Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2024

The Current Transcript for January 22, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I am the CEO of a corporate wellness company here to tell you why wellness sucks.

MATT GALLOWAY: Workplaces spend huge sums of money to make sure their employees feel good at work. From yoga at lunch and mindfulness seminars to volunteering opportunities. But how much difference do they actually make? This morning, we kick off a new series to help us make sense of all the pitches we're seeing online, social media and elsewhere these days on how to be a better you. And we begin in the workplace. That's coming up in 30 minutes. Also this morning:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: This is the very first indigenous population in Canada that has a big role in changing the map of Canada and becoming an important player within Canada.

MG: It is the largest land transfer in Canadian history. Nunavut now has taken over land and resource responsibility from the federal government. In an hour, the Premier of Nunavut on what the power to make those big decisions will mean 25 years after becoming a territory. But we start with the increasingly desperate hunt for food in Gaza. Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Risk of famine grows in Gaza

Guests: Isam Hamad and Arif Hussain

SOUNDCLIP

YOUSEF HAMMASH: It's unacceptable that for a hundred days all of this madness is happening here. One hundred day and until now, we didn't see a solution in the horizon of suffering for people in Gaza.

MG: That's Yousef Hammash, an aid worker in Gaza with the Norwegian Refugee Council. Fighting in that region has now been going on for well over 100 days. The Health Ministry in Gaza says the Palestinian death toll from the war between Israel and Hamas has surpassed 25,000 people, and the humanitarian needs grow more desperate by the day.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Eighty per cent of the population are displaced without any means of protection, without any access of their basic needs. People are living day by day in an impossible situation, trying to find solution to provide their family and children needs.

MG: According to the World Food Programme, about 93 per cent of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of food insecurity.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Imagine people feel that they did a victory when they come back home with a bucket of bread or a few bottles of water, or a food parcel. A hundred days and people still suffering every day just to get their basic needs under this bombardment around us.

MG: Getting aid into Gaza has been a major obstacle for humanitarian groups, and we'll hear more about that in just a moment. But we start in Gaza. Isam Hamad is an engineer and regional manager of a medical equipment company. We have spoken with him throughout this war and today he is in Rafah. Isam, hello.

ISAM HAMAD: Hi, Matt. How are you?

MG: I'm okay. How are you?

ISAM HAMAD: I'm fine. Trying to survive.

MG: Trying to survive. Tell me where you are right now.

ISAM HAMAD: I'm in Rafah.

MG: What is it like in Rafah right now?

ISAM HAMAD: Uh, it's very bad. It's, uh, very crowded now after all the people from Khan Yunis moved over. It's terribly bad.

MG: Can you describe what it's like? I mean, your family is there right now, and you and I have spoken a few different times. Just describe what you see right now.

ISAM HAMAD: Well, I'm still in the same place. We were about, uh, 37 people. Now we are 43 because also, uh, more relatives came to the place. So we are, uh, you know, a very crowded place now. But what I can see, uh, newer than the last interview is that, uh, tents are now in every spot in Rafah. In every street and every [unclear] and everywhere. Everywhere in Rafah. You can see tents everywhere, even at, uh, from the Egyptian border to the allowed area in [unclear].

MG: What's the situation like for food right now?

ISAM HAMAD: It's getting harder now. Uh, because there's a limited amount of food from sight. And uh, also the aid is very limited in choices. You only have, uh, some types of foods that come and not enough, uh, for our usage. We have to buy from whoever, uh, [unclear], uh, the aid we receive. Uh, it's very difficult. Prices are very high. Uh, there are, also bikes are not available in the market. Very, very limited. Uh, like canned uh, beef and some of them canned also fish, and some canned vegetables. That's all available in the market. Nothing else.

MG: Do you have enough for your family?

ISAM HAMAD: Well, we have enough for them. I am-- I always buy what is necessary for my family. But, uh, I also buy from the parts available. Like there is no need to cook at all. There's not any type of meat. Not [unclear], not meat. Not, uh, lamb, beef. There is nothing in the market. Only canned lamb shawarma and canned beef. That’s all available in the market. So we have, uh, no chance to cook. We can only eat, uh, canned food. There's also biscuits come from the World Food Programme and from the other aids, some come from [unclear], from the [unclear], from [unclear]. What we can read on the, uh, boxes.

MG: I've seen some images of the, when the aid trucks arrive. People just sort of swarming the aid trucks to try and get food. Have you seen that?

ISAM HAMAD: Yes, I have seen this myself. Um, but I tell you what. Now, uh, you have to eat twice, let me just say we eat twice a day, not three times. There is no choice to eat three times. If you need to eat--twice. And you have to feed your family. And you receive a box of, uh, aid, uh, let's say once in every two weeks. What are you going to do with the rest of the days? You have food to feed them, two, three days. And then what will you do? If you have money in your pocket you win, you will buy. If you don't have your money in your pocket, what, what will you say? The World Food Programme before the war says 69 per cent of the people of Gaza Strip lost, uh, food security. So, these people do not have the money to buy. So, what they do? What choices they have? I don't say that what is happening is correct, but what choices is left to them and all of them to feed themselves? Nothing. Nothing. So, this is what happens when you have no law and order.

MG: Is that what it feels like? There's no law and order in Rafah right now?

ISAM HAMAD: No, no. [unclear]. Two days ago, four people died just because of the crowd of people that surrounded, uh, one of the trucks bringing bread. And they just, uh, they died under the feet of the people. Four people. We are now seeing things that we have never expected to see.

MG: When I spoke with you before, you were trying to get your children out of Gaza. Um, where is that at? Has that been successful at all?

ISAM HAMAD: I was trying to get my children out of Gaza because I have an Irish son. And they've got a family reunion visa. But unfortunately, I wasn’t been able to be put on the list to leave uh, the crossing points. Only the Irish son and his younger, uh, brother who have been issued permits to leave. Me and my wife and the other child did not receive a permit to leave. So, I couldn't leave. By the way, my Irish son is disabled, so he cannot leave alone.

MG: He's still with you.

ISAM HAMAD: Yes, he is still with me here in Rafah. Yeah. He is disabled. He cannot walk and he cannot talk. He's a cerebral palsy child. He was born in Ireland in 1997.

MG: I've spoken to you so many times over the course of this. Um. And the situation seems to get worse and worse and worse. How are you holding up?

ISAM HAMAD: Well, uh, life is the same every day for us. You're just expecting to die. That's all. When you hear the bombs coming, you are just expecting to die. That's all. Every day is the same as, uh, the other days. So, when you go out in the morning to get some fresh air, you see the people fighting over the food. And they see sewage everywhere. And the reports now coming with 4000 cases of hepatitis A that [unclear] new for Gaza. And that's disastrous--catastrophe. Four thousand cases of hepatitis A, that means it's spreading. There is a problem. And that's in addition to hundreds to thousands of upper respiratory infections. Everybody, even myself, I'm--you probably hear my voice a little bit different today because I'm also sick. Why? Sewage is everything--everywhere. The clean water is no longer clean in order to drink it. The food is very limited, so the immunity is weak, and the life is terribly bad. It's terribly bad and very crowded. Very crowded. You know, in order to move, you cannot find a car or, uh, I mean a cab just to pick up and move from place to another. You have to use, uh, a horse or a uh, truck, uh, holding on a truck or something. Something, I mean, without seeing it by your eyes on a video, you cannot expect it. We have, uh, we are now living in the dark ages, 500 years ago. And over.

MG: Isam, I'm always thankful to speak with you. I'm sorry for what you're in the middle of right now and I wish you the very, very best. Stay safe and I hope we talk again in better circumstances.

ISAM HAMAD: Thank you, Matt. Thank you very much.

MG: Take care. Thank you very much.

ISAM HAMAD: All the best.

MG: Isam Hamad is an engineer and regional manager of a medical equipment company. He is in Rafah with his family after fleeing Gaza City and then Khan Yunis. The World Food Programme, along with the WHO and UNICEF, have called on Israel to expand humanitarian access to Gaza. The UN agencies issued a statement last week saying the amount of aid making it into Gaza right now cannot prevent a famine. Arif Hussain is chief economist for the World Food Programme. He is in Rome. Arif, hello to you.

ARIF HUSSAIN: Hi. Thank you for having me.

MG: Thank you for being here. So, we just spoke with a man in Gaza. He's in Rafah. And, uh, he says that he and his family can get two meals a day, but that it's a scramble. As you understand it, what is the situation broadly across Gaza?

ARIF HUSSAIN: So, in Gaza, pretty much everybody, meaning almost 2.2 million people, are in crisis level of hunger. And about a quarter of the population, meaning more than half a million people are in catastrophic level of hunger.

MG: Is it a famine?

ARIF HUSSAIN: For us technicians, famine is a technical term.

MG: Mm.

ARIF HUSSAIN: Three conditions must come together. At least 20 per cent of the population must be experiencing extreme levels of hunger. Thirty per cent of the children must be severely malnourished, meaning that they must be wasted. And then the third condition is that the death rate, the mortality rate, should be double. So, when these three conditions come together in one specific place...

MG: Mm.

ARIF HUSSAIN: ...we say it's a famine. So now what we know for sure is that the first condition, that is already met. More than a quarter of the population is already starving. The second condition, which is about children, and then the third condition, which is about mortality, they have not been yet met, or at least we don't know. Why don't we know? Because the health sector is completely decimated. So, nobody is collecting that type of data. But what I can tell you is that there is something which is called a Famine Review Committee. This is like five top experts. And they came to the conclusion that if hostilities continue the way they are or they worsen, we will end up in a famine within the next six months. You know, this analysis was done about a month ago. We as humanitarians, we as humanity, we work to avoid famines. We don't say, ah, there is a famine. Let's do something about it. When we say there is a famine, that is a kind of acknowledgement of collective failure. Meaning we were unable to do anything, and people died, people starved, and children got malnourished.

MG: As you understand it, what does that look like on the ground? Again, we've heard Isam's take on this and what he's experiencing in Rafah. But when 2.2 million people, as you said the majority of that population is in a food security crisis or a worse situation, what does that look like on the ground in terms of people's ability to access food?

ARIF HUSSAIN: All I can say is that it's [unclear]. You know, it's not only about food, right? Food is not available. There's not enough water to drink. When people should have at least access to 15 liters of water per day for all purposes. In Gaza right now, you're lucky if you have one to two liters of water per person. No medicine, no health care, no shelter. And, you know, 85, 90 per cent of the population displaced--and in the middle of winter. So, what all of this is doing is it is creating a recipe for some kind of outbreak. And at a time when the immune systems of people, whether children, whether women, whether elderly, is already compromised. Why? Because they're not getting enough nourishment on a sustained basis. And I think that is a recipe for even bigger disaster.

MG: What is your understanding in terms of the sacrifices that families are having to make to try to get food and water?

ARIF HUSSAIN: What we have seen is that pretty much everybody skipping meals. Our latest data shows, I mean, nine out of ten people, particularly in the North, they're going without meals in 24 hours. You know, those parents are skipping meals to feed their children. The thing is that this is not one day or two days. Now it's more than one hundred days. Imagine being in this situation where you're deprived of essentials like food, water or medicine for over three months. So, it's no surprise that, you know, people are extremely vulnerable there.

MG: You've worked all over the world. In Yemen, South Sudan, in Nigeria and Ethiopia. Have you ever seen anything quite like this before? I mean, what is different now in terms of what's unfolding compared to what you've seen elsewhere?

ARIF HUSSAIN: What makes this unprecedented is, um. One, it's the scale. You know, it's the entire population of a particular place. The second thing is the severity. And severity in terms of deaths, in terms of injuries, in terms of displacement, in terms of no food, no water, no medicine, no health care, no shelter. And then the speed of this. How quickly this is happening. And the other thing which people may or may not realize, that on a good day, Gaza was reliant on humanitarian assistance for about 75 to 80 per cent of its needs. And in terms of food assistance, about two thirds of its needs. So, it's not like, you know, they had all this stock sitting there which they could use, uh, when things start, stopped coming from outside food and other essential commodities, meaning again, food, water, medicine, fuel--that comes from outside. So, if that stops or it comes at a trickle now that is going to have consequences. And this is what we are seeing. There are severe consequences of this, and all of this combined again, the scale, the severity and the speed are what makes this unprecedented.

MG: Why is the aid not getting through? The WFP has been warning of a coming catastrophe in Gaza for weeks now. So why, as you understand it, why is the aid not getting through?

ARIF HUSSAIN: Well, I mean, look, I mean, you know, you need, um, we have, first we have one border crossing. Now we have two border crossing. You need more than that. Um, you know the solution, the other thing is that, you know, it's not only a matter of aid coming through, but it needs to get to the people wherever they may be. And that requires some kind of sustained security in terms of getting to people or people coming to where the assistance is. And if those things are not happening for one reason or the other, that means that it is not getting to the people who need it in a consistent or in a sustained way.

MG: Who's holding that up, though?

ARIF HUSSAIN: Look, I mean, um, it's the circumstance. Is the situation, right? I don't know how you can do that. How you can take it all over the Gaza Strip without a humanitarian ceasefire. Because it's not a matter of doing it for one day or one hour, right? If you're, you know, if this is how, you know, you need to have these systems working and, you know, the commercial sector has to work as well. And for all of that to happen, a necessary condition is a humanitarian ceasefire. Because without a humanitarian ceasefire, you cannot go in and bring food and other essential commodities at scale to where they are needed.

MG: Moshe Tetro, who is the head of the Israeli army unit that's responsible for a distribution said that aid is piling up. That there's no food shortage right now and that it's the United Nations that's to blame for not properly distributing aid that has entered Gaza. What do you make of that?

ARIF HUSSAIN: Look, um, you know. I'm, um, I'm an analyst and a humanitarian. I can tell you, you know, what is happening with people. I can tell you where assistance is required. And I can tell you that under the circumstances, assistance is not getting to where it should.

MG: Just to be clear. As you understand, is there aid that's piling up? When you hear that it's the United Nations that isn't distributing aid, that there's plenty of aid that's there, is that? Uh, help me, help me close the gap between what you're saying and what the Israeli government is saying.

ARIF HUSSAIN: Well, I mean, all I know, if you talk to anybody, including our staff, I mean, it is, again, it is not a matter of aid sitting on the water. It is a matter of making sure that the aid is distributed to people who need it within the North, within the South of Gaza Strip. Which means the commodities have to move. Humanitarians have to move, and all of that has to happen. And how can that happen if you have active, live, war? I think that's as simply as I can put it. So, without humanitarian assistance, it is really not possible in many ways to get to the people where they are. Unless there is safety and security for people who need assistance, but also people who need to deliver their assistance. You know, the UN, we've lost, you know, about more than 150 of our colleagues trying to do this work. And that's the biggest price you pay.

MG: What are you--just before I let you go, what are you most concerned about if this continues? And you've talked about the various stages of food insecurity and the crises that are developing. What are you most concerned about?

ARIF HUSSAIN: Well, I mean, you know, you're looking at, um, if this continues any longer, um, or worsens, for that matter. Um, you're essentially looking at a full-fledged famine on one side. And that's something which is happening in real time in front of us. And that means that we need to do whatever we can to avoid a full-fledged famine. And we can. Um, but in order to get that done, I think all the parties need to work together to make sure that we have a common goal of making sure that innocent men, women and children don't pay the ultimate price.

MG: Arif Hussain, we'll leave it there. I'm glad to talk to you. Thank you very much.

ARIF HUSSAIN: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Arif Hussain is chief economist for the World Food Programme. Your CBC News is coming up next. And then...

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Companies have been investing a lot into corporate wellness programs. This idea of, you know, how do we get employees to exercise more? How do we get them to eat better? How do we get them to be more fit? With the idea that this has some payoff for them.

MG: Those corporate wellness programs are intended to pay off for employees and employers. But new research is casting doubt on whether they're effective at all. We will hear why as we kick off our new series: Well Founded. We're trying to make some sense of all the conflicting information on how to live well. We'll get some clarity on what is and isn't working. Coming up in six minutes when we head to the workplace. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Energetic instrumental]

Do office wellness programs actually work?

Guests: William Fleming and Chantaie Allick

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

[Music: Breakbeat instrumental]

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Wellness...

SPEAKER: ...Wellness...

SPEAKER: ...Wellness...

SPEAKER: ...Vitamins and supplements...

SPEAKER: ...Ozempic and Wegovy...

SPEAKER: ...The detox diet...

SPEAKER: ...Sweat out the toxins...

SPEAKER: ...[laughing] More than bone broth and vegetables...

SPEAKER: ...I always, like, try and get a little bit of meditating in...

SPEAKER: ...Try out cryotherapy!

SPEAKER: ...Corporate wellness company…

SPEAKER: A kind of skincare. Any kind of self-care...

SPEAKER 13: But I take it almost regularly…

SPEAKER 14: …No wonder your skin looks great.

[Music: Breakbeat instrumental]

MG: We have a new series here on The Current. It's called: Well Founded. It is about the issue of wellness. You know that there's a huge amount of information coming at you about how to be healthy, what to eat, how to exercise, treatments that you could take, supplements, therapies. It is a lot. Can make your head spin. So, we're going to try to make sense of all of this. What works and what doesn't. And we'll examine what it means to be well, especially at a time when surviving, let alone thriving, is hard for so many of us. We're going to start this series in the workplace. Wellness doesn't come cheap, at least for Canadian companies. In 2022, it's estimated the corporation spent upwards of three billion dollars on employee wellness programs. Now, a new study is casting doubt on whether any of those corporate wellness programs actually do anything to help us, the employees. William Fleming is a research fellow at the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford. William, hello.

WILLIAM FLEMING: Hi Matt, thanks for having me on.

MG: Thanks for being here. This is fascinating because of the amount of, as I say, conflicting advice that people are thrown at every single day. What sort of motivation did you have? Why did you want to look into these wellness programs and whether they actually work or not?

WILLIAM FLEMING: Uh, I think there are a couple of reasons why I wanted to really look into it. The main one just being the accelerating, uh, popularity of interest in wellness programs and wellbeing at work, and also mental health and well-being outside of work. There was just, especially in the UK over the last decade. Um, you know, it's just been becoming more and more popular. So that was the main reason I was interested. There's also a little bit of opportunity. I got access to a certain data set, which let me ask specific research questions. And so, it was a bit of a, yeah, a combination of opportunity and, really, interest in the rise of popular discourse in and out of workplaces, around, uh, wellbeing.

MG: You're looking specifically at what are known as wellness interventions. What does that mean? I mean, what are some of the programs that specifically we'd be talking about here?

WILLIAM FLEMING: Yeah. So, I've been especially evaluating what we would call individual level mental well-being programs. So, this means that they're really practices or programs that employers might offer that would seek change in individual worker's mindsets or their psychological capacities or their behaviours. So, it's really trying to change something about the individual worker. Um, and so there's lots of popular programs like this. And so, the ones I look at are stress and resilience training, mindfulness, time management training, relaxation classes, uh, I'm sure these are the kinds of programs that many of your, yeah, your listeners participate in and their employers offer. And it's these sorts of popular programs that try and change something about individuals that I've been evaluating.

MG: And, uh, best case scenario, they are meant to make us feel better at work? Is that the point of these?

WILLIAM FLEMING: Exactly. Exactly. So, these programs are promoted as universally applicable so that everybody can get benefit from participating in them.

MG: And so, what did you find? Do they work?

WILLIAM FLEMING: Uh, well, yeah. I think I wouldn't be here talking to you if the headline wasn't that I didn't find any evidence that they brought benefit for workers. Um, so compare across lots of different measures of mental well-being and mental health, um, and found, yeah, no difference between those who participated in these types of initiatives and those who didn't. Following some various statistical steps along the way, obviously.

MG: No difference whatsoever. I mean, none of them had a positive effect on us?

WILLIAM FLEMING: Uh, there is one exception, um, which was actually slightly different type of program, and that was employer offered volunteering opportunities. And so, this can, this covers a vast array of practices. It might be pro-bono work. It might be painting a community centre. There are lots of different ideas. And this was the one, uh, initiative that's targeted to the individual that seemed to have some indication of a benefit for people's mental well-being.

MG: Huge amounts of money. Well, huge amounts of money are spent on this. I mean, I said upwards of three billion dollars in 2022. That's the latest, uh, estimate that we have. How did you go about analyzing whether or not that money is well spent or not?

WILLIAM FLEMING: So, I analyzed it specifically on whether it made people's, uh, mental health, whether that improved. I didn't look so much at the economic indicators. It was really about whether the measures, um, either scale of mental health, whether people's job satisfaction, life satisfaction. So really thinking about these more psychological scales. Um, and that's where the improvement showed that, you know, the stated aim of these programs is that they're going to make us feel better at work. So, I really thought that was the best way to evaluate these initiatives.

MG: Tell me more about I mean, the headline is none had a positive effect, but tell me more about what you learned about the impact of those programs on us, the employee.

WILLIAM FLEMING: Well, I think it's really that these types of initiatives are not targeting the causes of, uh, struggles at work. Um, that there are lots of factors which cause work stress, which, people have to manage their various demands and expectations that people have to meet. And really, I think the key argument I'm taking away is that these types of initiatives are not engaging with the problems, they're not engaging with the stressors. And that we have to get to those, um. Yeah, we've got to target that. We've got to target working conditions before we can just try and improve people's mental wellbeing in isolation.

MG: Is it not true that some of this training, particularly around resilience and stress management, actually, it's not as though it didn't improve things. It actually made things worse for employees?

WILLIAM FLEMING: Uh, yeah. I think on face value there's some suggestion that might be the case. I think it's more likely there's a little bit of remaining what we call, selection bias.

MG: Mm.

WILLIAM FLEMING: So perhaps the people who are more likely to participate in a stress or resilience training program already have slightly lower mental health. And I think that's more likely explaining that result. And I do my best to control for those sorts of biases and look at people who've previously suffered from work stress, especially over the last year. Um, so I've done lots of techniques to try and balance that by, uh. I wouldn't argue that it's causing harm, but it's just not helping these people who have slightly lower mental health to begin with anyway.

MG: So, you've said that if employers want to focus and drive, uh, employee wellbeing, they need to look at and talk about and deal with work practices. What should the focus be instead? If companies want to have an effective wellness program, what do they need to target that toward?

WILLIAM FLEMING: Well, yeah. As you said, I think it needs to be tied to the core organizational practices, core working conditions. Things like, um, you know, your pay, your contract, the amount of autonomy you've got over how you do work and when you do your work and where you do your work. Um, and things such as, uh, performance review, which can be very stressful. Um, and about trying to identify where the big demand's coming in. Why are people not able to manage? What people need more support with, whether that's more staffing, whether that's more training. It should, I do believe it should really be about these, you know, the core tasks that people have to do at work and what's really expected of them.

MG: Just before I let you go; this is big business. As I mentioned, a lot of money goes toward those wellness initiatives. Have you had a knock on the door from any of the companies who are involved in this, uh, raising concerns about your research?

WILLIAM FLEMING: I think I've been surprised by how supportive the wider, um, academic community and the wider, um, industry has been. In the last few years, especially since the pandemic, there has been a growing awareness that a lot of what's being offered is not enough, and it's not really getting to the root causes. So, I've actually been surprised by how supportive the response has been. Um, which is good and shows that I think we're moving in the right direction, and we can start to take, um, employees wellbeing more seriously.

MG: William, good to talk to you. Thank you.

WILLIAM FLEMING: Thanks for having me on.

MG: William Fleming, research fellow at the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford and the author of a new study in Industrial Relations Journal about corporate wellness programs. Our next guest helps companies be more effective when it comes to supporting employees’ wellbeing. Chantaie Allick is the co-founder of Rework. It's an organization that helps people redefine their relationship to work and to wellness in the workplace. Chantaie, hello to you.

CHANTAIE ALLICK: Hi. It's nice to be here. It's nice to meet you.

MG: It's great to have you on the program. Are you surprised by William Fleming's research showing that these huge programs, I say huge because of the amount of money that's spent on them and the time that they take and the place that they take up in workplaces that they don't really seem to do much at all to help employees?

CHANTAIE ALLICK: No, not at all. I am a former employee who saw those types of programs not work for myself and some of my co-workers. So yeah, no. Not surprising at all. And I think there's been a lot of research lately, sort of continuing to show the issues with those types of programs.

MG: What did you see personally that led you to believe that perhaps what you were involved in was not going to help the bigger issue?

CHANTAIE ALLICK: Uh, so I worked at a large tech company before sort of branching out on my own. And, uh, tech companies are famous for offering a lot of perks, including wellbeing perks. And the thing I saw most often was that it wasn't, they weren't things that people were taking advantage of, or not everyone was taking advantage of. So, I know myself as a black woman, uh, I know other women of colour who sort of hesitated because we are taught, you're supposed to be focused on work at work, and you go to work to work. And so sometimes taking advantage of some of those programs, there's like guilt involved. There's a level of privilege that some folks have and others don't. I've talked about in the past the fact that, like, when I was a younger employee, uh, and offered these types of things, there's this feeling that comes with sitting at your desk and watching all the more tenured folks be able to get up and leave their desk and go do things. But you have to sort of stay focused on work because you're working towards, you know, a promotion or whatever it happens to be. So, it's just, it's not set up to be equitable from the outset, much less help people.

MG: Why do you think they're there? I mean, the cynic might say that this is a way, we offer these programs, and the manager gets to check a box and say, look, see? See what we're giving you? You're working really hard, but we have these opportunities. You can go and do yoga at lunch. You can have a mindfulness, uh, intervention. Is it--is that fair, to say that?

CHANTAIE ALLICK: Yeah, I think to be honest, it, if you don't want to be cynical about it, you can say it's about employee retention. It's about trying to keep your employees happy. But to be honest, from my perspective and from what I've seen and the work we do with rework, it's almost always about productivity. It's about offering things that first will keep you at the office longer. Um, and also, a healthy employee is a more productive employee. So, there is sort of a quid pro quo or sort of, there's an ROI on this for HR departments, I'm sure. Unfortunately, um, the sort of, the interventions that they found are not ones that are going to have been successful, as this research has shown.

MG: As I mentioned in the introduction, your organization helps people redefine their relationship to work. You did this through your own life. You took some time off. What happened when you did that?

CHANTAIE ALLICK: Yeah, so I burnt out pretty badly in 2021 after quitting my job. I quit my job to take a creative sabbatical. And I think sort of years of overwork hit me hard, uh, when I had the time to actually stop and look around. And so, I took a step back from work. I spent a lot of time actually doing research about burnout, because I needed to heal from it. And spent a few months just focused on learning about and addressing my own burnout. And in that process, learn that there's so much value in community and so much value in sharing, um, this type of work and that the experience I had, my co-founder actually went on a similar journey. Natasha, um, a rest healing journey after leaving work as well. And we just saw the benefit of doing this in community and the support you get from people and decided to build Rework to help other people sort of go through this process. We built an entire framework around what we learned through burning out and through healing from burnout. And a lot of it comes down to the fact that this is not something you can do by yourself. An individual approach just didn't work to solve a systemic problem.

MG: So how do we create strategies that actually work? As you said, we live in this culture that normalizes and valorizes burnout and stress and overwork. So, what are some strategies? Specific things that you could employ in a company that would actually help those employees?

CHANTAIE ALLICK: So I think the biggest thing any organization can do is take it, take the burden off the individual and actually look at this as a systemic problem and then do the work of talking to your employees, engaging with your employees, and understanding what actually is going to help them from a wellbeing perspective, from the perspective of going at it to, um, to help people figure out what is actually meaningful for them in work. So the work that we do with Rework with organizations is almost always about creating cultural change. It isn't about finding sort of these individualistic, um, Band-Aid solutions. It's very much about, we go through a framework of helping people understand burnout, leaning into rest, leveraging play and creativity to get to new ways of thinking. It's about changing the way you think about work. Changing the way you think about how you engage with work. It's changing ideas of productivity. And all of these things are not easy. They're not sort of the thing you can sort of throw at your employees and say, good luck. It takes engagement and listening to them and spending time. Like, as Dr. Fleming said, like, this is something that, um, isn't going to be solved at the individual level. This is something that takes systemic change.

MG: Do you think companies are interested in that? I mean, the last few years have been difficult for companies when it comes to wellness. You have the pandemic; you have racial reckonings. Um, you have a state of chaos in the world that stresses people out. Um, and companies can see that in their employees. Is your sense that they want to make those big strategic changes? Or do you understand the attraction of having, you know, the box that can be checked when we send somebody to a yoga class at lunchtime, instead of changing the structural nature of where they work and how they work.

CHANTAIE ALLICK: Yeah, I think checking a box is always going to be easier, but I think we've also seen through things like the Great Resignation in 2021 and 2022 that the companies that are going to win are the ones that are actually making changes. They're making real structural changes. Doing the hard work. Um, and I think like at the end of the day, it comes down to caring about your employees and spending the time it's going to take to make the difference. To make the shifts that are required to actually be effective. And the companies that are going to win are the ones that are making these changes and attracting employees and keeping employees. Most of the people who reach out to us through Rework our folks who come to us because their teams are so burnt out, they can't be effective. They can't be creative. They can't do the work they need to be doing. So, there's sort of an imperative at play as well, because of what's happened through the pandemic and the reckoning and etcetera.

MG: It's really interesting and some good advice, I think, for leaders who are listening. Chantaie, thank you very much.

CHANTAIE ALLICK: Yeah. Thank you.

MG: Chantaie is the co-founder of Rework. It's an organization that helps people rethink their relationship to work and wellness in the workplace. Jennifer Dimoff is an organizational psychologist. Teaches at the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa and has worked with many organizations to develop, deliver and evaluate evidence-based solutions to workplace problems. She co-edited a book about how leaders can impact organizational safety and well-being. Jennifer, good morning to you.

JENNIFER DIMOFF: Good morning.

MG: How did companies get to a place where they're spending billions of dollars on wellness programs that, according to the study, don't actually work in terms of helping employees wellness?

JENNIFER DIMOFF: [laughs] Well, first, I think we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. That the potential for wellness programs is that they have the potential to work. But it is just like Shantay and Dr. Fleming were saying that it is about the infrastructure and the system that needs to be in place. And I think, you know, certainly what we've seen in the last few years is a lot more recognition that wellness is important and that there is a relationship between wellness and performance and wellness and productivity. So that has an inherent return on investment associated with it. So that's really motivated organizations to invest in wellness programs to kind of get on the wellness bandwagon, um, and maybe have a competitive edge against other organizations that they might be competing for top talent.

MG: How have you seen it go sideways when people climb on that bandwagon? When they want to seem like they're doing well by their employees, but perhaps are missing the mark?

JENNIFER DIMOFF: I think it does become the scenario of just having the tick in the box and making sure that it looks good on paper. And that may not be the intention at all. And when I work with a lot of organizations that are interested in doing research and interested in understanding these systematic processes that are leading their wellness programs to fail, most of them at the table are saying, we really do want to make an impact. This isn't just about having a, you know, winning a Best Place to Work award or having a a box that needs to be ticked. So, often, you know, it's hard not to be cynical about the motivations of organizational leaders, but I think a lot of it just comes down to really a lack of understanding of fit. Of what the business leaders might think employees need and what they actually need are two different things. So really approaching the process like a scientist. Of understanding, what are the needs in the first place? What's feasible? What's practical? And goal setting. And then designing the intervention to actually fit those goals and needs.

MG: I mean, William Fleming said that if you are just addressing, kind of what's on the outside of the workplace culture, you're not getting to the heart of it. He says you need to, if you want to improve employee well-being, address the work practices. So, should companies abandon the money that is spent on wellness programs and put that money into things like better pay, more vacation time? Would that help in a meaningful way with the well-being of employees?

JENNIFER DIMOFF: It would certainly be a step in the right direction, but I don't think there should be an abandoned of wellness strategies. And I think that that's really the word that's been missing in a lot of these conversations. Is it really is about strategies. And, so, should people be paid more fairly and compensated more, especially with economic conditions, the way that they are? Yes, absolutely. Um, should people have more access to vacation time? Yes, absolutely. But what we do know from things like research on vacations and whether people are taking personal leave that they have access to, is that if there isn't a culture to support that, then people aren't going to take their vacation time even if they have it. So there really does need to be that more infrastructural and cultural change to support not just the programs and the policies and the benefits that people have, but that also make them easy to use, accessible and promoted.

MG: You've said that there's a difference between a climate at a workplace and a culture. Can you explain the difference between the two?

JENNIFER DIMOFF: Yeah, at a very kind of high-level culture is who we are and climate is what we do. So, culture is very, uh, nebulous. It's difficult to really measure. Whereas climate is more observable. So, this is, you know, like to use, you know, the examples that Shantay was giving about, you know, more senior people being able to leave their desks while more junior people can't. So, if that's what you're seeing, you're seeing a climate where there are power differentials. Where there's hierarchy. And even if on paper there isn't, in real life there is. So, climate is what you tangibly see and experience as an employee. And that may be, you know, you see the wellness program information being advertised on the company intranet, or in the work room, but are people actually using it? Are people actually embracing that and are their managers promoting it, or are they rolling their eyes at it?

MG: So, in the last couple of minutes that we have, what would you want to see when it comes to being strategic, as you said, um, in how workplaces think about wellness. And how workplaces think about making sure their employees don't just feel like those steps are being taken, but actually experience real change. What, strategically, do you want to see?

JENNIFER DIMOFF: I'd like to see that organizations and leaders really start asking the questions of, what do people need? And what is going to work, for whom and under what contextual circumstances. So really putting on that scientist hat and thinking about asking those questions of, why are we doing this? Who is it going to help? And how do we know it's working?

MG: Actually measuring it as it's unfolding?

JENNIFER DIMOFF: Yes, exactly. That data. You know, we're in this data driven world now. Use it. Lots of organizations have it. But use it. Involve an organizational psychologist or folks like those at Rework who can evaluate, are your programs actually working? Because one of the things with Dr. Fleming's, uh, study is that we have to be very careful about saying things do or don't work when we don't have a longitudinal evaluation over time. And that's measure. Measure, measure, measure is my bottom line.

MG: Just before I let you go, just very briefly, is there your sense that employers want to do that? That's hard work. It's easy--it's much more difficult than putting a box out and checking that box and saying, see, there's the program. We got it sorted out.

JENNIFER DIMOFF: Yes, absolutely. It is. Um, however, what we've seen, and I've done my own research on this and have published research on this, is that when organizations do invest in that infrastructure and that process both time and budget, that's where you actually see return on investment.

MG: All right. We'll leave it there. Jennifer, thank you.

JENNIFER DIMOFF: Thank you.

MG: Jennifer Dimoff is an organizational psychologist, associate professor at the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa. This segment was part of our new series on wellness called Well Founded. It's certainly well-funded. Is it well founded? That work that's actually happening? We'd love to hear from you. In your workplace, what is your experience like with employee wellness programs? The good and the bad? Your company might have a lot of money spent on them, but do they actually work? We want to hear from you. Email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. Coming up after your regional update, we'll speak with the Premier of Nunavut, coming up in ten minutes, about the biggest land transfer in Canadian history. What happens next in that territory? We'll find out. Coming up. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Inquest into mass stabbings at James Smith Cree Nation

Guest: Sam Samson

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. A coroner's inquest into the mass stabbings at James Smith Cree Nation in Saskatchewan is underway. In early September of 2022, Myles Sanderson killed 11 people on the First Nation and in the nearby village of Weldon. Seventeen others were injured. Sanderson died in custody a few days later. Sam Sampson is a national reporter with CBC News. She is in Melfort, Saskatchewan, covering this inquest. A warning: some of what you are about to hear may be disturbing. Sam, good morning.

SAM SAMSON: Good morning.

MG: Before we get to this inquest, just take us back to the 4th of September 2022. Briefly. Just remind us of how the events of that day and the days after unfolded.

SAM SAMSON: Yeah. And we received quite a lengthy reminder, too, over this inquest. So, it was a really frantic start on that morning. So, Myles Sanderson and his brother Damien were together in James Smith Cree Nation, and the two went to Damien's own house looking for his wife, Skye Sanderson. She was not there. Uh, but the brothers tore apart the bedroom. They barged into other rooms looking for her. They didn't find her, but they did find one of Damien's daughters who he kissed goodbye. And then they left. And then the assaults started. First at the home of a man named Martin Moostoos. He was the first person to call 911. Myles attacked him with scissors and then a kitchen knife, but Damien stepped in and forced Myles out of the house. So, then the two get in a vehicle. Myles was driving and RCMP say that the brothers fought. And Myles stabbed Damien who was in the passenger seat. Damien somehow got out, fled from the road, went into a nearby bushed area and he died there from his injuries. Now, after that attack on his own, brother Myles did not stop at all. It only took two hours for all of this to unfold. So, he went from house to house, either on foot or in a stolen vehicle. Myles attacked people he knew and associated with his victims, and at some homes he would ask for keys from people and sometimes he would attack them, other times he wouldn't. So, we heard a really frantic, um, and seemingly sporadic events that all unfolded. You know, that first 911 call I mentioned, it came in around 5:40 in the morning. RCMP arrived as the attacks continued, but Myles fled the First Nation, eventually heading to a village called Weldon, where he stabbed a man in his own home. And then, if you remember from that time, Myles disappeared. So that was a Sunday morning. And then over the next few days, all three prairie provinces received public emergency alerts about the stabbings. And then on Wednesday, September 7th, RCMP spotted the truck Myles was in. They chased him down into a ditch on the side of a Saskatchewan highway and arrested him. But before or rather after going into police custody, Myles died. And so that was four days of terror. And I remember a time of anxiety, people describing fear and especially grieving for those who were killed.

MG: It was a horrific four days, as you've said.

SAM SAMSON: Mhm.

MG: The inquest has heard from a criminal investigative psychologist about Myles Sanderson. What have we learned about him?

SAM SAMSON: Yeah, this was really the first time, Matt, that we got a look into Myles Sanderson's, uh, past and his mindset. So just a few days ago on Friday, that criminal investigative psychologist shared his behavioural hypothesis. And because Myles died, um, he wasn't able to diagnose him and interview him himself. So, this was kind of a post-mortem report using corrections and parole documents, really, to suggest what kind of mental illnesses Sanderson may have lived with. And so this psychologist, his name is Matthew Logan, he told the inquest that he's written two other reports like this before. One for the men who went on a mass shooting in Portapique, Nova Scotia in 2020. And then the man who shot and killed four Mounties in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, in 2005. So he's only written three reports of this type. And this psychologist suggested Sanderson lived with antisocial personality disorder. So that's someone who doesn't have a lot of impulse control. They're really only looking out for themselves. And as well as intermittent explosive disorder. And that is a combination that the psychologist said left Myles really quick to anger. He was very controlling. And at one point while Sanderson was in custody during his life, he took a psychopathy test that assesses lifestyle, emotion, other factors. Um, they call it the PCLR test. And Myles scored 33 out of 40, which to me sounds high. And yeah, the psychologist confirmed that is high. He explained that Sanderson was in the top six per cent of the Canadian male prison population in terms of his risk to violently re-offend based on that testing. And we also heard from a staff sergeant from Ottawa, from the National RCMP headquarters. He's in charge of profiling and threat assessment. He testified that in Miles's mind, he had a plan. He wanted to kill and hurt people that he had a grievance with and people who were associated with those people he had a grievance with. Um, and he also hurt people who tried to stop his rampage, including his brother, and then that elderly man who lived in Weldon.

MG: The inquest is also heard from his former common law partner, Vanessa Burns. What did she say? What did we learn from her about their relationship and about Myles Sanderson?

SAM SAMSON: Yeah. I have to take a really deep breath when I recall this, because this was really raw testimony.

MG: Yeah.

SAM SAMSON: It took two hours for Vanessa, and she recounted her relationship of about 14 years with Myles Sanderson. Um, how just months before they started, or rather, months after they started dating, he started physically and emotionally abusing her, and she reported him to police 12 times. And he was charged with assault multiple times. But Vanessa told the jury she dropped the charges for Myles' sake. That she thought she wanted him around for their five kids, but also because he made her feel guilty. And she said that often: that he would manipulate her into making her feel crazy. She also described him as really angry, whether he was sober or intoxicated. That he was jealous, he was controlling. And we heard a few examples from other testimony. This is hard to hear--how Myles seemed to snap and hit Vanessa even while she was pregnant. Um, she also shared what happened in the weeks before the stabbings, which is important. So weeks beforehand, Vanessa was driving Myles around James Smith so he could sell cocaine. And then two days before the stabbings, Vanessa wanted to go. She told him she wanted to go home. Shortly after that, Myles started to emotionally abuse her while she drove so she said she punched him in the face because he wouldn't stop. And then he started beating her while she was driving. Eventually, she pulled up to a house in James Smith and we heard that one of their own children alerted Damien, Myles' brother. He came in, broke up the assault, eventually bringing Myles out for a drive to try to cool him off. And that was the last time either of their partners saw them alive.

MG: One of the things we heard in the wake of this tragedy from the community is criticism for the RCMP for the delay in sending out emergency alerts. An RCMP employee testified on Friday. What has the inquest learned about those alerts and whether those concerns were justified?

SAM SAMSON: Yeah, we received 12 total emergency alerts. And in the testimony that we heard, um, they said that it was a very quick, again, frantic process. But they had planned, they had done scenarios well before. Um, and there was an issue, though, where the RCMP released a photo that was labelled as Myles Sanderson, but it was actually someone else. Someone with the same name from James Smith Cree Nation. Um, so we were all operating on a different photo. They did issue a correction a few hours later, and, uh, the incorrect photo was taken down from the RCMP site.

MG: This has been incredibly difficult over the course of this inquest to hear. For the community and people who are connected with those who were killed, to hear this testimony. And there has been frustration about the process around this as well. Have a listen to Darryl Burns, speaking at a news conference last week. His sister, Lydia Gloria Burns a first responder, was killed by Myles Sanderson.

SOUNDCLIP

DARRYL BURNS: One of the things that I, uh, look at this investigation is it's so rushed. And for us, there's a lot of stuff there that is missing. And was it rushed because of the media? Was it rushed because, you know [sighs.] The justice system has never, ever been kind to us Native people. So, do we have faith in this justice system? Do we have faith in this? I don't think we do.

MG: Sam, how widespread is that? That lack of faith in the community around this inquest.

SAM SAMSON: Yeah. And Darryl has been through so much. Um, it depends on who you speak with, I think. There are four families, including Darryl, who have standing, which basically means they get to question the witnesses themselves. And we heard from Darryl and one other person that their questions just aren't being answered, or that witnesses say, oh, someone else down the line will have an answer for that. So the expression they used was they feel like they're passing the buck. So the hope is that as we continue on with this testimony for the next two weeks, there will be answers. But yeah, already we're hearing from some people that not only are they not getting answers, but this process isn't helping. Because without those answers, they're just reliving the trauma that they went through.

MG: And that's how I'll end. I mean, just very briefly, how are people holding up in the community?

SAM SAMSON: Well, what I'm seeing is a lot of support between, um, one another. So lots of hugging and lots of sobbing. Um, but there are also a lot of cultural notes. For example, tobacco offerings at the photos of, uh, all the people who died. Um, and so as tough as this is and as raw as this is, I'm seeing a lot of, um, emotional support for families.

MG: That will be important as this continues. Sam, we'll leave it there. I appreciate you being here this morning. Thank you very much.

SAM SAMSON: Thank you.

MG: Sam Sampson is a reporter with CBC News. She was in Meltfort, Saskatchewan.

[Music: Instrumental]

Nunavut Premier P.J. Akeeagok

Guest: P.J. Akeeagok

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. My name is Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This is a place that is rich with culture, traditional knowledge, critical minerals and other resources that are needed as we build the economy of the future together. And with this increased control, you will be able to have more say and more prosperity as Nunavut chooses to take advantage of these opportunities.

MG: That's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking last week in Iqaluit where he signed the largest land transfer in Canadian history. The Nunavut Devolution Agreement gives the territory jurisdiction over its land and waters, including mineral rights, and this is something that many Nunavummiut have been pushing for, including the Premier of that territory, P.J. Akeeagok. He joins us now from a studio in Iqaluit. Premier. Good morning.

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What did it mean for you to be part of this ceremony and to put your signature on this agreement?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Yeah. It was a very historic day. Uh, it was one I am reflecting, uh, now, just really the manifestation of that bold vision our leaders always had held as one where we've seen that conclude. So, to celebrate that with, uh, the incredible people around who were present in that room from, former Premiers, former commissioners, former chief negotiators, the chief negotiators themselves. And then to see the incredible elders around us during that moment was really a very special moment for our territory and our future.

MG: Can you talk a bit more about what it meant to the elders? I saw some of the photos that you put up on Facebook of you with some of those elders. And there's a sense of joy and delight, um, in their faces. What did this mean for them?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: It meant the world to them. These are the people who we really build our foundations on, and we're very lucky to have had incredible, uh, elders who really held their, um, our vision of seeing a prosperous territory of Nunavummiut making decisions for themselves. So, many of whom, unfortunately, are no longer here, who really had been a pillar to the sacrifices we've seen. Uh, but, yeah, the elders that were there kept talking about the importance of the future generations of Nunavummiut really having the opportunity to determine their own future. And that has always been the vision of when the land claims was being negotiated, when the territory of the public government was being created. That decision making comes a lot closer to home. And so it was really very special to be surrounded. As we were celebrating of those very key elders right across who have been so important to where we are today.

MG: In the speech that you made at the signing event, you talked about growing up in Grise Fiord, um, the northernmost community in this country. And you talked about feeling disconnected from the rest of Canada. How do you think that shaped your vision of Nunavut and what's possible in your community?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: It's tied right into who I am. I think...

MG: How so?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Knowing the history. So, the Grise Fiord. Many, I'm sure aren't aware, but it's a community that was created through forced relocation by the Canadian government. Uh, they created it to ensure that they use Inuit as flagpoles to make stake into the sovereignty of Canada. So, my family's directly impacted through that history. And it's a history that's not that far. Uh, it's just one generation ago. And so knowing the major sacrifices that my community, my family, uh, which was involved as well, to have gone through and then for us to really be part of the confederation and the incredible work that Inuit uh, through the negotiations have had. Every work that I've done, I've been very privileged to be able to serve for over a decade now in elected positions, has really shaped me. For us to do better, to be better and to continue to build really vibrant communities that we so deserve. Uh, I think there's many things that many Canadians take for granted when you look at the North. With the lack of infrastructure and the challenges that we face, but there's so much opportunity and incredible strength that I see of Nunavummiut who are doing some incredible things that are leading in the country.

MG: There are specific things that people have said will flow from this agreement in terms of creating a better future for the community. One is around mineral resources. How does devolution make a difference when it comes to developing those resources?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Oh, yeah. It's everything.

MG: It's everything?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: It's very major. Yeah. It's everything. Because this year marks a major milestone. We're celebrating 25 years as a government. Uh, we've learned some incredible things throughout that journey. And just reflecting back when the Nunavut government was being created, perhaps one of the areas where it was overlooked was the lack of investments in infrastructure, in particular to housing. Housing has had a huge impact on the social fabric of our territory. As a government, we've been doing everything. That is our number one file. We've invested, uh, over a quarter of one billion dollars of our own resources. We've tripled the build. We've cut the cost by close to 50 per cent. So we've really put a bold vision, just in the last two years. But looking back, the lack of infrastructure investments, in particular, to housing has really prohibited the advancement of Nunavummiut. And we've seen the impact, uh, the social determinants, we see the health determinants when you compare that to the rest of the country. The education outcome or the challenges that we face or the employment opportunities that then aren't realized. So at the root of it has always been housing. So, as a government, we've really put our investments into that. Uh, but we've been calling on Ottawa to match our investments to ensure that in the next 25 years that we're not talking about the challenges that we're facing right now, and it goes back to the initial investment. So, with devolution now, it really will allow us to plan our own future and to ensure that we invest in key areas that are important to us. In critical infrastructure. So that decision making in the future will really rest, uh, with the people that rely on the incredible resources that are here in our backyard.

MG: How did the Prime Minister respond to you asking for 250 million dollars in funding for housing? Again, he's there to sign off on this devolution. But this is something that to your point, people in Nunavut, but people across the North have been focused on when it comes to the issue of housing and those social determinants that flow from a lack of adequate housing. How did he respond?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Uh, right from our first bilateral meeting, we've been talking about housing and that we're going to do something different. The government had signaled early on, uh, with the incredible leadership of ministers we have here, for us to do something different. And that's where we've brought in our partners, Inuit organizations, right to the table. And, so, hand-in-hand, we're working with Inuit, to be able to build the many homes that are required. Uh, so the conversation still continues with the Prime Minister. There's no secret that there has to be a major increase in investment that needs to come. And tied into the devolution agreement that, uh, there's been many nation building projects when Confederation was being formed from coast to coast. And I look no further than the railway that was built, uh, to unify Canada from coast all the way from the East Coast to the West Coast and the highway that I've been very fortunate to drive across as well. But that nation building isn't quite complete yet. And with the devolution agreement, I really feel there's an incredible opportunity for Canada to continue and complete that nation building that it requires for us to be able to unite as a country.

MG: You see that investment when it comes to housing as part of one of those nation building exercises, like the railway or like the Trans-Canada?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Absolutely. We don't have any roads or any roads connecting us to the rest of Canada. And for Canada to be as vibrant, uh, as it can be, especially in the wake of the Ukraine war and the importance that we have to have, uh, healthy communities right across in particularly the North. That housing to us is a cornerstone of us as being Canadians for us to see a nation building project like that.

MG: Does the Nunavut government have the staff and the capacity to take on what is an incredible responsibility for managing lands and waters? I ask, in part because close to 35 per cent of the staff positions in the government are vacant right now. So do you have the ability to do what is now in your hands?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Uh, yes. I think we all know, and we will face many challenges along the way. The devolution agreement, and especially in the next three years, is really an important phase where it will require us to really roll up our sleeves and to start looking at, um, bringing the necessary legislation, repealing the ones in Ottawa, uh, for us to start looking at transferring the different assets. Infrastructure, office spaces, but also the incredible human resources that will accompany. And so just like any other, uh, jurisdiction, we have our own challenges. And I have full confidence I will be able to see the fruition of this agreement. Uh, as I mentioned, though, there will be challenges and it will take some time for us to be able to get to a place where we have the necessary resources. But it's one we're seeing right across this country. And I am certain other jurisdictions, when they were just taking on the importance of province, that they had their own struggles as well, and they've overcome them, and they've learned from them and they built from them. And I am confident that we'll go through that phase as well.

MG: You said, I see my community differently now. How do you see your community now?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Oh, wow. Uh, just the significance of knowing the history. Uh, just the significance of knowing the sacrifices that, uh, my people have gone through and just really the importance that they’ve given Canada. For Canada to be able to proudly around the world say we're a strong nation, and that we have an important part to play. So, from that viewpoint, uh, I really see Grise Fiord being a very strategic community--not just Grise Fiord, all the high Arctic communities. When the war in Ukraine really hit, it really hit home. I really hit my heart and many people, I think across the North of, the sacrifices that they've made. So, knowing that and the short history that we've seen, these are major milestones we have to celebrate and, uh, having, uh, and knowing the land claims process, which took 30 years, and then just celebrating the 25th anniversary of, uh, the territory, uh, and then to sign off on this devolution agreement. We've really made some huge headway, but there's a lot more work ahead of us.

MG: Just before I let you go. What do you think? What happened in terms of that signing says to the young P.J. Akeeagok, who’s watching this. Um, what future is in front of them?

P.J. AKEEAGOK: That there's so much opportunities before us. And that there are many Inuit who are already doing some incredible things. There's many Nunavummiut who are doing some incredible things. As I was growing up, I actually wanted to be a water truck driver. That was my vision. Uh, that was always something I wanted to do growing up. Uh, because it's someone who I respected in the community who was providing an essential service in the community. So that ability to be able to relate and the ability to know that there's so many opportunities, uh, for the young P.J. out there is something I really feel is going to spark that interest of Nunavummiut to continue with their post-secondary education and then, uh, have a very bright future here, playing a critical role, making decisions on behalf of Nunavummiut.

MG: That's really powerful. It says something about the future. Premier, I'm glad to talk to you about this. It's quite a moment. Thank you very much.

P.J. AKEEAGOK: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me on your program here, Matt.

MG: P.J. Akeeagok is the Premier of Nunavut. He was in our studio in Iqaluit. That is The Current for this Monday, the 22nd of January. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. We're going to stay in Nunavut to close the program. Here's Riit, and a tune called Qaumajuapik, which in English means "you are shining." I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll see you tomorrow.

[Music: "Qaumajuapik" by Riit]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Monday January 22, Full Transcript

More Stories Like This