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 2023

The Current Transcript for March 27, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

MALE SPEAKER: If Roxham Road is no longer available, those who are already travelling will either hire smugglers or make the decision to try to cross the border at other points of entry that are less accessible and more dangerous.

MATT GALLOWAY: In January, some 5000 people crossed the border into Canada at Roxham Road in Quebec, seeking refuge. As of Saturday morning, after a summit between U.S. President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that irregular border crossing has been closed and those who try to enter there may be turned back. In 30 minutes, the politics of border enforcement and why some seeking asylum will not be deterred by this change. Also this morning, hockey is for everyone. Those are the ambitions behind the NHL sponsoring Pride Nights. Coming up, why some are questioning the league's commitment to inclusion after three teams and some high profile players refused to participate in those events. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

MALE SPEAKER: This moment has been a very long time in the making. Yet, they have shown such patience and optimism through this process.

MG: Australia's constitution has never acknowledged its indigenous people as the country's original inhabitants. A referendum to change that could give Indigenous people a bigger say in that country's parliament and laws. In an hour, what that could actually mean now and in the future. But we begin with the consequences of the intersection between medicine and race. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

RACE CORRECTION

Guests: LLana James, Dr. Nav Persaud

MG: Scientists have long known that race is a social construct not based in biology. And yet, for many years, common diagnostic health tests have been interpreted differently for Black patients. That practice is called race correction. Critics say the practice has systematically denied Black people access to timely and sometimes lifesaving care. LLana James is co-chair of the Canada U.S. Coalition to End Race Correction in Health Care. Dr. Nav Persaud is Canada Research chair in Health Justice and staff physician in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at St. Michael's Hospital in Unity Health, Toronto. And they're both with me in studio. Good morning to you both.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Great to see you.

LLANA JAMES: Good morning.

MG: LLana James, just briefly, I suppose, and for a layperson, what is race correction and how does it operate in the context of diagnostic testing?

LLANA JAMES: So race correction has two challenges. The first is it's about race. And we know race is not biological. It's a social construct. So this is where we get into trouble because race correction is a mathematical calculation that's done to adjust for someone being Black. And so it's a mathematical calculation applied to your diagnostic. So if you get a blood result back, they do some multiplication or addition and they say, oh, this is your range. So there's a separate category diagnostic range for Black people than other people for no scientific reason.

MG: Let's talk about how this looks, Doctor, and specifically with the test for kidney function, the EGFR test. This is something that many people have had as part of a physical. Maybe you have it more regularly than that. Just explain what the test is and why somebody would get that test, basically.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Sure. If you have a routine blood test done to assess your kidney function, the report will indicate that the estimated kidney function should be adjusted for people of African descent. That's the term used in the report. So the ability of your kidneys to filter your blood cannot easily be measured directly. So instead, the creatinine is measured in your blood, and that gives an indirect measure of kidney function. And some older, antiquated and not rooted in science approaches to estimating kidney function based on this blood test indicated that there was a difference based on whether you were Black or not. And so still today, if you open up a chart, it's going to have this mandatory advisory that you should adjust the kidney function. And the upshot of it is it makes the kidney function for Black people seem better than it is, and it can therefore adjust care and can deprive Black people of referrals or appropriate care holding other factors the same.

MG: I mean, it actually says this on the results you shared with us with the names removed, a testing result. And it on the paper says for patients of African descent, and that's been circled, the reported EGFR must be multiplied by 1.15.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Exactly. There are different equations. Some say 1.15, some say 1.21. They all say must be multiplied, which is really unusual language actually in a lab report. And it's very concerning that it indicates that there is some sort of biological difference between Black people and other people. It has direct implications for patient care. And it also perpetuates biological racism, this idea that there are biological differences.

MG: Where has this come from, LLana James? I mean, if there is no scientific basis for race corrections, where is this coming from?

LLANA JAMES: This is a legacy of the trans-Atlantic enslavement trade and the kidnapping of Africans into the Americas and then circulating globally.

MG: What do you mean?

LLANA JAMES: Well, in order to justify enslavement, one had to remove the humanity of Black people. And that was done expressly by when we say plantation doctors, we don't just mean doctors that service people on plantations. We mean plantation owners who were physicians who were invested in justifying why Black people should be held in bondage. And so there was actually a hypothesis by American physicians that Africans of descent would die out once the institution of slavery was dissolved. So they've spent a lot of time proving it. And unfortunately, 18th century medicine continues into the 21st century because they just created flawed studies to affirm what is categorically known as not true.

MG: I guess I'm just still trying to understand why in 2023, this is still something that's applied to a test.

LLANA JAMES: Well, as a person who's been Black my entire life, I asked that question since I was a kid. And this is the result of me asking that question, literally inquiring, why is this on my form? And, you know, I had to go all the way. And I've been in health care for a long time. And it's been here because a couple of facts. One, the institution of medicine has fundamentally struggled with racism from its inception. We have institutions in medicine. The American Association's, there's two of them. One was predominantly White and the other was Black because it wasn't allowed to be in there as part of the majority of physicians. We have it today. So racism is part of society. It is in the very roots of medicine in its founding. I encourage you to read the work of Harriet Washington, the Medical Apartheid. And here in Canada as well. And so it hasn't gone anywhere because it has to be removed. And that's why we have to have de-adoption. That's why the Canada U.S. Coalition to End Race Correction exists because without systematic de-adoption, which is the removal by definition of a clinical practice that is non-therapeutic, there's either a better one or it's known to cause harm. And race correction meets all three. So it needs to be removed and has to be done systematically because it was implemented systematically. And by the way, it's not just the kidneys. It's every organ system in the body.

MG: Dr. Persaud, I want to get to the implications of this, but how do you understand how this thing still is applied? I mean, why is it still a thing?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: I agree with LLana that, you know, there's an important historical context here. Dr. Rana Hogarth has written a book called Medicalizing Blackness. There's a section in that book called Yellow Fever’s Black Bodies, where she talks about this incorrect belief in the late 1700s, early 1800s, that Black people had some sort of innate immunity to yellow fever. That involved them being exposed to yellow fever intentionally with dire health consequences. And there's a direct line between that type of thinking that was rooted in exploiting Black people connected to eugenics. And then more recently, there were these studies, cherry picked studies, finding associations, for example, between these social constructs, race and certain measures like creatinine. And then that was used as a reason to apply this correction today. But the fact that there are some studies showing an association doesn't mean that we should alter care and try to use this social construct. For example, even if there are associations between being in a motor vehicle collision and racialization, I imagine if a mechanic said to you, we're going to decide whether or not to replace your brake pads based on your race or we need to incorporate the race of the driver in how we service the car. It would be obvious that that was wrong, but medical exceptionalism means that this is still allowed to take place.

MG: Have you ever used this?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: I am embarrassed to say that I have quietly accepted this practice. I have just seen these mandatory advisories that I must be multiplying and ignore them. I haven't used them. I haven't actually applied those corrections when it comes to kidney function, but I haven't until now. And I'm glad that LLana and her colleagues are leading the charge to end race based correction because I shouldn't be quietly accepting them. In other cases, they can't be ignored though. So for example, in pulmonary function tests that are used to diagnose asthma and COPD or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the race based correction is baked into the interpretation. So you must incorporate it. So it certainly has affected the care of my patients.

MG: I was going to say as a family physician, as somebody who is talking about this, but also is practicing, what are the implications for your patients? What have you seen? What has this meant for their care if this equation is applied to those test results?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: There are studies indicating that Black people are less likely to get access to treatments for conditions like asthma and COPD. Other studies indicating that large numbers of Black people would be delayed in their referral for additional care when it comes to impaired kidney function. So there are immediate and important implications.

MG: Because the belief is that if they're Black, their kidneys function at a higher level and so they don't need the care that others might need if that threshold were to be met.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Exactly.

MG: what have you heard from patients? I know that your organization has helped support patients who have been caught up in this.

LLANA JAMES: Yeah. And as somebody who has had a long history, and I've lived in Canada, born in Canada my entire life, I've seen what happens for myself and for other people is things that should be noting as a red flag, things to be inquired, they just don't happen. And they don't happen unless you as the patient often are the ones who are advocating. But remember, race correction is something done without your informed consent.

MG: So you would never know. I mean, I'd go for a test. What you hear back is what you hear back from the doctor. I'm not going to see this form, for example.

LLANA JAMES: You can ask for it. You may see it if you do the electronic file, but do you know what that means? Many of us have just been led to believe that if it's on the lab form, then it makes sense and it's justified. Very few of us know we should be asking a question. And how I got here is I asked that question. And I happened to get a bunch of degrees as well to make sure that I could get that question answered. No, you wouldn't know.

MG: What have you heard from people? What are the stories that you've heard from people about what this has meant to them?

LLANA JAMES: It's a sense of devastation and a loss of trust because many people, their doctors have delivered their children or helped other family members. But yet, others who have tried to follow the instructions that they've been given and have failed by the loss of a life or a limb are left understanding. That's why it never added up. I asked every year I went for my physical and then they tell me I've got this advanced stage. How could that be? And it's because signposts get missed. And so people are often devastated. They often feel like I always knew something was going on, but I could never put my finger on it. And unfortunately, they're right. But what it also means is that we're very committed to educating folks and their clinicians and making sure that they get the care that we need rather than it being delayed. But first, you have to know and you have a right to informed consent. Doctors and clinicians do not have the right to make this decision on your behalf. And that is the safety net, informed consent.

MG: How well understood, Doctor, do you think the updated science such as it is on race correction is? How well is that understood by frontline physicians?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: I think the assumption is that what you were taught in medical school still applies. So I think because many practicing doctors today were taught this when they were training, they believe that it is appropriate.

MG: And it’s just a generally received wisdom.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Yeah. And you're receiving it. It's not just generally received wisdom, it's something you're receiving in your inbox in the patient charts you’re opening every single day. And so you assume that it must be appropriate. You assume that, you know, the nephrologists who support the use of this test must know what they're doing. So really, in addition to the direct impact on patient care, I think it helps to perpetuate racism within medicine and to health care providers.

MG: Two of the big national private labs in this country, LifeLabs and Dynacare, told us they are no longer reporting the race modifier. LifeLabs said they stopped doing it on the 13th of February. Dynacare wouldn't give us a specific date, only that the change was made very recently. Does that resolve this problem that we are talking about?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: If it's true that they're no longer going to apply these race based corrections, then that's an important step forward. I think it's important to note that this never should have happened. It was not appropriate to do in the 1960s and 1990s, and it definitely wasn't appropriate to be doing it in February or March of 2023. And so we need to understand exactly what have been the implications for patients, particularly Black patients, and then what affected patients should be offered to make sure they're insulated from any harms that might have accrued from delayed care. So it's good that it won't be happening going forward, but there's still this current issue. And then we do need to think more broadly about why it happened and what it means about medicine.

MG: Go back to what you just said, the affected patients and what they should be offered. So patients who might have been tested and this was applied to their tests and they didn't meet that threshold and so they may not have received that call back from the doctor or the attention that comes. Where does that leave those patients?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Exactly. So it seems like these labs would like to quietly change the practice without acknowledging that if you're changing the equation for estimating kidney function or removing the race based correction, there might be a discrepancy now. And so usually when a mistake is made in medicine, one of the first steps is notifying individual patients who might have been affected and then taking appropriate steps.

MG: But you could imagine those patients could hear this and be concerned. They might have had the test. They don't know whether they met that threshold or not because this might have been applied to their test.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Sure. And so they should be appropriately informed and offered support. And that's why I think it's great that there is a coalition like LLana’s who are sort of leading this charge and providing thoughts about how those supports should happen.

MG: LLana, for Black people who might be worried that the care that they received was affected by race correction, was shaped by race correction, what's the advice that you have for them?

LLANA JAMES: My advice to them is to ask for their laboratory results when they go to their next appointment. Ask for the corrected and uncorrected. That way, if the physician is not aware of the difference, they will be cued to look in the EMR. They're welcome to email us. You can go to endracecorrection.com. And if you subscribe, in your subject line, just indicate you’re a Black patient if you have any questions and we'll try to direct and support you. There will be a patient portal coming online in the early summer so that we can actually field these questions in an appropriate manner. And it'll be available nationally in all time zones because the system isn't necessarily prepared. We are working with, for instance, in Ontario, Dr. Chris Simpson of Ontario Health. But I do want to point out that it's not just in kidney function, right? It's in cognitive function. It's in cardiac function. It goes across the body. And so get your test results so you at least have the information, and then ask if you could be reassessed. And pay attention.

MG: I mean, that's a lot to ask on people. It requires agency. There's any number of reasons why people may not be able to grab that wheel, if you know what I mean.

LLANA JAMES: And that's why we’ll have the portal coming online because we know that. And we have to get the physicians ready as well and the providers and the volunteers to be on the line. And we're training the physicians. So we have continuing medical education credits that will be available. In the interim, we're offering these free talks at least once a month on each of the areas. And we have a full packet of information. And we'll be uploading all of those resources to the website, but they've been available to anyone who has subscribe. So it's on the physician and the clinician to change their behaviour. But for the patient that can and wants to take the situation directly on, they can ask that question. Can you please share with me my lab results? You can ask it of Dyna Labs or LifeLabs, and you can ask if it's corrected or uncorrected. And if you can't do it by yourself, then definitely email us or join us in the portal.

MG: What does this tell us? There's this idea, and it's been interrogated and unpacked for a long time now that everybody gets equal care. We have a universal health care system that allows people, in the best case scenario, equitable care. And there are any number of reasons and examples from history that would question that and that would perhaps shine a light on some of the failures there. What does this story tell you about that?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: That racism exists in medicine and health care. I think sometimes people have trouble understanding exactly how racism would affect health care if most people have a health card and have access to a doctor or to the emergency room. This is an example of how racism is baked into the system. Even for clinicians who might have a critical view of racism, they probably were, you know, quietly accepting race based techniques.

MG: You yourself, as you said, you were embarrassed that you quietly accepted this.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: I'm hugely embarrassed that I quietly accepted this. And I think it says a lot about big changes that are needed in medicine. We know that most clinical practice guidelines are made by White men, panels that predominantly include White men and exclude racialized people, especially racialized women. And then we have these approaches like race based corrections that are clearly racist and that include like racist nonsense and elevated to this scientific status. And we have to think about all of the structural reasons that have happened in the first place and that it was accepted and is being accepted in March of 2023.

MG: Are you confident? We have just a minute or so left. Are you confident that your colleagues are willing to interrogate that received wisdom, are willing to take this on and question that and ask what is true and what isn't true?

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Well, I hope so. I mean, I think after race based correction is ended, the world is going to keep turning. The sun will come up the next day. And maybe people will have trouble accepting that initially. And then I think we need to end it and move on to address some bigger issues and think about some of the larger reasons that it was accepted and really challenge racism within medicine and health care.

MG: LLana, we're just about out of time, but is now the time to do that?

LLANA JAMES: Now is definitely the time. We have champions in cardiology, Anesthesiology, family medicine, nephrology, across almost every specialty and from coast to coast and soon to coast, all our partners. And so we encourage any hospital, clinic or teaching unit that has not already enrolled that is opening. So subscribe, email and join us or you'll be getting an email or a letter from us. So I encourage people to ask those questions and go to endrace correction.com to get more information.

MG: It's good to have you both here. Thank you very much.

DR. NAV PERSAUD: Thank you.

LLANA JAMES: Thank you.

MG: LLana James is co-chair of the Canada U.S. Coalition to End Race Correction in Healthcare. Dr. Nav Persaud is the Canada Research chair in Health Justice, Staff Physician in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at St. Michael's Hospital in Unity Health Toronto. Any thoughts? We would love to hear from you. You can email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. Your CBC news is next. And then, President Biden's first official visit to Canada came with an announcement. Well, a number of announcements, but one in particular that got a lot of attention this weekend. And that announcement was to close the Roxham Road border crossing in Quebec. In six minutes, what that decision means for the border and for those seeking asylum. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

ROXHAM ROAD BORDER

Guests: Frances Ravensbergen, Mireille Paquet, John Manley

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, a referendum in Australia is on the way and the question whether to recognize indigenous people in the constitution as that country's founding people and give them more of a say in Parliament. That story in just under half an hour. But first, closing Roxham Road.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We will now apply the safe 3^rd Country Agreement to asylum seekers who cross between official points of entry. After midnight tonight, police and border officers will enforce the agreement and return irregular border crossers to the closest port of entry with the United States.

MG: Within hours of the Prime Minister's announcement on Friday, the unofficial border crossing at Roxham Road had closed. Roxham Road connects New York State with Quebec. And just last year, more than 40,000 asylum seekers walked into Canada through that point. News of the closure trickled out to people making the journey north. In those final hours, there was a rush for those en route to make it in time. Kenny Gas arrived Friday evening. He’d driven 11 people originally from Turkey, from New York to the border.

SOUNDCLIP

[door opening and shutting, people walking]

KENNY GAS: We knew that they were going to, but it's not right what they’re doing. Definitely not right. First of all, you know, they’re in the United States right now. Now they spend all that money to get here, now all of a sudden they’re closing the doors. And they sell all their houses, their land, their animals, everything. Whatever they have, they sell it to go to Canada. Now they’re stuck here. And that's not right what they’re doing, definitely. They’re going to go illegally some way, somehow. Let's see what's going to happen after that.

MG: Asylum seekers continued to arrive after the road closed. Afzan Jadon from Pakistan reached the border at 1 a.m.

SOUNDCLIP

[child crying]

AFZAN JADON: I'm coming from New York so the cab driver didn't know the roads very well. So that's why I am a bit late. I’m left with maybe 100 bucks or 200 bucks in my pocket so I don't have anywhere to go. But life is tough everywhere, so that's why I have to find a better place, a safe home.

MG: Having missed the deadline, Afzan did not know what to expect next. He waited along with a group of Haitians that included the baby you could hear in the background there, along with a pregnant woman and toddlers. Down the road in the town of Plattsburgh, at about 4 a.m., drivers and asylum seekers kept pulling in to a bus stop and a gas station.

SOUNDCLIP

[people walking and talking, bus arriving, door opening and shutting, two people speaking in French]

MG: CBC reporter Verity Stevenson met Onil Lubin at the Mountain Mart. And like many others, the Haitian man had not heard that the border was closed. Frances Ravensbergen lives in a nearby village of Hemmingford, Quebec. She is with Bridges Not Borders. It's a Canadian organization that stands in solidarity with people crossing the border at Roxham Road. Frances, good morning to you.

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What did you see this weekend after the closure?

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: Well, we saw people continuing to cross. People don't know that those changes have been made or they're actually saying, I have no other option and so I'm just going to cross and then hope that I'll be allowed into Canada.

MG: What specifically are you hearing? I mean, we heard some of those stories there of people who are arriving. What stories have you heard from people who are looking to cross?

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: Well, that they weren't aware that they wouldn't be allowed to stay in Canada, that that seems to be their last resort. We're hearing of people who have been turned back into Plattsburgh who have no money because they thought they were going to be taken in by Canada and have no idea what they're going to do next. We don't know what's happening with people who are being taken in and being put in detention. We're not sure people are aware that that's one of the consequences they could face. And we're also wondering if people who have been taken back to the United States are aware that they cannot claim for asylum in Canada ever again now. So, you know, we're hearing people in this immediate situation being concerned about getting in, but we're thinking about what are the longer term consequences in terms of deportation, people having to settle in the states and not ever being able to get in Canada. And people are not fully informed.

MG: Are you in contact with organizations similar to yours on the other side of the border?

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: We have a sister organisation called Plattsburgh Cares. They also stand at the border or did, handing out hats and mitts in the winter and water in the summer. They've been overwhelmed. Some other solidarity organizations in the States have been trying to find housing for people who've been turned back. Apparently, now they're having to go as far as Malone, New York to find hotels to let people just sit for a day or two and figure out what is it they're going to do with their lives now. Their entire possessions are sitting there with them and they have no idea what to do or where to go. And this was just, you know, dumped with very, very little warning on everyone.

MG: What would you have wanted instead of the announcement on Friday?

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: Oh, very clearly, the announcement should have been that it's in front of the courts. This question of whether the U.S. is safe or not, We should have waited for the courts to make a decision, which they already did, which said that the U.S. is not safe. But the Canadian government challenged that decision.

MG: This is an appeal that's in front of the Supreme Court to look at the constitutionality of the Safe 3^rd Country Agreement.

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: Sorry, could you say that again?

MG: This is the challenge that's in front of the Supreme Court to look at the constitutionality of the Safe 3^rd Country Agreement.

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: Yes. And if Trudeau had wanted to make an announcement on Friday, the announcement he should have made was that asylum seekers can go to regular ports of entry and make their claim. This decision is putting people's lives in much more danger, and it's going to cause the police and first responders across Canada an awful lot more work. It's going to be a mess at the border. It's been a bit of a mess now at Roxham. But once people start crossing all over the place across that 9000 kilometre stretch, because they know they'll be turned back, So they're trying to find a way into Canada to stay for 14 days underground before they report to the police, unfortunately, I think we're going to see a lot of people getting lost and people getting hurt. And so the response that we're going to have to have on our side is going to be more detailed and more difficult than when we had people at Roxham. But the ideal response would have been let people go to an official border crossing. Let Canadian border service agency do their job, and then we don't need to have all this RCMP involvement in the process.

MG: In the meantime, just before I let you go, what are you going to be doing now? What is your organization going to be doing now?

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: Well, we're speaking up about it. You know, Roxham may no longer be there. So all we can do is talk about the injustice of this and remind Trudeau that he said in 2017, refugees are welcome and that he has deceived a lot of people. There's a big sense of betrayal in the solidarity community over what the government has done.

MG: Frances, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

FRANCES RAVENSBERGEN: You're welcome.

MG: Frances Ravensbergen is with Bridges Not Borders, and she was in Hemmingford, Quebec. Mireille Paquet is an associate professor of political science at Concordia University, research chair on the politics of immigration there. Mireille, good morning to you.

MIREILLE PAQUET: Good morning.

MG: Globe and Mail is reporting this morning that this deal was signed, what, a year ago but kept secret as the process, you know, was completed so that there would not be a rush of people at the border trying to beat the clock. As you understand it, what has changed? What is different now compared to before this announcement was made on Friday when it comes to the Safe 3^rd Country Agreement?

MIREILLE PAQUET: I think that the previous intervenor just clearly explained it, right? So as of now, from what we understand, people that are being intercepted at Roxham Road are being sent to Lacolle and then assessed on whether they actually fit one of the exception to the Safe 3^rd Country Agreement or whether they're going to be sent back to the United States. What we don't necessarily know is how they're being sent back, whether they're being detained in Canada and what that's going to look like in years to come.

MG: The exceptions are if you are family members of a Canadian citizen, if you're an unaccompanied minor, if you are a document holder, perhaps if you have a visa to get into Canada or if it is, and this is a looser exception, but if it's in the public interest for you to be able to stay.

MIREILLE PAQUET: Indeed.

MG: I mean, given the numbers of people, and we just heard the sounds of buses that are pulling up, taxis that are pulling up near Roxham Road, how many of those people who are trying to cross the border do you think are likely to be given one of those exceptions?

MIREILLE PAQUET: I would not be able to comment on that or estimate it, but I just want to say that one of those exceptions, unaccompanied minors means that maybe we will start seeing more unaccompanied minors, either because they will hear that they have a chance, because we know that there are globally a lot of young people without guardians that are travelling, or we might also see some family unit making the decision to send a younger family member as a way to enter the country and then later on bring in the rest of the family. And so, you know, one of the things looking at those exceptions that we're going to see is that the type of people attempting to cross the border will likely change.

MG: So last year, something like 40,000 people crossed at unofficial border crossings, most, as we were saying, at Roxham Road. You don't believe that this will stop the flow of irregular migration across this border.

MIREILLE PAQUET: No. And that's based on research globally. Every attempt to add border enforcement has had the impact of not necessarily slowing inflows, but instead changed them, which means that people go to more dangerous routes. They operate with criminal organizations that can help them come in. So instead of stopping arrival, what happens is that we have more that, we have more human trafficking and we have more trouble controlling what's happening. So it gives people a feeling of safety that's very superficial, right? Showing that, oh, we're actually protecting the border, whereas what we're doing is just putting people more underground.

MG: What should have been done instead? Again, when you and I spoke before, we heard from support organizations in Quebec, food security groups who said that they essentially were at the brink because they couldn't support everybody that was asking for their support. We have a housing crisis in this country. You have the mayors and councillors of cities like Windsor where people have been relocated saying that they are at capacity as well. So there is, on a number of different levels, a desire to do something about this. What should have been done instead, do you think?

MIREILLE PAQUET: Well, you know, I would like to be prime minister of Canada to fix all those problems. But jokes aside, you know, I think that it's important like not to think that what we just learned last week is actually going to solve any of the problems that you just mentioned, right? So, you know, closing Roxham Road won't in the short term increase the number of settlement workers or the budget of organizations that help migrants. So first off, we need to continue putting pressure on the government to increase funding and to make sure that housing is addressed and that work permits are being issued quickly. But more broadly, you know, stopping arrivals at Roxham, as I just said before, is going to increase the number of irregular and precarious status migrants in the country. And these people are also going to create a lot of pressure on organizations that serve such population, the difference being that these organizations often do not receive government funding.

MG: So the sense is that they would go, I mean, the phrase is they would go underground.

MIREILLE PAQUET: They would go underground. So it's really a quick fix and will actually generate more problems. I would agree with the previous person that just spoke, meaning that for a lot of people, including myself, more as a citizen, I would have preferred to wait until the Supreme Court of Canada gave an answer to the question in front of the court. But I also think that, you know, making sure that people can claim asylum based on regular processes and cancelling the agreement might have been the easiest way because it would have allowed Canada to actually plan effectively for arrivals while also acknowledging that we will keep receiving a greater number of asylum seekers because there are just more asylum seekers globally and more displaced people globally. So there is a limit to Canada being isolated from that. And this agreement or this new version of the agreement really sounds like Canada wants to remain in the path and in this logic that we could actually be completely protected from the global flow of migration and control everything. This is not the reality. We will need to make our part. And the 15,000 asylum seekers in addition that have been announced as part of the agreement is really nowhere near what should be our share globally.

MG: Just before I let you go, and again, when you and I spoke before, you talked about that. You talked about the fact that migration will continue around the world. We are seeing people on the move. And that will increase as the climate crisis continues and other matters force people to find safe refuge. What is the message that this, do you think, sends from Canada?

MIREILLE PAQUET: Well, you know, I think that that's still pretty raw for me, you know, as someone who works on these topics. But I think the message right now we're sending is that we're not going to play our part. You know, we don't want to be a leader in dealing with the global displacement crisis, and we're not interested in imagining a different future. You know, and I think that's a disappointing decision for Canadians, and it's a sad moment in Canadian history.

MG: Mireille, good to speak with you again. Thank you very much.

MIREILLE PAQUET: Thank you.

MG: Mireille Paquet is an associate professor of political science at Concordia University research chair on the politics of immigration. She was in Montreal. John Manley is a former deputy prime minister of this country, was a signatory to the original Safe 3^rd Country Agreement that was signed back in 2002. John Manley, good morning to you.

JOHN MANLEY: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Just briefly, I mean, the Safe 3^rd Country Agreement came into place in the wake of 911. Why was it important to have that deal 20 plus years ago?

JOHN MANLEY: At the time, this was an ask of Canada. It was something we negotiated. We did give for it in the sense that we had to make other accommodations with the United States as you saw last week in this current amendment on the Safe 3^rd Country Agreement. It was important at the time because we had large numbers of undocumented refugees showing up at border crossings claiming refugee status. They would assemble mainly in Buffalo, New York. They were organized in church basements. They'd come to the border in a bus, in buses much as you've been hearing at Roxham Road and make mass claims. We had very similar to today, we had municipalities and provinces saying we don't have housing for these people. It takes the Immigration Refugee Board a couple of years to adjudicate on their cases as to whether they are legitimate refugees or not. And. We need to get control of this. Not that we needed to exclude refugees. On the contrary, Canada has historically been very generous and open and receiving many, many refugees. But there's no shortage of refugees in the world. And our belief at the time was that if we allowed the flow to be dominated by people who were essentially illegal refugee claimants coming without proper documentation, without substantiated claims, that we would undermine Canadian support for receiving people who are clearly in need.

MG: You said recently, and there's debate over the use of that word illegal. People say that if you're seeking refuge, that you can't be illegal, that there are irregular crossings but not illegal crossings. You said recently that it is fundamental to a nation's sovereignty, that you have to have the ability to control our borders. Why do you think this change, the change that was announced on Friday, but apparently has been in the works for a while, why do you think this change was necessary?

JOHN MANLEY: Well, I think there's two aspects to this. There is the need for a country to control its borders. That's essentially one of the fundamental aspects of being a country. And it's more or less a product of the 19th and 20th centuries. And whether it's Roxham road or a path through the wilderness, you know, near Kenora, or if it's across from South Dakota into Manitoba, you need to be able to control your border. And that's particularly the case in a world in which there are a lot of people crossing borders for reasons that are undesirable. They could be smuggling banned substances, weapons, they could be criminal elements, they could be smuggling people. You have to be able to manage the flow of people. Otherwise your own population is going to be believing that, you know, the government's lost control.

MG: Are you concerned, as we've heard from the previous two guests, that people will still continue to come to the border, will still continue to seek refuge and asylum, and that this actually puts asylum seekers in even more danger because they'll find, as you said, the path through the woods, the path through the open field in the middle of winter that they'll cross instead of what was a fairly structured process at Roxham Road?

JOHN MANLEY: Well, remember, they're entering from the United States. They're not entering from a war zone. They're not fleeing immediate famine or disease. The world is awash in refugees. This is a critical problem today. And I can tell you that not only do I personally know refugees, people who have come as refugees, I know I've been to Dadaab, which is one of the largest refugee camps in the world in northern Kenya. This is a huge problem. And Canada should and will I think take more than its share of refugees. And by the way, I think the 15,000 was an accommodation to the United States to deal with some of the issues at their border. That doesn't mean that that's all that we will take in a year.

MG: Right. But what about, back to that question, that people are still going to cross and that closing something like this is just going to make that passage more dangerous?

JOHN MANLEY: Well, but, you know, the converse of that is just open it up and let anyone that wants to come in come in.

MG: Or let people cross at an official border crossing.

JOHN MANLEY: Let them cross it. And we know from 2002 that those numbers quickly become unmanageable. And remember as well, these people are coming from the United States. There are people in very desperate circumstances around the world that need to be accommodated. And Canada has historically been able to do that and willing to do that. And even recently, whether it was the Syrians or more recently Ukrainians, Canadians rise to the occasion. But I think it's not a foregone conclusion that Canadians will feel that way about anyone who shows up, especially when they've already been to the United States and been in the United States.

MG: We only have a couple of minutes left. Do you worry that without a step like this, you could see an anti-refugee sentiment growing in this country, you said the idea that you lose control of your borders, that that could become a political issue and that a sentiment that is hostile to those who are seeking refuge here could grow in this country?

JOHN MANLEY: That's really what I'm saying. And I think that, you know, we've been a great and generous country. But every refugee requires housing, medical care, jobs. And those are not necessarily in ample supply.

MG: But the refugee advocates would say that we are doing far less than many other nations that have far less as well.

JOHN MANLEY: And we're doing far more than many other countries that have as much or more than we do. So, you know, what is the right number? If all of the refugees on the planet were in one country, Matt, it would be one of the most populous countries in the world. And Canada can’t own all of that problem. We can only own our share. And while we have shortages of housing and shortages of medical care, people can't get their own doctors, it wouldn't take a lot for this to tip the balance against the openness and hospitality that Canadians have historically been willing to show. So that's one of the balancing pieces that the Prime minister, I'm sure, has had to take into account. We all want to be hospitable. We all want to address these global problems. But there's only as much as we can do, that our population is going to be prepared to pay.

MG: John Manley, glad to talk to you about this. Thank you very much.

JOHN MANLEY: Thanks, Matt.

MG: John Manley, former deputy prime minister of this country and a signatory to that original Safe 3^rd Country Agreement. Well, coming up after your regional update, we're going to talk about the National Hockey League. Is professional hockey for everyone? Some professional hockey players are refusing to wear Pride jerseys to show support for LGBTQ communities. In 90 seconds, why Pride, some people say, is falling short in the NHL. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stick around.

[Music: Theme]

NHL PRIDE

Guest: David Palumbo

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

SOUNDCLIP

BRIAN BURKE: To our friends in the LGBTQ plus community, don't be discouraged. We've had a couple of minor setbacks from a tiny number of players. We’ve made steady and spectacular progress in this space. I was born and raised a Catholic. I don't see any conflict between my religious beliefs and the ability to say to the LGBTQ plus community, you're welcome here. That's all Pride Night is, is you're welcome in our building. We’re not asking you to sign any forms. We’re not asking you to join any churches. It's about saying this community is valuable and important and we want to honour them.

MG: That's Brian Burke, president of the Pittsburgh Penguins on Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday, trying to put a bit of a positive spin on what appears to be turning into a PR embarrassment for the National Hockey League. Several players and some teams in that league have bailed from participating in LGBTQ events in recent weeks. Some players, notably Eric and Marc Staal, two Canadian brothers, say they refuse to wear special Pride jerseys during warm-ups because of their Christian faith. David Palumbo is chair of the Board of You Can Play. It's an organization that works to promote inclusion for all in sport. It was created in honour of Brendan Burke, the son of Brian Burke, who we just heard. David Palumbo, good morning.

DAVID PALUMBO: Good morning.

MG: Is this more than an embarrassment for the National Hockey League in a context where this league is trying to say that hockey is for everyone?

DAVID PALUMBO: Well, it certainly, you know, has shone a light on what's happening and it's been in recent days. But I think looking at the broader picture in terms of what the hockey is for everyone mantra was when we worked with the NHL to create it back in 2017, it really is a mission statement in and of itself. So it's not a declarative point in time statement. Hockey is for everyone is the goal of the league and other sports taking that same view in terms of being inclusive for all. So are these setbacks? Certainly. Are they annoying setbacks in terms of when you hear of individuals creating something like this? Certainly. But if we look at the broader picture in terms of where we've come with this message, as Brian has indicated on the weekend, in terms of where we've gone over the last decade with the work of You Can Play and others in the space, we've certainly seen a lot of progress.

MG: So these are specific events that involve specific teams and specific players. Luke Prokop who is the NHL’s first openly gay player tweeted earlier this month, I share the disappointment in what feels like a step back for inclusion in the NHL. Pride Knights and Pride jerseys play an important role in promoting respect and inclusion. His tweet was in response to James Reimer, San Jose Sharks goalie who refused to wear the Pride jersey. He decided to sit out on the Pride themed practices. His team, his own team put out a tweet in the wake of that, which referenced data from a survey about homophobia in sport. It said 73% of respondents believe youth team sport is not safe for gay people, 81% of gay men, 74% of lesbians are completely or partially in the closet while playing youth sports because they fear discrimination from players and officials.

DAVID PALUMBO: Yeah.

MG: So what's going on here? Why is this still an issue? Is hockey for everyone?

DAVID PALUMBO: Well, I would say yes, it is, and it should be. And that's what we're working to create. Obviously, these are minor setbacks, but no one individual is going to define this mission. No one's bigger than the hockey is for everyone mission and the mantra of what we do in sports. So are there going to be moments where there are what we see as setbacks? Certainly. But the progress is going forward. And I think Luke is a perfect example of that. When you look at the statements by people who have come out, even if you go back to their coming out statements back when they did decide to have the courage to do that, the common thread here is they finally felt comfortable to do so. And that is an important part of that message because that reflects a culture of allies, the culture of community around them, the people that they feel would support them. So is there more work to be done? Absolutely. Those statistics that you read are even more troubling when it comes to the trans community participating in sports. So there is a lot to be done. We've come a long way. This conversation, we wouldn't be having this probably a decade ago when it comes to professional sports, even in amateur athletics.

MG: What’s changing behind the scenes, though? If people in that survey feel as though they would not be welcomed in the dressing room, that they would be the subject of taunts or worse, they might be quiet taunts, maybe something they just overhear or it's much more explicit.

DAVID PALUMBO: Right.

MG: What's actually changed in those spaces to make sure that people feel welcome?

DAVID PALUMBO: Well, what's changed is the investment in time and resources and having these conversations. Front offices in leagues, educational institutions are investing in bringing on more staff. If you look at the NHL itself, it's diversity, inclusion, education. Equity initiative has grown substantially when it comes to who they've dedicated to this. What does that show? It means we certainly have to invest still in these conversations. Those statistics are still alarming to show that we're not there yet and there's a lot of work to be done. But we do have to continue to have those conversations. So what's happening in the locker rooms, what's happening in front offices and in the leagues is very much this conversation about why language matters, about who's around you, not just the two way jocular conversation you might be having with your team-mate and thinking you're just amongst friends. It's who's in that ecosystem hearing that language and how they feel. So when Luke indicates himself, I want to be in that locker room and I want to know that my team-mates accept me, all of me, of who I am, that's an educational process. So what recent events have certainly shown is there is just a fundamental lack of understanding of what really is going on here with symbolism.

MG: Three teams, the Minnesota Wild, the New York Rangers and Chicago's NHL team last night refused to take part in Pride events. I mean, you might say that there's some vindication because Chicago lost to the Vancouver Canucks. But in a league that has, you know, made a big deal out of diversity. Does something like that when it's not just individual players, and I'm not excusing those individual players, but when the three teams say they're not going to be involved in this, does that, people have accused the League of Pink washing, which is this idea that you say you're doing one thing, but your actions don't support that. Does that not undercut the league's commitment to diversity?

DAVID PALUMBO: Well, certainly there are, as I mentioned, in terms of the moments that sort of make it seem like it takes a step back. With Chicago, for example, and other teams, the Pride jersey is just one aspect of the overall program.

MG: But a very visible aspect.

DAVID PALUMBO: it's a very visible symbol, much like Pride tape has been used over the years to really show. And that's a very important symbol of making a statement by a very visible organization that, as Brian mentioned, you belong here, you are welcome here. However, if you look at everything else that's going on as well, that is one very visible symbol. But in Chicago, for example, there were three days of activities that led up to the game. They had speakers, they had educational training session.

MG: But the game is on the ice in front of people with fans in the stands. And again, symbolism might be just symbolism, but it matters. Doesn't it?

DAVID PALUMBO: Oh, it does. And there were in-game activations certainly. There was also, I believe, members of the gay chorus performing. So no question. No question the Pride jersey is a very visible symbol for people who are sitting there that might be looking for some sort of visible statements of support when they are struggling with themselves. But it's important to recognize and while disappointing, that teams, rather than let them do what they did with like in Florida, for example, where the rest of the team came out in full support.

MG: While James Reimer didn't.

DAVID PALUMBO: Exactly. And there was one versus 1920 who did. And so obviously, the teams, and that's something that the teams should really look at because it is a statement of their values and it is a statement about what they truly believe. So would we prefer certainly that they give that opportunity for those who are very vocal, visible in supporting this initiative? Absolutely.

MG: Why does this matter? I mean, at its heart, when you think about this, why does this matter now?

DAVID PALUMBO: Oh, it matters because of those statistics that you indicated. It still matters because we are still seeing that youth today leave sport because they are not feeling comfortable enough with their team mates. They're still struggling. It is a massive journey to be on. And sports is something that people see as their safe space. They see it as something that contributes to their development. If they have to take themselves out early, then I think that becomes where we can't just sit there and say, okay, we're done because this is an ongoing journey. I'd love to say that this is the last year of the You Can Play project as a non-profit organization, but that's not realistic so we'll continue.

MG: I just wonder with you, I mean, I’ve spoken to Brian Burke, it seems like a decade ago, about this. I just wonder whether you're surprised that we're still having this kind of conversation now. Maybe not.

DAVID PALUMBO: No, I don't think so. I think we've certainly made huge gains within sports. And I think, you know, Brendan Burke's legacy I think has been cemented when it comes to changing the culture of sports already. But there's still much to be done. And I think where we've gotten to from when we were established as an organization, when Brian Burke was very visibly out there in support of Brendan when he came out, to where we are today, we've made huge gains. I think anyone in any team organization, the NHL, Brian will say it himself as well, we're not there yet. And we need to continue because this is not a point in time where… we're not at that destination. I think whether it's hockey is for everyone, the You Can Play mantra in terms of inclusion in sports, it really is a journey that has to go on the twists and turns. And so while we recognize there's a lot of progress, we also have to recognize that people are still having their own lived experiences that they may not feel like they've been able to join that side of the progress section of the ledger. So it is important. I think we still have to continue. It's not surprising that we're still there. But more and more, more and more vocal and visible allies that are coming to this discussion, you saw the teams, you saw in Edmonton with Connor McDavid and Zach Hyman very visibly out there saying, that's fine, you do you, but we're going to do what's right. And I think that's important. And the more we have that to drown out the individuals, I think that just adds to the mission’s goals and objectives.

MG: David, thank you very much.

DAVID PALUMBO: Thanks for having me.

MG: David Palumbo is chair of the Board of You Can Play, and he was with me in our studio in Toronto.

[music]

AUSTRALIA INDIGENOUS REFERENDUM

Guest: Sana Nakata

MG: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway. The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, was emotional as he announced the terms of a referendum question last week. This is a question that could alter that country's constitution.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTHONY ALBANESE: The question that Australians will be asked at this year's referendum is a very simple one. It will read, a proposed law to alter the Constitution to recognize the first peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? That's the question before the Australian people. Nothing more, but nothing less. This is a modest request. I said to Australia, don't miss it.

MG: Australia is the only Commonwealth country to have never signed a treaty with Indigenous people there. Since its inception in 1901, the Australian Constitution has never acknowledged them as the country's original inhabitants. Now the Government is hoping that Australians will vote yes on a question that could change that. Sana Nakata is a Torres Strait Islander and principal research fellow at the Indigenous Education and Research Centre at James Cook University. She is in Melbourne. Sana, good morning or I guess good evening to you.

SANA NAKATA: Good morning, Matt. Thanks for having me.

MG: The Prime Minister said this is a modest suggestion, a modest proposal in many ways. What specifically, as you understand it, is being announced.

SANA NAKATA: What's being announced is the first of a three-part proposal that came out of a 2017 referendum council report. And the first pillar of that is a proposed voice to Parliament. Prime Minister Albanese has announced the constitutional referendum to enable the establishment of that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to Parliament. What the voice to Parliament proposes is a new representative body composed of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples selected by the communities from which they come from, to be able to make representations to the Parliament and to the Government on laws and matters that affect us.

MG: He said that this is a direct response to systemic injustice. Why is something like this needed now?

SANA NAKATA: Yeah. It's a direct response to systemic injustice because when we think about the forms of injustice that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience on this continent from poverty, land dispossession, being the most incarcerated people on the planet, continuing to have children removed from their families and communities at unprecedented rates, these are forms of injustice that inquiry after inquiry have attributed to our political systems and to institutional failures. So we can have individual justice. We can seek individual justice through a variety of measures. But what we know is that the political system itself has to change, that we need better systems and processes that can properly hold the government accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As such a small population in the Australian nation, about 3% of the population, voting is not a very effective way of wielding our political power and having our voices heard in Parliament. And so this proposal is really a way of building a communicative bridge, if you will, a bridge between the landscape of Indigenous political representation and all of the claims that we've been sustaining for hundreds of years and to the Parliament that ultimately, you know, justly or unjustly continues to have the power to make laws about us.

MG: Anthony Albanese pointed to some of those specific issues, saying that, you know, the 10-year gap and life expectancy, high suicide rates among Indigenous people, issues of child mortality, that for years, governments have tried to tackle this, but in his words, these were done through imposing solutions rather than consulting with the community. So how would having this voice change that?

SANA NAKATA: Well, at the moment, the way in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have to influence decision making in Canberra is very much as civil society organizations, as grassroots campaigns. It's a very time consuming, labour intensive process that doesn't have any direct line of communication to the government. What this process does is really enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples themselves, communities themselves to choose representatives, to be able to conduct themselves with the work and the task of speaking directly to the government. We know that what works in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and things do work, there are solutions out there, that these solutions most often come from the communities themselves, but those communities are not very well heard by those who are making decisions. And this particular model is not the only way that we affect good decisions on behalf of our communities, but it is one that we haven't had before and it's one that has enormous potential.

MG: How much power would it actually have? Because this is a consultancy role, right? So how much say, how much power would that voice actually have?

SANA NAKATA: Yeah. Look, a lot of the debate in recent weeks and months has really focussed on its legal power. And it doesn't have significant legal power. The Parliament of Australia remains a supreme political authority in this state. And that's a very dissatisfying fact for many people, including many Indigenous peoples who do not recognize the legitimacy of the Australian Government. But the Parliament is the supreme authority. So this voice to Parliament is a representative body. It can provide advice to and consult with the government, but it doesn't have legal power to enforce advice or to veto laws. This has been very deliberately designed for a number of reasons, politically pragmatic reasons, as well as constitutional and legal reasons. But I think what that debate has paid less attention to is the way in which representation is also a form not of legal power, but of political power. A lot of the power that communities hold with respect to holding their governments accountable isn't through legal power. It's through the power we have as constituencies, the power we have to mobilize, to have our voices heard, to create pressure. In democracies, primarily, this pressure kind of accumulates at the ballot box. And that can work when you belong to significant demographics. But for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, our numbers just aren't there to affect political power in that way. So a representative body that can connect the much broader field of Indigenous political claims that we see in organizations, land council, protest movements and the Government I think is a really useful and important thing.

MG: Let me ask you about the politics of this. There are critics on the right who say that this isn't necessary in enshrining this into the Constitution in particular. Have a listen to David Littleproud, who is the leader of the National Party.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID LITTLEPROUD: Adding another layer of bureaucracy won't work. Indigenous Australians are listened to. They’re listened to like every other Australian. There's 227 voices in Parliament, Senators and House of Representative members that share their views but every Australian's view. We have a core tenet that we believe every Australians are treated equally, but we make sure that those voices are heard here through elected representatives. And then proudly, I think this nation should be very proud that we've elected 11 Indigenous Australians to this Parliament. But there's already over a thousand Indigenous representative groups to governments around this country already, and we are simply adding another layer of bureaucracy.

MG: Are all Australians treated equally?

SANA NAKATA: No, not at all. Australians aren’t treated equally. And I think that underpins the broad consensus that exists and has been building for decades that there is the need for a different form of political representation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

MG: One of the things he's also said though, is that this would divide the country along racial lines. And I just wonder how much traction that argument gets in Australia right now.

SANA NAKATA: Ironically, I think it gains traction with those who already believe it, but I don't think it is very effective in persuading undecided voters or people who are thinking and engaging in this question. I think undecided voters who are engaging with this question genuinely understand that existing political processes do not work. He referred to a thousand organizations who are already out there representing Indigenous issues. I don't know if that's an accurate number or not, but what I do know is that none of those organizations have direct and sustained access to the Australian Parliament, that there is no requirement that the Parliament take that advice, hear that advice, that there is no official record of that advice being given. And these are the kinds of things that a constitutionally protected voice to Parliament would enable.

MG: There are people who say that this doesn't go far enough. Have a listen to Senator Lidia Thorpe. She's indigenous. She quit the Green Party over this issue, saying that a treaty is the best way to achieve true sovereignty.

SOUNDCLIP

LIDIA THORPE: So a treaty is about peace. It's about us participating in this society in a way where we can prosper like everybody else seems to do in this country. Where, you know, the sickest, poorest dying every day, nothing's going to change by an advisory body.

MG: What do you make of that?

SANA NAKATA: I understand where it comes from. And I think it's really important to know that the second of the three pillars in this proposal is for a makarrata commission for treaty making. Makarrata is a Yolngu word that means the coming together of this struggle. And so following a successful referendum for a voice to parliament, the next course of action is to establish a Makarrata commission to enable treaty making agreements and a truth telling commission. We actually in the state of Victoria have a treaty process underway. And I think it's very interesting that the first thing that had to be established in the course of developing a treaty framework was a representative body. The first thing that needed to happen was to establish what's known as the First People's Assembly of Victoria. And that is because you simply cannot negotiate treaties across multiple hundreds of first nations in the state without having representatives to engage in those training negotiations.

MG: In that long process, let me just ask you two very quick things. One is about the symbolism of this. Symbolism can be dismissed, but how important is the symbolism in this, not just for the present time, but what you said is that in some ways, this is interesting and this is important because of what it makes possible in the future. So what does that symbolism mean in the long term?

SANA NAKATA: I'm going to push against the symbolic aspect of this. I mean, there's symbolism in everything, but I think a really important thing about this constitutional reform is that it is a rejection of symbolic constitutional recognition. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over the past 20, 25 years of different processes around constitutional recognition have said over and over again that they do not want any form of recognition that does not come with structural change, that does not come without real action and processes that enable better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We had a proposal for symbolic recognition in the 1999 referendum that considered Australia's status as a republic and it was unsuccessful and it had very little support from Indigenous people.

MG: Just finally and very briefly, in conversations around the world with Indigenous communities and how they see their place in politics and decision making, is Australia ready to take that step?

SANA NAKATA: Yeah, I think it is. I think we've had really consistent levels of majority support in polling that has softened in recent weeks as the debates have become really heated. But now that we have a question and amendment text that is being put to the public and as we'll see in the coming weeks, campaigns to vote yes, to stand up and explicitly organize and start to build that momentum, I think Australia's ready. I think Australia knows that the status quo doesn't work and that something needs to change. And I think Australia is mature enough and ready to hear the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

MG: We’ll be watching. Sana Nakata, it's great to talk to you about this. Thank you very much.

SANA NAKATA: Thank you very much for your time, Matt.

MG: Sana Nakata is a Torres Strait Islander and principal research fellow at the Indigenous Education and Research Centre at James Cook University. She was in Melbourne, Australia. That's The Current for this Monday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. Before we go, speaking of Australia, Midnight Oil has been involved in social causes in Australia for decades, all the way back to berger burning and long before that even. They just released an album dedicated to the cause of the referendum efforts featuring Indigenous artists. And so we'll leave you on this Monday morning with Midnight Oil along with Dan Sultan, Joel Davison, Kaleena Briggs and Bunna Lawrie singing Gadigal Land. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll see you tomorrow.

[Song: “Gadigal Land” by Midnight Oil Feat. Dan Sultan, Joel Davison, Kaleena Briggs and Bunna Lawrie]

Monday March 27, 2023 Episode Transcript