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 November 18, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: On climate finance, the world must pay up or humanity will pay the price.

MATT GALLOWAY: At the UN climate conference, the argument is being made that those who have put the most carbon into the atmosphere should pay the most to deal with it. Worldwide, the top 1% contribute the same amount of global carbon emissions as the poorest 66% of humanity. And now, some of the wealthiest people are also being asked to chip in to help fight climate change. In Canada, foundations last week announced a commitment of $405 million to combat global warming. In an hour, two of those cutting the big cheques and what difference this will actually make and whether action like this lets governments off the hook. Also this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

EDWARD TOLEDO: He tapped me in the back and I turned around and I was like, whoa, yes, this is the person. This is him, obviously.

MG: That was the moment that Edward Toledo saw his doppelganger for the first time. A Quebec photographer has spent years connecting people around the world who are unrelated but look uncannily alike. In 30 minutes, why we're fascinated with our lookalikes and whether there is any evidence that doppelgangers have a connection beyond their looks. But as winter approaches with encampments and an addiction crisis continuing across Canada, we begin with the push by some leaders for involuntary treatment of those suffering on the streets. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT

Guests: Drew Dilkens, Elizabeth Dulmage

MG: Maybe you have lived with an addiction or mental illness. Perhaps someone you love has struggled. If nothing else, you've likely seen someone who is suffering in your own city or town. In communities across this country, the crisis and the homelessness that can come with it is almost impossible to ignore. Now, more and more political leaders are talking about forcing some people with severe addictions or mental illness to get treatment. In September, in British Columbia, the Premier David Eby, announced that province's plans to open highly secure facilities to house people detained under expanded involuntary treatment.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID EBY: We know that the current response that we offer is not adequate. It is costly for the people struggling with these conditions. They are not safe. And increasingly, I'm concerned that the way that they are interacting in our communities is making everybody less safe.

MG: Not everybody is on board with this. Many experts say there is little evidence that forced treatment actually works. Civil liberties groups say it violates people's rights. The federal Mental Health and Addictions Minister, Ya’ara Saks, says provinces should focus first on meeting the needs of those who want treatment and aren't getting it.

SOUNDCLIP

YA’ARA SAKS: These are decisions that individuals make with their health care providers and with their families and loved ones in the care that is needed for them. And I think that's where we need to keep it focussed from a human centred lens, from a compassionate lens and from a health care lens.

MG: Alberta has promised legislation to force people with severe drug addiction into treatment. And in Ontario, several mayors have called on the province to expand involuntary care. Brampton has asked to be considered for any future pilot project, and so has Windsor, a city like so many others, dealing with a rise in homelessness and people dealing with addiction. In a moment, we'll hear from the head of a treatment centre there. But first, I'm joined by the mayor of Windsor, Drew Dilkens. Mayor Dilkens, good morning.

DREW DILKENS: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What does this crisis around addiction and mental illness look like in your city?

DREW DILKENS: Well, you know, I can say that my city, when I talk to other mayors and when I visit other cities across our country, we're in a much better place than what I see happening across our nation. And so I'm trying to do all that I can and get on board with all that I can to make sure that we don't get to the point where we see other communities are at today.

MG: But you have said the current system isn't working. So what's not working? Just paint me a picture of what it looks like in Windsor.

DREW DILKENS: Well, let me paint you a picture. You know, if I go downtown Windsor today, it's about 45°F out right now. A couple of weeks ago, a few weeks ago, I went down to a board meeting 8:00 in the morning. It was 40°F. And I parked on the street and there was a man walking by with no shoes on. His feet were all black. His hair is all disheveled. He's talking to himself. He's got a thin blanket around his upper body and clearly, clearly just there's some psychosis or something going on there where he's not able to make sound decisions for himself. But we just have to let him walk by and go on his day because he's not hurting himself, apparently, or not hurting anybody else. And when I see that, that just feels so unCanadian to me that our system is set up. We're going to let a guy who clearly can't make sound decisions for himself continue to behave like he is, to the point where I think he is actually hurting himself, walking around with no shoes at 40 degrees. Like come on, we've got to do better than that. And all I'm saying is there are people like that that need some support and some assistance that they're not getting, you know, that they're clearly not getting and the system is not acting on. And so listening to your tea up with the minister talking about the compassionate side and letting family and friends, you know, help in the decision making process, that is lala land. I mean, these folks don't have, you know, the family support available. They're on their own, mostly living on their own, out in encampments, out in the community. They don't have the family support that one thinks that they have to help them make sensible decisions. So who's helping them? That's the question. Who's helping them? How do we help them? How do we get on a path so that they get the mental health and or addiction support that they need?

MG: So how would this work in Windsor? You've asked to be part of this pilot project for involuntary treatment. And there are already ways, we should say, to put somebody in involuntary psychiatric treatment if a doctor says that they're a danger to themselves or others. But how would this work differently?

DREW DILKENS: Correct. So there is a system right now, but like you just said, you know, they have to be an imminent danger to themselves or others. Well, clearly, I mean, we've had, you know, three police shootings in 10 years from people who are in psychosis on the streets of our downtown. That's clear. I mean, those folks are imminent danger to somebody else and unfortunately had to be neutralized by police. And it's just horrendous that the community has to witness this happen all the time. But there is a whole subset of people who may not be an imminent danger to themselves or someone else, but clearly are not in a place where they're doing any good for themselves. And so let me be clear. I am not talking about, and some have suggested, you know, if they don't like this approach, they go right to the extreme. I am not talking about taking a bus and driving it up and down the streets and demanding every person who has a mental health challenge or an addiction get on board the bus. That’s not what we’re talking about.

MG: Who would be forced into involuntary treatment?

DREW DILKENS: What we’re talking about, as you teed up, the most severe cases, the guy walking around when it's 40 degrees with no shoes on, who clearly is out of his mind and needs the state to help, someone who clearly needs help and is not getting that help today. Those are the types of folks that we're talking about, the most severe and significant people who are obviously challenged and can't make sensible, logical decisions for themselves.

MG: Our colleague Jennifer La Grassa in Windsor spoke with a mother in your community named Christy Soulliere. Her 27-year-old son, Austin Tremblay, died a couple of years ago from a fentanyl overdose. Take a listen to what she had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRISTY SOULLIERE: For an addict that's inactive addiction, I truly believe they have to hit their bottom. As a mom, of course, I encouraged him all the time and I asked him to get treatment. As a parent watching it, it's excruciating. You know, there was times when Austin was homeless because of his addiction. And I'd be up all hours of the night just crying, but knowing I couldn't force him to do something he wasn't ready to do. Forcing somebody to get sober when they're not ready is not going to work.

MG: What do you say to her?

DREW DILKENS: Yeah, Austin, maybe. I don't know Austin. Never met Austin, but maybe he's not a candidate for what we're talking about. Maybe his behaviour wasn't at the extreme level that we're talking about. I mean, can any of us really look in the mirror across our country today and say that the current system in any province is working? I mean, I always say that, you know, Windsor is better than London. London is better than Hamilton. Hamilton's better than Toronto. And all of us are looking at Vancouver saying, oh my God, we never want to get to that point where our community is just, you know, more or less taken over by this situation. And so the current system isn't working. So how do we work together to put the tools in place that allow us to deal with the most extreme cases where people can't make logical, sensible decisions on their own? And that's really the question I think we have to grapple with and the one that I'm interested in dealing with. And I think if we help get those people into whatever treatment it is, if it's addiction treatment, great. If it's mental health treatment, great. Let's get them the supports they need because their behaviour, their behaviour also has a larger impact on places like our downtown, you know, where people are now afraid to go to the downtown because they see folks who are struggling not getting the help that they need and they don't know whether those folks are going to turn into the kind that are getting shot by police.

MG: How much of that is a factor, that you have a very visible form of homelessness and as you said, people are afraid to go downtown? You're worried that there will be an economic hit to the very visible nature of homelessness in your city.

DREW DILKENS: There already is. There already is an economic impact.

MG: So you admit that that's a part of this?

DREW DILKENS: Well, I think that that certainly draws attention to it when you have business owners saying, listen, and property owners saying, listen, I have this business and, you know, there's people defaecating in my, sleeping and defaecating at the front vestibule of my business. There's all sorts of bad behaviour during the day. And if you could simply localize it, Matt, to one particular area, then you could apply a lot of resources and, you know, hopefully, you know, end the situation or certainly resolve a lot of the issues that are there. But now, people are seeing it migrate out to their communities more broadly. It's not just a localized issue in the downtown per se, at least not in my community.

MG: What evidence do you have that this is actually going to work? There were studies that were done, 42 studies reviewed by the Canadian Journal of Addiction, looking at the effectiveness of involuntary treatment. And the bottom line that came out of it is there's a lack of evidence, according to these studies, to support or refute involuntary treatment for substance use disorder. So what evidence do you have that forcing somebody into treatment would help them?

DREW DILKENS: Well, you're focused, first of all, you're saying there's no real evidence to say it works or doesn't work, but you're also focussed on substance use issues. I'm talking about mental health too, and that mental health may have been caused, I mean, people doing crystal meth very quickly can get acquired brain injury. So, you know, there may be causes to the mental health issues. But let's just be, like let's use some logic and common sense. Clearly, if someone is struggling on the street, if I can stabilize them and get them into immediate treatment right away, that they're unable to make the decision on their own, that stabilizing effect is positive. We can get folks into immediate care who may not be able to find the pathways because of their mental health or addiction issues.

MG: It's not just me reading statistics, though. I mean, the health care leader in your own community, the head of Hôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare, it provides mental health and addiction services, says there's a lack of evidence, but that that force treatment can also bring an increased risk of trauma, as well as the human rights issues that are rolled into this. And so what would you say to him, not to me, but what would you say to him?

DREW DILKENS: Well, listen, again, I go back to the evidence. In his own statement that he made to the community, the letter that he published talks about no evidence to say that it works. Well, I'm telling you, the system, and anybody listening to this right now has to admit that the systems we have in place aren't working. And so a lot of folks would say who are in the industry, they'll say, well, just give us more money. Just give us hundreds of millions of dollars or more money and we'll just hire more people and do more. That's not coming. Guys, that's not coming. You know, so the money is not going to flow en masse, billions of dollars to every province, you know, to help deal with this. If the money's not coming, so how are we going to deal with it in a sensible way? And so I'm not worried. You know, there's trauma and harm caused for sure when you have people walking around. What kind of harm is being caused to the guy walking around when it's 40 degrees with no shoes on, talking to himself, clearly in a state of psychosis? You know, what kind of harm is happening to him? It is so unCanadian to watch that play out on our streets. We should not be allowing that. I think it's inhumane and I think it's very unCanadian.

MG: I have to let you go but just to…

DREW DILKENS: And so I’ll risk, I’ll risk, you know, the other side of that where someone feels like they're getting traumatized for getting treatment because they can't make logical decisions for themselves. I'm willing to take that risk because at the end of the day, we're trying to help somebody. We're trying to help a human being.

MG: I have to let you go, but if you are able to move forward on this, will you be able to actually pay for more people in treatment? I mean, we heard from the federal health minister saying that more people need to go into treatment, and you said that that idea is…

DREW DILKENS: That wouldn’t be my problem to solve. I mean, cities, you know, we don't fund health care like that. That's a constitutional responsibility of the province and the federal government to figure that out. I'm just telling you and every mayor that you will talk to will have to admit, whether they're in support of involuntary treatment or not, they'll have to admit that the situations are getting worse in every community and that the current systems in place are not working to end this issue.

MG: I'm glad to have you here as part of this conversation. As you've said, people across the country are dealing with this and may say that what we're doing right now is not working. Drew Dilkens, thank you very much.

DREW DILKENS: Thanks, Matt. Have a good day.

MG: And you. Drew Dilkens is the mayor of Windsor, Ontario. Elizabeth Dulmage runs the Brentwood Recovery Home, which is an addictions treatment centre in that same city of Windsor, Ontario, and she's been listening in. Elizabeth, good morning to you.

ELIZABETH DULMAGE: Good morning.

MG: The mayor says that what is happening in your city when it comes to dealing with an addictions and homelessness crisis is not working. Do you understand why leaders across the country like your mayor are asking for forced treatment and voluntary treatment?

ELIZABETH DULMAGE: So yes, yes, I think I understand where that feeling of it's time to do something reactively to it. And certainly, Mayor Dilkens and I agree completely on the system is not working. We can agree that one of the challenges we face is having adequate resources to support people with severe mental illness. And that really is the group of people that I think Drew is referring to, right? They have severe concurrent disease. They're very mentally ill. This is not a group of people that we can just force them into involuntary addiction for their… voluntary treatment for their addiction. We have to stabilize their mental health and then we can begin to unpack some of what is happening for them related to their substance use disorder.

MG: Do you think, I mean, I ask you this as somebody who runs an addictions treatment centre. Do you think that involuntary treatment can work for some people?

ELIZABETH DULMAGE: Not until their mental illness is stabilized. Absolutely not. And I think when their mental illness is stabilized, then we really don't have to talk about involuntary treatment anymore. They will be ready to seek treatment. And we see that play out when we work in collaboration with our two hospitals here in Windsor.

MG: What do we do then, if to the mayor's point, the system now isn't working and you have people who don't seem to have the capacity to seek out treatment for themselves? What do you do about that? I mean, the question is, I suppose, is does involuntary treatment work for mental illness, not just for addictions, but for mental illness?

ELIZABETH DULMAGE: So we have, we do have therapies and medications that can work. You know, part of the conversation for me that's a bit challenging is we're not talking about, we don't seem to be emphasizing the vicious cycle that people are into right now when it comes to homelessness and access to mental health treatment and access to addiction treatment when they're ready. So Windsor's done all kinds of creative things recently, some innovative things that we haven't even given them time to get traction on. And, you know, I have a waitlist where people wait for several weeks, as does every other addiction treatment centre in this province. So we have individuals who are ready, who are wanting treatment, who are wanting to end the cycle of their disease, and we don't have beds for them. And while they wait for treatment and we try and put the band aid on on the situation, supporting them while they're out in communities, supporting them while they're still homeless without a roof over their head, we lose them. And so, you know, we know from our data that about 43% of our people who are eligible wanting to come in for treatment while they're on that waitlist, we lose them back to the disease again. And so how do we, how do we as a system, how do we as a compassionate, caring system not address some of the core issues about access to mental illness treatment, access to addiction treatment, access to a roof over our head and basic earnings, basic income that allows me to put food on the table? You know, Mayor Dilkens talked about the cost. Well, I'm going to suggest that the cost of involuntary treatment and the revolving door that the literature that we do have suggests that we're going to experience with people who are disproportionately experienced, with people who are forced into involuntary treatment doesn't seem like a long term solution to me.

MG: This is something that, I mean, this is your work, but it's also something that has touched you personally, right?

ELIZABETH DULMAGE: Absolutely. So I have loved people with substance use disorder. I have been the mom. I've been the stepmom. I've been the wife. It has been my experience that attempting to force someone into treatment does not work. And so creating a safe space, keeping a roof over their head, loving them unconditionally, yes. That's what we need to do.

MG: The mayor called that lala land. I mean, in terms of the funding that will be required for, again, I'll use his words, that compassionate approach that the minister talked about, he said it's not possible right now.

ELIZABETH DULMAGE: Well, then how is it possible to force involuntary treatment? So you're going to have to open more beds in hospitals, which cost substantially more money than it does to treat someone in an addiction treatment bed. You're going to treat them over and over and over again because we have good research that says their relapse rate and their overdose rate and their, you know, there was one study out of, and I'm sorry, I'm not going to remember, I think it was Mexico, and, you know, there was 80% of them were into the emergency department and using the health care system again. So, you know, to suggest that we can fund involuntary treatment and there'll be the money for that, which, you know, I think Drew was quite accurate in, you know, it's not going to be a cost to the cities and not fund treatment for people who are ready, willing and wanting to have treatment kind of flies in the face of compassion and who we as Canadians want to be too. And so on that point, you know, I have to disagree. The issues that need to be addressed are going to cost money. The cost of not addressing them is costing us money.

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

ELIZABETH DULMAGE: Thank you. Thanks.

MG: Elizabeth Dulmage is executive director of the Brentwood Recovery Home. She's also in Windsor, Ontario. As both of them have said, this is an issue that's happening right across the country in communities large and small. We'd love to hear from you on this. You can email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. Your CBC news is coming up next, and then.

SOUNDCLIP

NATHANIEL SIRI: We have a lot of affinities. We both like similar things. I think our laughs look very much alike.

MG: Nathaniel Siri kept hearing that he looked just like somebody else. When they met, they discovered they had more in common than just their laugh. We're going to talk about our fascination with doppelgangers coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

DOPPELGANGERS

Guests: Francois Brunelle, Nathaniel Siri , Edward Toledo, Nancy Segal

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

SOUNDCLIP

FIRST SPEAKER: We are hosting this holiday lookalike contest and we got kicked out of Washington Square Park.

SECOND SPEAKER: This guy’s got it. That guy's got it right there. I got the chipmunks through it like.

MG: Almost 2000 people turned up in New York City for that lookalike contest, including the actor at the centre of it, Timothee Chalamet himself. Other celebrity lookalike competitions have popped up in cities around the world, from London to San Francisco. You know, doppelgangers used to be seen as a bad omen, but now, finding your doppelganger has become a bit of a thing. Online groups are popping up to help millions of people find theirs, and this fascination with doppelgangers took hold of my next guest more than two decades ago. Francois Brunelle is a Canadian photographer. He has captured the images of 250 pairs of doppelgangers in dozens of cities around the world. He's in Quebec City. Francois, good morning.

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: Good morning and thanks for having me in your program.

MG: Thanks for being here. This is super interesting. How did your interest in doppelgangers begin?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: Yes. Well, it's a long story. I used to see and I still do look at people and find their, you know, likeness to other people. And so I've been doing that all my life. But I was told I looked like a certain Mr. Bean about 30 years ago.

MG: Like The British comedy, like Rowan Atkinson?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: Yes, the character. Yeah, yeah. So but I didn't know who that was. And maybe it was a… maybe my face looks like a bin or I didn't know what it was. But one day, I saw one night on television this man taking a bath and the wall was falling down. And he looked very weird and awkward, but he just looked like me. He was dressed the same. I used to dress with a suit and a tie and the shirt to look serious, you know, and but, you know, I was flabbergasted, as you say. The program ended with the letters, Mr. Bean. And then I thought, oh no, people think I look like this guy, this character, and I think I look like this character. So there's no doubt. But until then, I thought I would look more like another character, Mr. Dean, James Dean. Truly, truly.

MG: Those are very different people. So given that and the fact that people said you look like Mr. Bean, how did you end up taking these photographs of doppelgangers around the world?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: When I had this shock about meeting my doppelganger on the screen, I just had this idea, which is a fantasy, in fact, to find that lookalikes that would be like perfect, bring them together in front of the camera, and then they would be so in a state of shock, I would say, that the picture would be good because of that. You know, that was a fantasy because when I started the project, people, some people know each other before that. So it doesn't matter. But people who meet for the first time in my studio, they have a little check for about five or six seconds and that's all.

MG: How do you go about finding people that look alike?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: Well, at first and during the project, I found myself a few lookalikes, in fact, quite a number. But then I was short of lookalikes, so I went to the media and I asked for help.

MG: How alike are we talking about? I mean, how much do these people look like each other?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: That's a very good question, Matt, and thank you for asking it, because that's the key of the project, is a lookalike is someone you confound with another person. They don't have to be exactly the same and they are very rarely the same. Some of them are pretty, pretty much the same, I must say. But most of them, they look more or less the same. But the fact is that if you talk to someone on the street thinking it's somebody else, then they look the same. But if you put them together in the studio, you see that the ear is different, the nose is different, everything is different. But it's the way of being. And the question is when you look at yourself in the mirror, Matt, and in the morning, you shave or I don't know, and then you say, ah, this is Matt Galloway. Yeah, this is you. But then maybe somebody else in another city in the country is looking at himself in the mirror, looking at almost the same thing and says to himself, yeah, this is George. Yeah, this is me. This is George. So who is Matt Galloway at the end?

MG: That's a deep question. I mean, is that in many ways, and we're going to hear from some of the people that you brought together, but is that what you were trying to answer, who we are?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: Well, I'm not sure if I'm looking for an answer, but I'm looking for the question because when I saw this Mr. Bean, I thought, okay, I look really like this character. And then I thought I was somebody else. I didn't know I was that. You know, it's pretty strange. Pretty strange.

MG: So we have a couple of the lookalikes with us that you photographed in 2003. Nathaniel Siri is a director and a producer in Los Angeles. Edward Toledo is a dance teacher in Montreal. Good morning to you both.

NATHANIEL SIRI: Good morning.

EDWARD TOLEDO: Hello, how are you doing?

MG: Nathaniel, how did you first hear about Edward?

NATHANIEL SIRI: We were working for the same company for a few months and I've been hearing about a guy that looks just like me in the company. And I was… I wanted to disagree, so I was like, I can't wait to meet this guy. And we finally met at the party, the end of the year party of this said company. And that's how I met him.

MG: And when you saw him for the first time, having heard there was somebody who looked like you, what was your response?

NATHANIEL SIRI: There was such a momentum in going into that party. I was like looking for him. I was there before him. I was like, okay, when is he coming in? When is he coming in? And then I saw him. I stared at him. He didn't see me right away. And I went to him and I said, Let's go compare face in the bathroom. So yeah, that's how we met. And I think I startled him actually.

MG: Edward, were you startled? What was that experience like for you?

EDWARD TOLEDO: Yes, there was a bit of a shock on my end. I have heard, I have had many people telling me, you should meet this person. He looks just like you. But I was just new into the scene of the dance world and Nathaniel was ahead of me because he had done many different contracts and he had a lot of already connections in the domain. And so that's why everyone was telling me, wow, you just got here, but we know someone that looks just like you. So I had many months of this. And we worked in the same company, but we were not doing the same events. So the people in the same company would tell us also that. And so the end of year party was the anticipation towards like, okay, we're going to finally get to see if this is actually reality. And so Nathanial saw me and he like tapped me in the back and I turned around and I was like, whoa, yes, this is the person. This is him, obviously.

MG: I'm looking at a photo of the two of you. You do, I mean, you look different, but you do look very similar. Did you see that, Nathaniel? Did you see that similarity right away?

NATHANIEL SIRI: No, I never felt that we've looked so similar for some reason. People say that and I have to agree because everyone says that. But at the same time, I'm staring at the photo and I'm like, yeah, we kind of look similar. But since then, I've grown to know Edward and I count him as my brother. So it's a very different feeling. I don't see myself in him. I see him for who he is. So the personality took over, I guess.

MG: Francois, you took this photo that I'm looking at. What did you see when these two men came together?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: Well, it's a long time, but I thought they looked pretty much the same. But it's interesting what Nathaniel just said. He said, I don't think I look like Edward, because the title of my project is I'm Not a Lookalike. So it's great because there's a few subjects in the project who just said that, like, oh, you know, Francois, I don't think I look like the other guy. And I remember it was quite emotional because when you look at the picture, the way the hand on Edward’s head. And it's one of the good pictures that I did and I'm very, very proud of it. And thanks, Nathaniel. [Says thanks in other languages]

MG: Edward, it was emotional for you.

EDWARD TOLEDO: For me, it was a strange feeling because I was confused very often by him. So I heard his name all the time and I was beginning to learn how to dance. And he was ahead of me like three or four years and all of his dreams and his like accomplishments were ambitions of mine. So it was kind of a bit of a mixture of things, of emotions, because I was always named Nathaniel. Everyone was telling me, like for example, dance teachers, choreographers would confuse me with his name. And at some point, it was kind of irritating and I was like, I have my own personality. I was trying to get, you know, known. And so yeah, I got to know him and I saw that he has a lot of aspect of his personality that are very, very similar to me. And so the connection that we got right from the beginning was pretty strong, a mixture of all kind of emotions because that's how we met, by everyone confusing us.

NATHANIEL SIRI: We have a lot of affinities. We both like similar things. We laugh very similarly. I think our laughs look very much alike. And yeah, we have very similar personalities and affinities. So that's I think where the most resemblance.

MG: This photo was taken 20 years ago, more than 20 years ago. Edward, I mean, do you have a connection between the two of you now? Is it just, I mean, it's something that lives in the past and it's a great story, but are you friends? How does that work now?

EDWARD TOLEDO: We're like really close friends, but we don't live close. But we are connected in a way that is really special because we never actually stopped developing our connection throughout the years. And more so than that, we did share a partnership like at the beginning of the relationship, and then we turned it into a friendship. And now, it's sort of like a friend, like a bond similar to what a sibling would feel like because I know I can count on him. Like the bond is very strong.

MG: Nathaniel, you called him your brother.

NATHANIEL SIRI: I call him my little brother. Yeah. I don't have a brother anymore. My brother died when I was a kid. And since then, I realized with the connection that I have a bond and I want to protect him and I want to, you know, I want to be here for him. And I realized doing a documentary project last year that it might be linked to the fact that I don’t have a brother anymore. And the connection is really one of fraternity because I really am there for him. When he needs counselling, I'm trying to be mindful of what I'm saying because I know it has an impact on him. And I know that when I'm sad, he listens to me. He's there to receive all the types of emotion that can come out and he doesn't judge.

MG: That's really special in some ways. What do you think, I'll ask you both this because as I said, this is a thing. Now, there's a long piece in National Geographic about this. There have been these look alike competitions, but there's also just people are looking for their doppelganger if they think they have one. What do you think is driving that, Nathaniel?

NATHANIEL SIRI: I don't know. I don't get it.

MG: You don't get it.

NATHANIEL SIRI: No, I don't get it. Every time when I hear about it, I’m like why? Why do you want to find someone that looks like you? I guess I found mine 20 years ago, so that's probably why. I already have it. But I do not feel the need to find someone that looks like me. I do not where it stems from. I do not feel the same. I don't know. How about you, Edward?

EDWARD TOLEDO: I've always thought about this question like as a weird thing because it just happened to us. We weren't like, I wasn't looking for someone that like experienced the same, had the same experience as me. But it turned out to be at the beginning of my adventure with dance, Nathaniel was exactly what I wanted in my life, like everything that he was doing. So it's a mixture of the energy that he has. And I think people in general have the desire to connect, to find someone that they can consider themselves special with. So it's not necessarily the resemblance, but the fact that we really complete each other's ideas. And I think the fact that people think that someone's going to look exactly like them is going to bring in addition to that connection, special moments to share with each other.

NATHANIEL SIRI: And I guess we did it that way too, so we're the lucky ones.

MG: You’re the lucky ones. Francois, what do you make of that? I mean, what do you think? What is this about, the attraction that people have to doppelgangers?

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: You ask me. I don't really know. I'm always surprised because I started this project like 24 or 5 years ago and then it became popular with the media and then there was nothing. And then there's always a wave of interest about the lookalikes. Before the advent of the Internet, the lookalike was always a man. It was always about men. And since then, it's mostly about women. Like 75%, three quarters of my subjects, three quarters of the emails that I get are from women. And on top of that, a part of my lookalikes are couples of men and women. The book that I'm trying to produce, I will have about 10 or 11 couples who are men and women. Some of them are couples in real life. Some of them are just people who met, but they look pretty much the same. But there are men and women. So this is a new thing.

MG: It is so interesting. And your story, Nathaniel and Edward, is fascinating as well. Thank you both for being here. And Francois, thank you very much.

FRANCOIS BRUNELLE: You're welcome.

Edward and Nathaniel: Thank you very much.

MG: Francois Brunelle is a photographer in Montreal. He's now working, as you heard, on a book about doppelgangers. Nathaniel Siri and Edward Toledo were photographed for his collection of portraits back in 2003. Francois Brunelle’s photo project has attracted the attention of the scientific community. A geneticist in Spain tested the DNA samples of some of his subjects and found some genetic similarities between unrelated lookalikes. Some of my next guest’s research includes studying the personality traits of doppelgangers. Nancy Segal is a professor of psychology, director of the Twin Studies Centre at California State University in Fullerton, California. Nancy, good morning to you.

NANCY SEGAL: Good morning, Matt.

MG: You're a developmental psychologist. How did you come to study lookalikes?

NANCY SEGAL: Well, my focus is really on twins. And one of my students alerted me to Francois Brunelle’s website. And when I saw what it contained, I realized that this group of subjects was a wonderful way of testing out a particular criticism that some people have advanced against twin studies. For example, identical twins are very much alike in their personalities. But some people feel it's because people treat them alike based on their facial appearance. And I've never felt that was a reasonable explanation. Instead, I thought that identical twins are treated alike because they evoke similar responses from the people around them. So I gave a number of these doppelgangers that I obtained from Francois Brunelle, and I've been continuing this even on my own. I've gotten other pairs from the television programs, and I've gotten some that I've just found on my own which are amazing. At any rate, I gave them personality questionnaires, self-esteem questionnaires and a relationship, a social relationship questionnaire. And I did this twice with two different types of personality forms. And so I reasoned that if these unrelated lookalikes are as alike as identical twins raised apart, who are there parallels, you know, raised apart but look alike, but the identicals share all their genes in common, then if the unrelated lookalikes are as alike as the twins, then maybe the critics are right. But if the unrelated lookalikes are not alike, then my thought on this is correct.

MG: And so what did you find?

NANCY SEGAL: I'm just getting to that now, Matt. And what I found was that the personality similarity of the doppelgangers was zero. It was zero.

MG: Zero.

NANCY SEGAL: Yes. And on self-esteem, it was just about zero as well. And I found that most of the doppelgangers were not closely connected at all. There were some exceptions, like Edward and his lookalike, but very, very few. And the reason is that personality is in your brain. It’s not in your face. And we know, as you said in the program, that there are a lot of websites that have been sprouting up where people can submit a photograph and look for their look alike. And I think that the popularity comes from the fact that people are envious of the twin relationship because it's very close. It’s not judgemental. There’s complete understanding and acceptance, and I think that people really want that. And I suspect that the people who submit photographs to these websites are looking for that kind of connection. And I'm just afraid that they're going to be disappointed. I think in some cases, yes, they may find it. But you see, the doppelgangers from the study that you interviewed, they talked about their behavioural similarities as the social glue that attracted them and maintained their relationship. But there is no necessary connection between how you look in your face and what your personality traits are going to be.

MG: Can I go back to that? Because one of the things that, I mean, they said, is that people thought that they were very much alike. Often, they would be confused for each other not because of just how they looked, but because of what people read into their personalities. So if there is zero, if your study found that, as you said, personality doesn't reside in the face and there's zero real relationship between personalities, how can what they went through be explained?

NANCY SEGAL: Well, I'll tell you, I heard it a little bit differently than you, Matt. I heard that people were confusing them based on their appearance because after all, people did not know both of them at that time. They only knew one. And so it was basically the face. My take on this is that the unrelated lookalikes, the doppelgangers might feel a certain attraction when they meet. But as time goes by, they find that they're very, very different. That's what the majority of the pairs are telling me. And this is not just, you know, hearsay or interviews or anecdotes. These are hard scientific data that I have gathered systematically and published.

MG: What do you make of the, in the introduction, I said that geneticists in Spain looked at the DNA samples of some of the folks that Francois was taking photos of and found genetic similarities between unrelated people. What do you make of that?

NANCY SEGAL: Well, of course, that's going to happen. I mean, look, when people both have brown eyes or blue eyes or red hair, they have the same genetic backgrounds, but it's not common through descent. It's not the same family. So I'm not surprised. And also, the guy in Spain specifically selected the most identical pairs of the ones that he had. And he did find some genetic similarities that were related to some facial features, but he did not look at personality. He did not look at self-esteem and he did not look at the social relationships that I assessed. And he did find that yes, smoking seemed to be similar and something to do with lifestyle very vaguely or generally defined. But I was very specific. I looked at five personality traits, what people call the Big five, what you think about as OCEAN: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. And that was replicated over two different questionnaires. And look, the identical twins raised apart were very, very similar.

MG: You said something interesting earlier, and I ask you this as the director of the Twin Studies Centre, that in some ways, we’re jealous, that we are, we want the connections that identical twins have. What is that about, do you think?

NANCY SEGAL: Well, identical twins have the closest social relationship on average. When we see identical twins who are so close and their relationships are so effortless, having been developed from a very, very young age, I think that many people look at them and are intrigued and are envious because what a luxury to have somebody who accepts you completely, who loves you completely, who will understand you completely. And I think that when people do try to get this look alike, they're hoping that that will be the case. But again, I said that I think they're going to be disappointed. You know, when you look at friendships and you look at married couples or significant others, it's not opposites that attract. It's birds of a feather who flock together. And when children develop imaginary playmates, who are they? They’re people who are like themselves. People don't have imaginary friends who are different from themselves. People don't feel terribly attracted to people who are different from themselves. Now, some couples, some friends complement one another. One may be more extroverted. One may be more introverted. They may have different talents and traits. But nevertheless, it's their commonalities that draw them together. I'm certain that if the two who were on today had very different affinities, very different inclinations and talents, they wouldn't be where they are today. But it was those behavioural similarities that drew them together and sustained the relationship.

MG: Do you think you have a doppelganger?

NANCY SEGAL: Do I?

MG: Yeah.

NANCY SEGAL: Well, let me just say to your viewers that I am a twin, but I am fraternal twin. Yeah. I thought you'd never ask, Matt. I'm a fraternal twin with a sister who does not look like me and does not act like me. And we have similar values. We're very close sisters, but we're close sisters just because we share a family history. Now, when I was growing up, I was very jealous of some of the identical twins that I saw in school or on the playground because they seemed to have a connection that I did not have. And being a twin, I was immediately attracted to twin studies because I found them so professionally informative and so personally engaging. It's a wonderful field. And having gotten involved with the doppelgangers, I'm thrilled. It’s a whole new side that I hadn't anticipated, but one that really feeds into my field in a wonderful way.

MG: But don’t you wonder whether there's somebody out there in the world who looks just like you?

NANCY SEGAL: Well, I'll tell you, occasionally, I have gotten people to tell me that, yes, there's someone out there. And a few have sent photographs and I don't perceive the similarity in the slightest. And that's very interesting because one of your guests said that. And when I talked to some identical twins, they don't perceive the similarities, but yet other people do. And I think that that is the key. When other people confuse you, to me, that is the bar for being classified as a doppelganger or as a lookalike.

MG: Nancy, it's great to speak with you. Thank you very much.

NANCY SEGAL: My pleasure, Matt. Thank you for having me.

MG: Nancy Segal is a professor of psychology and the director of the Twin Studies Centre at California State University. Do you have a doppelganger? Have you met the doppelganger or is there just somebody out there who people say, you know, this person kind of looks like you? If you've met the doppelganger or you've heard of your doppelganger, what is that like? You can email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. And if you have met the person who is your lookalike, send us a photo of the two of you. Email it to us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. Coming up after your regional update, a group of wealthy families and foundations is making Canada's biggest ever philanthropic contribution to fight climate change, more than $400 million over the next decade. We'll hear what they hope to achieve and what the pitfalls of this kind of philanthropy can be. That's coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current. Stay with us.

PHILANTHROPY FAMILIES

Guests: Bruce Lourie, Sylvie Trottier, Basav Sen

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

SOUNDCLIP

ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: There is no time to lose. On climate finance, the world must pay up or humanity will pay the price. Climate finance is not charity. It's an investment. Climate action is not optional. It's an imperative. Both are indispensable to a livable world for all humanity and a prosperous future for every nation on earth.

MG: At the Cop29 Climate Action Summit last week, UN Secretary-General António Guterres made an urgent plea to rich countries and rich individuals to address climate change with their pocketbooks.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: This is a story of avoidable injustice. The rich cause the problem, the poor pay the highest price. Oxfam finds the richest billionaires emit more carbon in an hour and a half than the average person does in a lifetime.

MG: That same Oxfam report found that the top 1% of wealthiest people in the world are responsible for the same amount of carbon emissions as the least wealthy 66%. Now, a group of wealthy Canadians is trying to shift that at least a bit. Nine families and foundations will contribute $405 million over the next decade to speed up the shift to a low carbon economy. It is the biggest philanthropic contribution to climate change and climate action ever in this country. Bruce Lourie is president of the Ivey Foundation. It's committed $100 million to this initiative. He is in our Montreal studio, and Sylvie Trottier is a board member of the Trottier Family Foundation, which is donating $150 million, and she is in Cambridge, Ontario. Good morning to you both.

BRUCE LOURIE: Good morning, Matt.

SYLVIE TROTTIER: Good morning.

MG: Sylvie, of all of the causes needing support, why did you decide to put $150 million of your family's money into climate action?

SYLVIE TROTTIER: Well, I think to us, there is no other issue which is as pressing as the climate crisis. You know, this is an issue that is a threat multiplier that affects every aspect of our lives, really. So our communities, our economies, our ecosystems, there's nothing that is untouched by the climate crisis. And I would say irrespective of any issue area that is close to your heart, whether it's, you know, children, whether it's health outcomes, whether it's inequality, climate is going to be amplifying those worsening outcomes. And that's why it's so essential for philanthropy to step up and to take bold action and, yeah, play a role in catalyzing additional changes. Lots of amazing solutions.

MG: This is a big change because when you take a look at climate philanthropy in this country, something like point 9% of charitable giving in Canada goes to climate philanthropy. Why do you think that's so low?

SYLVIE TROTTIER: I would say it is shockingly low when you think about it being sort of this generational issue that touches everything. But climate is complex. Like I said, it touches a lot of different areas of our lives, really, every part. And there's not any one entity that's going to solve it on its own. So a lot of philanthropies and funders. You know, it's easier, I would say, to fund, let's say, you know, a hospital or a university or something that's much more tangible or perhaps a food bank where you feel okay, I'm having a direct impact here. Climate is a, you know, more complex than that. But our message today and part of our goal in making this announcement is to kind of explain and show that if we do this in collaboration with others and community, with lots of experts and figuring out what are the best solutions, we really can have tangible kind of effective change that's good for everyone and really gets the future that we want.

MG: Bruce Lourie, you helped create this initiative. What are you hoping to achieve with this?

BRUCE LOURIE: Yeah, well, precisely what Sylvie has just said. Our goal is to mobilize more money, certainly, not just from wealthy Canadians, but from Canadians working all across the country as well as governments. This is, as Sylvie said, it's a complex issue, but I think we're getting to the point now. And what makes us quite confident is the solutions to climate change are largely understood. Implementing them is quite a bit more difficult, but we know that we have to stop burning fossil fuel. That's the main problem. And we right now in Canada, we, for example, install more heat pumps than gas furnaces, which is great. We're gradually starting to see increase in electric vehicles. We're seeing some big changes in industry. We've decarbonized our electricity system almost entirely. So we're confident that the solutions are there. And I would say partly in answer to your question of why we see such a low amount of philanthropy going into climate change is I think a lot of people simply didn't think the solutions existed. So we're hoping by combining this, you know, unprecedented commitment in Canada to direct solutions that people can see on the ground, that we’ll really build a bigger pot of money to solve the problem.

MG: What specifically, I mean, $100 million is an eye watering sum. What specifically would you want that that's coming from the Ivey Foundation to go to?

BRUCE LOURIE: Yeah. You know, so it's a whole range of things. And, you know, again, as Sylvie said, this is a complex issue. It affects all parts of the economy. Really, when you think about it, you know, climate change isn't a traditional environmental issue. We're talking about the complete retooling of the global economy. And as I said, it's from one based on fossil fuel to electricity. So we're helping, for example, support the industry that needs to get things done. So how do you do skills development for, you know, heat pump or HVAC installers? How do you get First Nations communities to participate in this by having equity ownership in major projects that will be electrifying the economy? We do a lot of work with labour organizations on the role that Labour will play. We do technical work working with people that really understand in detail, like, you know, what are say the issues in in exploring the future of hydrogen, which may or may not be a significant part of the solution. So it's really a huge range of things. And I think that's the benefit of this announcement, is to show people that there are all sorts of things that you can be doing, from working with doctors to working with community groups to basically trying to help businesses decarbonize.

MG: Sylvie, what goes through your mind when you hear those numbers about the impact that the most wealthy in this world are having on climate? The Secretary general of the United Nations said the rich own this problem. And I dare say that he's talking about people who can, through their family foundations or what have you, afford to give hundreds of millions of dollars. When you hear that, what goes through your mind?

SYLVIE TROTTIER: I mean, I think that that is one of kind of the big cruxes of the climate crisis. And I think that is true for countries as well, right? That's been understood for a long time, is that the wealthiest countries are the ones who have contributed the greatest part of the problem, and unfortunately, the least wealthy countries are going to be bearing the brunt of the effects. And that's true on an individual level as well. So that's something that I have grappled with personally as well. And I would say, you know, philanthropists, we do have a role to play in supporting climate action. We really, you know, we're not necessarily… we can't solve it on our own. There's lots of different actors that need to come to the table. Like Bruce was saying, there's amazing solutions that are already there. But what funders can do is to be that one domino that gets things going and that scales up those solutions to the level we need them to play.

MG: Can I just go back to something that you just said, which is that you grapple with this on your own. I mean, how do you grapple with this? Are there things that you do in your life to not offset, but to reckon with that? What does that mean when you say that you grapple with it?

SYLVIE TROTTIER: I would say that, you know, part of it is taking action through philanthropy. And philanthropy goes beyond just money, although obviously, that's a huge part of it. But there is an expression that I've heard from other groups where we use treasure, ties, talent and time. So it's about bringing our whole selves to the table and using our voice like we're doing with today's announcements to encourage our peers to also come up and step up in a bold, ambitious way that kind of matches the scale and the urgency of the issue. It means bringing our talent and our knowledge to the table as well. So I think it's about bringing our whole selves, and it's imperative, really, that we do so. And it can be something that is incredibly fulfilling because we can have a major impact. And that's really why we're calling on other sort of philanthropists across Canada to join us and to do this all together because we need everybody at the table.

MG: Bruce, part of the people who need to be at the table are political actors as well. How do you think donations like this, but the intention and the attention that they get, will shape political decisions? How do you hope that that happens?

BRUCE LOURIE: And really, at the end of the day, that's where we've been stuck on climate change. You know, we've had, we’re at Cop29 and still not a whole lot has come out of those Cop processes. And that is the political process globally to solve this problem. So our focus really has been working directly with, as I said, with communities, with businesses. But at the end of the day, with governments, and that's all governments, federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments. They have a huge role to play. And of course, politicians in those governments have a huge role to play. So I think the more that we can demonstrate to political leaders that this really is not, you know, not just being framed as a problem and a crisis, but this will create millions of jobs in communities across our country and it'll attract billions of dollars in investment. And if you just look at Ontario, for example, it has been remarkable to me to see the Doug Ford government embracing electrification, embracing electric vehicles, embracing, you know, the manufacturing of batteries. And that's because that's the business that Ontario is largely in, manufacturing automobiles and sending to the United States. So we need to make sure that we're ahead of the curve. And that's what's going to produce good jobs for people in Canada and attract billions of dollars of investment as investments in oil go down.

MG: Let me just slide another voice into our conversation. Basav Sen is the climate policy director for the Institute for Policy Studies. He's been listening from Washington, DC, to our conversation. Basav, good morning to you.

BASAV SEN: Yes. Thank you for having me on your show.

MG: How important is this sort of philanthropic contribution when we're talking about the larger than life, the existential fight against climate change?

BASAV SEN: Absolutely. Philanthropy needs to contribute and do its part because it is clearly not sufficient for government or the private sector to shoulder all of the burden for the kinds of investments we need to see to address the climate crisis. And especially the civil society sector. The non-profit sector needs philanthropic funding in order to function. And as we have seen from country after country over the last several decades, it is grassroot social movements. It is civil society that has driven a lot of the needed transformation that has already occurred. And it is, again, civil society that's on the front lines of the resistance to the harmful systems which are still in place.

MG: How effective have these sorts of large donations, philanthropic donations, been in the past in shifting the needle on climate change, do you think?

BASAV SEN: This is a more thorny question because to date, philanthropic contributions have sometimes not helped. And let me explain why. It all depends on where philanthropic contributions go, which particular sectors and which particular organizations. And there has broadly been a trend of philanthropy contributing too much to already well-funded organizations which are often not at the grassroots. They are not representative of the communities who are most impacted by the climate crisis, but rather they are big establishment NGOs. And by continuing to fund these already well-funded actors, large sectors of philanthropy are perpetuating the inequalities that exist within civil society because not all civil society organizations are equally well-resourced. And I would argue that it's some of the smaller, less well-funded grassroot organizations that are really the most cutting edge and the most effective in terms of coming up with solutions. And that's only to be expected because it's the people who are closest to the problem who are closest to the solution.

MG: Is there a danger that, and this is a concern broadly around philanthropy, that when private individuals or foundations give money, that it in some ways allows governments off the hook?

BASAV SEN: I'd be less concerned about that. What I would be more concerned about is does it give them disproportionate power to set the agenda? And does that, in fact, perpetuate the cause of the climate crisis? Because if you think about it, we have known about climate change in scientific terms for decades now, and we are still far from a solution. And that's because of the institutional power, the political clout of big polluting industry. In other words, wealthy institutions and wealthy individuals are resisting a change to the status quo because they want to preserve their privileges. And we can see a similar problem conceivably occur in the world of philanthropy as well if wealthy individuals use their economic clout to steer solutions in a direction that is preferable to them rather than one that is in the best interest of humanity.

MG: What then do you do? I mean, what's the way forward to compel the wealthy to do more, to pay more to reduce climate change with the broader goals, as you said, of all of humanity rather than their own individual goals? What's the tool that you would apply?

BASAV SEN: The solution is twofold. Part of it is, of course, appealing to the goodwill of individual people to get them to steer their donations in what I would argue is more productive directions, including a lot more funding for under-resourced grassroots organizations. But at the same time, there is a bigger role for redistributive policy on the part of government. And what I'm talking about here is taxing wealthier individuals and taxing corporations more and using those additional revenues for government programs that provide the needed resources for under-resourced communities to be able to undertake the transformations they need to address climate catastrophe.

MG: Is there a word, just before I let you go, is there a word of advice that you would offer the Canadian philanthropic agencies, the foundations that and the individuals that are giving this large sum of money, $405 million or so? Is there a word of advice that you would give them?

BASAV SEN: The one broad piece of advice I would give people is to actually engage in deep consultation with, for example, First Nations communities who are impacted by tar sands mining and by, you know, pipelines and transportation of oil by rail and, you know, all of the other attendant harmful impacts of the fossil fuel industry in Canada, and also to talk to urban environmental justice communities, you know, low income communities in Canadian cities who are also dealing with impacts such as extreme heat, which is unusual for Canada. But, you know, these days, you have heat waves in Canada. They're also dealing with wildfire smoke, etc. And so actually engage with these communities. Find out what they need. Find out what solutions they're already working on and fund them.

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

BASAV SEN: Thank you.

MG: Basav Sen is the Climate policy director for the Institute for Policy Studies. He’s in Washington, DC. Still with us, Bruce Lourie, president of the Ivey Foundation, which has committed $100 million to the fight against climate change, Sylvie Trottier, who is a board member with the Trottier Family Foundation, donating $150 million. Sylvie, what do you make of that? And this goes back to, in some ways, the conversation that we were having earlier about how just point 9% of climate giving in Canada goes to the climate, fighting the climate crisis. If it's a less tangible thing, what about compelling the wealthy to give through a wealth tax?

SYLVIE TROTTIER: I mean, it's funny to bring that up to me because that's something that I also do personally, is advocate for more taxes on the wealthy. And I'm a member of an organization called Patriotic Millionaires, so I really wholeheartedly agree with all of the points that Basav Sen brought up. But the way that I think about it is this is a simplistic breakdown. Sort of like a three-point plan when I speak to other funders or philanthropists is to say, you know, give more and give better to philanthropy, to an existential threat that affects all of us and that if we succeed in addressing is going to make all of our lives better. Also, invest your funds in a way that is going to help accelerate a transition to a cleaner, more just, healthier, greener future. That would be point two. And then point three would be to also look, try to use your voice and your role in trying to address this more systemic inequities that have made climate such a major crisis and have brought a lot of other kind of issues through inequality. But really, today's announcement is really, the first point of that three-point plan is to give more. And that's our message to other philanthropists and other wealthy families, just to say that we do have, I would say, a responsibility to play a role, but we can also really be effective. And so a lot of, you know, foundations kind of have that perfectionist mindset. We want to figure everything out. We want to make sure we can have like measurable impact. But the riskiest thing here is really to do nothing, to be like, oh, somebody else will do this, or I'm not quite sure where to get started. You know, why we're announcing today is to say as they get going, they can reach out to us. We can support them. Like all the points that Basav raised about doing this through deep engagement and really getting to know the issues, speaking with the folks who are most affected, this is something that we've been doing for the past decade, and we're really now just basically doubling and tripling down on that and wanting to accelerate that action because the window of time, you know, is shortening. I've been working in this space for a couple of decades. Seems sort of far off and distant, but I have a nine-year-old daughter who will be 34 in 2050 when if we want to reach a 1.5 degrees scenario, we should have zero emissions. She's going to be younger than I am now. So it's really not far. We have kind of a few years to act. It's urgent but there's also hope. We can also really help steer and do something about this. So that's really our call to action.

MG: Bruce, we're just about out of time. Just very briefly, part of it, Sylvie talks about the, you know, the Earth horizon. There's also a political timeline here as well. You have a new administration coming into the United States. Donald Trump has talked about drill, baby, drill. How does that put a fire under an initiative like this?

BRUCE LOURIE: Yeah, I mean, that's certainly what's on everyone's mind, I think, right now working on these issues globally. The reality is the United States is the largest oil producer in the world, and even under Biden, accelerated their oil production massively. Of course, almost two thirds or more of Canada's oil goes to the United States to meet their demand. So, I mean, we do have an issue in terms of the major industry or the major countries that are massive oil producers, which is why our focus really is how do we build the other side of the economy, the future clean economy or the new economy that we call it, which is an economy that's going to be based on batteries and electric vehicles and heat pumps and all the things that I was just talking about. So I'm quite optimistic about all of that. I think the way the issue was framed that you basically try to, you know, attack people that work in pipelines or the oil industry and consult with progressive urban elites hasn't worked very well. I think that's partly why we have Trump in power. So our approach really is to work much more broadly with workers and communities across the country to really understand those issues that will help us transition effectively.

MG: We'll be watching. This is a really interesting conversation. Glad to have you both as part of it. Thank you very much.

SYLVIE TROTTIER: Thank you.

MG: Bruce Lourie is president of the Ivey Foundation. Sylvie Trottier is a board member of the Trottier Family Foundation. That's The Current for this Monday. It's the 18th of November. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. We were talking in an earlier part of the program about doppelgangers, the trend to find and meet your lookalikes, maybe be one in a pair, actually see who looks like you out in that world and perhaps hang out with that person. Maybe there's a connection beyond just how you look. It might be something else going on. On that note, we're going to leave you with this song. Is it about doppelgangers? Well, it's certainly about two people being together. It's the Beatles and “Two of Us”. I’m Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current, and we'll see you tomorrow.

[Song: “Two of Us” by the Beatles]

Monday, November 18, 2024 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing