. You know, you can go to the reef today and it's still magnificent. You know, it's an absolutely beautiful, incredibly life changing experience to go to the Great Barrier Reef. The reef is still resilient. It has had these massive impacts on it. We saw, particularly from the bleaching events in 2006 17, a huge amount of coral mortality. Some scientists estimate that up to 50% of coral was lost through this event. But corals and coral reefs generally can be incredibly resilient and the Great Barrier Reef retains that. I guess looking forward and if you look at the projections that international the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change Experts say amongst all ecosystems globally, it's coral reefs that are at the most existential threat from climate change. They are likely to be the ecosystem that sadly disappears first. And that's what I think has been recognised by in the end to look into the future and realise that these events will become more severe and more frequent unless we really get our act together quickly.

MG: And so part of getting that act together quickly is designating the reef as endangered. What do you make of that idea?

RICHARD LECK: Look, I think for a long time in Australia, for for the best part of the last decade or so, we've sadly not had a government that's led on climate change. We've had a real polarisation and politicisation of action on climate change, and we've really been at the back of the pack when it comes to developed countries in taking meaningful action on climate. We have had a new government here in Australia and the Indian Government for about six months or so and they've made some welcome new steps. It's been really refreshing to see some of the concrete actions that have been taken and also to see some of the ambition that the new Australian Government. Has said about becoming leaders of climate action and protection. So it's the view of WWF that we think placing the race on the endangered list immediately could actually be a disincentive for the government to take further action. We think the Government needs some time in its new term to show that it will take on these recommendations from the end and be given that time to demonstrate that it will adopt those and demonstrate progress. So we're recommending a decision made on that endangered listing. That doesn't happen for about 18 months or so to give the Australian Government time to show that it can move from being a laggard to a leader.

MG: The Government has said that it is investing all sorts of money to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The Environment and Water Minister Tanya Plibersek does not want the reef to be on the UNESCO's endangered list. Take a listen to what the Minister said.

SOUNDCLIP

Nobody needs to tell the Australian Labour Party, the Albanese Labour Government that we need to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Nobody loves the reef more than Australians do and no one is more prepared to act and to invest in protecting the reef than we are here on this site. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the best managed reefs in the world and it doesn't and it doesn't require an endangered listing by UNESCO to make us on this side take it seriously.

MG: The Minister was not available to speak with us today. In a statement, she writes. Our government has supercharged work to protect the reef. Those are great words. But what has actually been done by this new government to to to stand up to that commitment?

RICHARD LECK: And, look, I think those statements are welcome. I think a commitment to supercharge action on the reef is a great thing. The concrete steps that we've seen so far, an increase in ambition to reduce Australia's carbon emissions. Previously we had a target of reducing emissions by 30% by 2030. That's now 43%. That's still nowhere near what's required to give the reef a fighting chance into the future. So, well, it's just, you know, it's a good step in the right direction. It's not everything that's needed and it's certainly not in line with what UNESCO's and ICN has recommended is needed to avoid an endangered listing. And the government has, on other issues, invested some considerable money in around $1.2 billion over the next next nine years to reduce threats other than climate change. Those are largely those threats that come from the catchment, the pollution that comes mainly from farming activity alongside the reef coast and to reduce the impact of fishing on threatened marine wildlife as turtles do the islands and inshore dolphins, that also makes the reef famous. So that's good investment. Investment can be spent well. It can be spent poorly, as we all know. So I think, as I've said previously, the government does deserve some time to show that it can turn the health of the rope around, but it certainly has a lot more work to be done.

MG: I mean, there are those who are watching this who say that the government's resistance to this is about tourism. The 2 million tourists visit the Great Barrier Reef every year before COVID and that if you put it on the endangered list, that that could be catastrophic to to the tourist attraction that is the Great Barrier Reef. What way do you put in that in this? You know, the resistance from the government is is not so much about give us time, but about, don't you know, kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

RICHARD LECK: Look, I think there's a lot of validity to that. And certainly, you know, the reef is one of the seven natural wonders of the world, but it's also an economic powerhouse here in Queensland. It pre-pandemic provided around $6 billion in annual revenue, provides employment to that 60,000 people a year. And that's a really good thing.

MG: And so if it was on the endangered list, would that mean that those people couldn't go there, that those people who work around it would be would be out of work?

RICHARD LECK: I think it's likely that we're placed on the endangered list. The attractiveness as a tourism destination would decrease, people would still come, they could still go out onto the reef. But I think it's a very legitimate concern that if that endangered listing happens, it would damage the attractiveness of the reef as a tourism destination. I think if you look at it from a different perspective that we're talking about the Great Barrier Reef, it's the most iconic race in the world. It has huge social and massive cultural value to first nation people, massive economic and social value, as we've discussed. If we can't site the Great Barrier Reef and we can't do everything we possibly can to give it the best chance of survival in the future. Where else are we going to effectively protect? I think that's why it's so crucial that not only the Australian and Queensland governments come together on this one, but the global community really does put all the encouragement and pressure on Australia to really lift its game, both in terms of the carbon emission reduction and actions to protect the right too.

MG: Let me just ask you finally, just about that global community in this country. World leaders have gathered in Montreal for this U.N. biodiversity summit and the Environment Minister of Australia is taking part in it. The talks are just grinding along, going very slowly. There is not a lot of agreement thus far on protecting the biodiversity of this planet. Given what you have said, given what we know about the state of the Great Barrier Reef, what's at stake in these talks, do you think?

RICHARD LECK: I think working in coral reef conservation and as I've done for the past few decades, coral reefs are really climate change in your face. This is very immediate. The meetings in Montreal that I've met will set, you know, really critical decisions around how much of the planet is is placed in protected areas. It will set really critical decisions around the involvement of first nations people, local communities into protecting our natural assets. I really hope that I do think about ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef and not look to compromise, but to go big and bold and act on behalf of our children and their children.

MG: Richard, I'm glad to talk to you. Thank you very much.

RICHARD LECK: It's been a pleasure.

MG: Richard Leck is World Wildlife Fund, Australia's head of Oceans and Sustainable Development. Lynn Meskell is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She's an expert in how UNESCO's functions. Lynn, hello to you.

LYNN MESKELL: Hello. Thank you for having me on the show.

MG: Thanks for being here. From your perspective, how big of a deal would it be for UNESCO's to list the Great Barrier Reef as endangered, given the threats that the reef faces?

LYNN MESKELL: I think it would be a very important decision. It would send a very clear message that climate change is is perhaps the most pressing issue that we have and that the whole world really has to get behind that in terms of conservation and changing the way we do things. And a site as vast as the Great Barrier Reef really would, I think, entreat the global community to get behind that. So I think it could could send exactly the sort of message that UNESCO's intended when it was founded in 1945.

MG: The reef has been a World Heritage site for 40 years or so. What does that designation specifically mean?

LYNN MESKELL: Yes. It's a remarkable sight. I've been fortunate enough myself to to visit it. That listing is based on four criteria that suggested that this obviously was a site of great natural beauty, but it also had marine ecosystems and biological diversity. It was well-preserved, it had management plans and so on. It had integrity. So that's what the conservation status of the World Heritage Listing entails.

MG: What does that bring to a country like Australia when when a site like that, as important as it is, is given that World Heritage designation?

LYNN MESKELL: Well, obviously it's very important and it's become more and more important listing on the World Heritage List in the last couple of decades. Because what's happened is it's changed from being about a recognition of conservation status and importance to being a brand that can be used for the tourism purposes, basically. So to garner economic benefits, that's what listing has come to signify less about conservation and more about marketing and branding.

MG: What do you mean less about conservation?

LYNN MESKELL: Well, I have to say, after attending World Heritage Committee meetings for about ten years, it's very clear that the only interest countries have in turning up for the sections on conservation are those that might be threatened in some way with a negative report. Whereas every country is in the room when it comes to the inscription of CITES to getting new sites on the list. So it's become a very acquisitive process. So not so much about conservation and monitoring. The countries are less concerned about that and they're absolutely concerned about getting on the list and staying on the list.

MG: And so when the Australian Government says that it will fight against UNESCO, adding the Great Barrier Reef to the endangered list, what's going on there as you understand it?

LYNN MESKELL: Yeah. Well, I'm really quite sad to say that. To say to say that they will lobby already suggests a bit of a negative move. We're looking at expert opinions here. And the danger list is not meant to be some black mark against a particular nation. The listing itself was originally supposed to do exactly what the reef needs, which is to garner more international attention, more expert attention, and to raise funds to raise awareness. So the danger listing was not ever supposed to be. They always say carrots and sticks. It wasn't meant to be the stick. It was meant to to change conservation behaviour and to help nations and to help the world really conserve these marvellous sites.

MG: Where has that happened elsewhere?

LYNN MESKELL: So the sites that have been on the danger list and come off are sites like Encore in Cambodia. That's an incredible site that was listed and then came off the list. Campi in India was another site that was also on the danger list for some time and then was taken off. In most cases, there are solutions that are presented and so that countries can work towards that and the global community can also work towards this. Because remember, this is the World Heritage Convention. It is about sites that are in particular sovereign nations territory, but it is about galvanising, you know, the rest of the world to come together. And if you think of what UNESCO's did in Nubia to rescue those temples, there's a long history of salvage missions.

MG: Who is making these decisions? Who is on that World Heritage Committee in UNESCO?

LYNN MESKELL: It's a rotating group of 21 nations that are voted in that serve on that committee each year. At the moment, there are countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Mexico, India, to name a few. But they are the most powerful decision makers in the room. And of course, that's what countries do. They lobby those particular decision makers, those particular nations to support them. And that's why you see certain nations being invited out to go snorkelling on the reef and other countries have done this. Interestingly, Panama and Russia have previously invited delegations out to and paid for them to come out and enjoy their particular heritage sites. But Australia now has also done that.

MG: Tell me more about that and what happens behind the scenes you've written that persuasion, interference, incentivization, coercion and even threats are some of the tactics that countries use in terms of trying to lobby their case. So what's going on there? Give us an example of that.

LYNN MESKELL: So this is not necessarily to point to Australia, but many countries use all sorts of tactics in terms of lobbying and persuasion to get those committee members to to agree to either inscribe a site on a list or keep a site off the list in danger. There's vote exchanges. You support me and Eunice go. I will support your country. In another UN forum, there's often promises of aid or alternatively reductions in aid budget. So you have things like boat swapping, you know, different forms of intimidation. I've seen physical intimidation at the meetings, all sorts of threats. This is all live streamed. So much of it can be seen now also on YouTube, on UNESCO's channels as well. You have a lot of delegations pressuring other countries, giving them texts to read out in support of. Nominations and so on. So it's there are many, many different strategies that countries can use, whether it's sort of enticement, come and visit, see how wonderful, let us show you a good time or two to be more threatening and more coercive in the in the meetings themselves.

MG: It sounds like the lobbying that is often ascribed to I mean, the World Cup is on right now, the lobbying that's often ascribed to FIFA, the organising body of world football.

LYNN MESKELL: I've heard that so many times, and I've written about that myself, that that UNESCO's World Heritage List has become more like FIFA or Eurovision. The previous Director-General, Irina Bokova, used to say this is not a beauty contest, but in fact that's exactly what it's turned into. So yes, there are all sorts of lobbying, as I said, enticements as well as sort of negative bargains that can be can be struck.

MG: Is it wildly naive to have believed that when countries are named to the UNESCO's World Heritage List or perhaps put on that endangered list, that those decisions would be made by cultural experts.

LYNN MESKELL: I think in earlier times, expert advisory missions will listen to and their reports were were heeded in some way. Some of the analysis I've done with other academics shows that from about 2010 onwards, the advice of those experts has been routinely and increasingly overturned by the committee. And not to say that it was ever politically neutral, but it has become far, far more politicised in the rejection of cultural and natural expertise in favour of political and economic benefits.

MG: Because, as you say, of the money that's at play here.

LYNN MESKELL: I think the tourism branding. Yes. Is is one of those. And I'm and I'm sure Australia, like many countries, will be concerned about that. I should point out too that in 2010, I think the Everglades accepted that they were going to be put on the danger list for the United States. And I think they have managed to to carry on regardless. I think it was also very striking that in 2019, Mexico accepted a danger listing for the Gulf of California, which is also a marine, obviously a marine site. And what was striking there is that they very graciously accepted that they knew that this was a site that was facing myriad challenges, and the whole room applauded them for the grace and good sense of accepting that. And because it was so unusual and of course, you know, other countries could follow in that lead, but unfortunately, that's become an exceptional case.

MG: We're talking about the World Heritage Committee here of UNESCO's. And I just wonder more broadly if these concerns are being directed at that committee. What that does to the image of UNESCO's itself.

LYNN MESKELL: Or certainly UNESCO's image in terms of its conservation, has probably suffered because of the actions of states. It's also the case that UNESCO's suffers from financial hardship because the United States, which was its largest contributor, pulled out of the convention and stopped paying in 2011, and that was 22% of its budget. So UNESCO's running, you know, its ability to run has been severely delimited. And then on top of that, you have states not listening to experts or following those recommendations and putting conservation, sidelining conservation. So it is really an organisation that has suffered I think from a lot of attacks and of course politicisation is one of those.

MG: What does that mean? I guess just finally in the larger conversation around preserving those sites, preserving the there again, there's this conference that's happening in Montreal now around biodiversity. Can that be that conversation be advanced if there are these questions that are being raised? And will those those sites that need attention, need protection like the Great Barrier Reef, get that if the lobbying continues apace?

LYNN MESKELL: Well, countries will find other ways to have their needs met. And I guess it's not just about money. I mean, the reef also has a lot of money that's been allocated there. It's about implementation. It's about monitoring. Also, UNESCO's can't do its job if it is severely underfunded, it cannot even do its job in terms of monitoring. So, yes, there are reasons to be concerned about the long term conservation of sites. On those on the list, we have 1154, I think, at present, and there's much less discussion of those sites. All the interest goes to the new sites that are being put on the list. So that happens every year. And you know, we may see that happen again in June or July next year.

MG: This is really informative. It's good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

LYNN MESKELL: Thank you.

MG: Lynn Meskell is a. Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the co-author of Power, Persuasion and Preservation, a study of Decision Making at UNESCO's World Heritage Committee. The fate of the Great Barrier Reef is amongst the matters being discussed at the UN Conference on Biodiversity that's happening in Montreal, and we will have a special edition of The Current tomorrow from Montreal. That's The Current for today. Q is up next on CBC Radio one to take us to Q music from Billie Eilish. Musician has spoken out about the need to tackle climate change, and she lent this track to the Great Barrier Reef Conservation Project. Coral Watch just last year. Billie Eilish and Ocean Eyes. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Thursday December 15, 2022 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This