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 5, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

VOICE: [sc]

We should be hearing the details of what you were planning to do, and my concern is that from either party right now, we've turned this into somewhat of a popularity contest. And I reserve the right. To have my vote earned.

MATT GALLOWAY: It is Election Day in the United States and in the final frenzied push to the finish line, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have been trying to sway a small number of still undecided voters who could help determine the outcome. We spoke with three of those voters a few weeks ago. In 30 minutes, we'll check back in with them to see if they've made up their minds. Also this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

FILIPPO GRANDI: We have become unable to make peace in the world. That's the fundamental driver. Conflict is the fundamental driver of this growing numbers of people forced to flee.

MATT GALLOWAY: That number is staggering. More than 120 million people around the world have been forcibly displaced from home from places like Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan and Mexico. It is the job of Filippo Grandi, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to keep the world's attention on their plight. And he is here in Canada to make his case to Justin Trudeau. In an hour, Filippo Grandi on why peace is so elusive. Why he feels the United Nations is losing relevance and whether support in this country for immigration and welcoming those looking for a better life is at risk. But we begin by remembering a giant of Canada: The judge, senator and indigenous trailblazer Murray Sinclair. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Remembering Murray Sinclair

Guests: Wab Kinew, Cindy Blackstock

MG: Outside the Manitoba legislature in the place where a statue of Queen Victoria once stood, a sacred fire now burns in memory of Murray Sinclair, the former senator and head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, died yesterday in Winnipeg. He is being remembered as a trailblazing judge, a powerful advocate for indigenous people who helped Canadians hear painful truths about our history. Here he is speaking at the release of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, describing how he was changed by hearing the experiences of residential school survivors.

SOUNDCLIP

MURRAY SINCLAIR: Each and every one of us who listened to them would go home at the end of each day. And we would hold our children and our grandchildren closer as we proceeded. Not so much to protect them from some invisible force. But to gain the strength that we would need each day to go forth and to listen once again.

MG: I'm joined now by somebody who knew Murray Sinclair well. Wab Kinew is the premier of Manitoba. Premier, good morning.

WAB KINEW: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MG: I'm sorry for your loss.

WAB KINEW: Well, it's all of our loss collectively as Canadians, but thank you.

MG: You were very emotional yesterday at the legislature and speaking about Murray Sinclair. What was going through your mind as you were talking about him?

WAB KINEW: We have just lost one of the best among us as Canadians, as Manitobans, as an Anishinaabe. And certainly, I think one of the things when we think about Murray Sinclair is that, you know, this man was the living embodiment of reconciliation in our country. Like, he literally led the process that has asked Canadians to confront this, this dark past of residential schools, but managed to wrestle that trauma into a voice of unity and a path towards brightness in the future of this country. And I think that's in large part not just the work of the survivors, but also the personality of Murray Sinclair that was able to do that. And so we're in this momentous, you know, time where if we have lost, you know, the personification of reconciliation, I think each of us as Canadians is being asked to consider at this moment, how are we going to continue that project of building more respectful relationships and helping Canada, this country that we love so much, to become that beacon of light on the hill that we want it to be globally. But at the same time, this is a, this is a friend, this is a mentor. This is somebody that I've known my entire life. And I just think about his kids and his grandkids and, you know, the role of dad and husband and grandpa was so important to him that, yeah, I just feel so much compassion and sympathy for their loss. Well, yeah, it's both a political and a personal loss.

MG: When you say your entire life, I mean, your family's helped. Tell me about the school that your family's helped create. I mean, this was a school around reviving the Anishinaabe lang--, language and culture that that your family and Murray Sinclair's family were involved in.

WAB KINEW: Yeah, well, it was a pre-school, actually. In the first instance. It was called the [term in Ojibwe/Anishinaabe], which means Love the Child, in the Ojibwe language, the Anishinaabe language. And so, I went to pre-school with his kids and as a result, there's that family connection. Family, friends becoming effectively, you know, extended kin over the course of the decades that have passed since then. And all the time we've spent together at community events and ceremonies and, you know, things like that. But I also would reflect for your audience that the fact that four decades ago in Winnipeg, you had Murray Sinclair and his wife Katherine, not as the sole members, but as part of a community and as leaders within a community that was standing up to revitalise language and culture and to just do that work of parenting that is probably familiar to so many different communities across the country, which is to say we're part of the mainstream, but we also want to be, we also want our kids to know who they are. And that they forge that path here in Manitoba. I think, you know, it gives you a little bit of a flavour of this place that we come from, but it also gives you an insight into who Murray was and, you know, the nature of his relationship to Katherine and the nature of family being at the centre of what he did, that I think in some ways presages and predicts what he eventually went on to do with the Aboriginal Justice inquiry, the paediatric cardiac inquest, and then ultimately the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. And so...

MG: How do you understand, I mean, more [WAB KINEW: Yup] his own personal. I mean, that comes from family, but it also comes from a sense of what he felt he could accomplish. How do you understand what drove him to take the steps to be a leader in those various fields that you mentioned when it came to the inquiry, when it came to the DRC, when it came to, to being a judge, to being a senator?

WAB KINEW: Well, I think the first thing that comes to mind is I think there was, there was a knowledge of self in Murray Sinclair. There was there was a quiet confidence that he knew he could do it. And having known the man, I think he also felt the responsibility. You know, if I could, you know, just try to articulate it for you, something along the lines of, you know, he knew he could do it and therefore he felt a burden, a weight, a responsibility to the community and country that because he had the ability to lead in these conversations, then he should step up and do it. And I know that the TRC, the mantle of leading the TRC is something that did not come lightly to him. But when we reflect on the nature of the change between the years that the TRC was in active operation and where we are now, where school kids across the country are wearing orange shirts, where, you know, NHL teams are doing land acknowledgements before the face-off where, you know, so many people from so many different walks of life from coast to coast to coast are, are talking about reconciliation, we can really say that Canada has been made immeasurably better by the contributions of this person. And I think if we get beyond just that personal motivation that he had, to me, it was really love. You know, he presided over our swearing-in ceremony as a government last year. And one of the really remarkable things that he told us on the way into office is he said, you have to learn to love the people, even when they don't love you. And, of course, there's a strong lesson in there about, you know, focusing on the public good, even if it's unpopular or even in the face of opposition, you know, keep pursuing that public interest. But these past few days, having visited him in the hospital and then now mourning his loss, I realise that what he was saying when he was saying, you have to learn to love the people, even when they don't love you is not just a lesson for politics. That was a lesson to everybody listening on a personal level, which is unconditional love. Live your, live your life in such a way that each day you try to do your best in a kind and gentle and magnanimous fashion. And even if those around you are not reciprocating that feeling of gentleness and, and compassion, you still have a responsibility and you still have to carry your life forward in such a way that you are practising love. And if we look back over the arc of this man's life and his career, not only did he espouse those words, I believe that he also embodied them in the actions that he took.

MG: He was a great listener and there was a weight that came with that. You talked about that weight. I mean, in his memoir that, that just came out, he, he writes about how he's, he said the hardest part of, of all the work that he did with the TRC was that he can't stop thinking about it, that if he started crying about what he'd heard, he would have had trouble stopping. How do you understand the sacrifice that came with that work?

WAB KINEW: Well, I think a lot of the sacrifice was, was borne by his kids and grandkids and his late wife, Katherine, who, you know, had to see him on the road quite a bit. And we're always thinking about his well-being and encouraging him to take care of himself and are the ones who, in fact, did take care of him for so many of those years. And, you know, once upon a time, I was a journalist at the start of the TRC process, the first national event here in Winnipeg. And in those first days of those first public hearings, I actually asked him about that. I said like, how are you going to look after yourself when you're hearing all these very, very painful, difficult stories? And he just kind of, you know, at that same matter of fact, you know, calm disposition that those of us who have paid close attention to him know well after all these years. He just said, you know, it's about taking care of myself on the day-to-day level. It's about making time for the ceremonial, spiritual, emotional fulfilment needs that he has and of course, looking after Katherine and the kids and the grandkids. And so, I think that the weight of what any of us heard through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings and the final report and the work since is profoundly sad and disturbing and challenging. But I think what Mr. Sinclair's legacy asks us to do is to reflect on the emotions that we feel upon hearing these troubling stories and then ask us, okay, what are we to do now? How are we to transform this feeling that we have in our heavy hearts into action to deliver something positive for the kids and really live up to that phrase that came to the forefront of the national conversation during the TRC, which is to have a Canada where every child matters.

MG: He was, as I've said in the introduction, a senator and a judge and the leader of the TRC. He was also, as you have pointed out, a family man, that he was a father and a grandfather. [WAB KINEW: Yup.] And in that memoir, he tells these, he had a great sense of humour. He tells a very funny story of how his granddaughter, once for Halloween, dressed up as Princess Fiona and demanded that he get a Shrek costume and go out for Halloween dressed up. Murray Sinclair going out for Halloween, dressed up as Shrek. How will you remember Murray Sinclair as a person?

WAB KINEW: Well, I think that sense of humour really comes to the, to the fore. You know, so I, I can tell you that I visited him a few times in hospital these past few weeks. And on one of the occasions he was, you know, taking a sip of something or what have you, and a bit of it, you know, dribbled on to his chin. So, I wiped it off. I just leaned in for a quick second. And then, you know, he got this contemplative look in his eye and he sort of, you know, looked off into the distance. And I thought he was going to hit me with something really profound, some great wisdom. And he said, you know what? I'm having a really tough time accepting is that the Premier just wiped my chin. So, even in these great, you know, moments of, you know, perspicacity and insight and reflection. He always had that sense of humour. He always had that mischievous grin on his face when he knew he was about to say something funny, to make the whole room laugh. And, you know, apart from the great works and apart from the wonderful contributions to the public discourse, I'll always remember the laugh that we shared together because of a great sense of humour.

MG: It's really good of you to do this. I appreciate it. [WAB KINEW: Well, thank you so much.] Premier, thank you very much.

WAB KINEW: Thanks for honouring him.

MG: Wab Kinew is the Premier of Manitoba.

MG: Cindy Blackstock has spent years advocating for indigenous children in this country, often side by side with Murray Sinclair. Cindy is executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Societies. Cindy, good morning to you.

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: Good morning.

MG: I'm sorry for your loss.

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: Yeah. And as Wab said, it's a loss for all of us, but it's also a reminder of the great blessing and great lessons that he loved us.

MG: What are you thinking about this morning as, and in the last days and couple of days as you have been thinking about Murray Sinclair? What's been going through your mind?

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: Well, one of the most important lessons and legacies he left was his own family, who were just incredible children, his wife Katherine, so loving and giving. And he also helped us re-imagine our own families, what was possible in our own families, to embrace some of those dark chapters that have been passed along through the generations in each of our stories, and to address those, to stop for a minute, to look at them, to learn from them, and to pass something better on to future generations. And he did that for the country, too. He was a person who the family was really at the epicentre, but not just the people who were here. Murray always was focussed on making sure that each of us remembered our duty to fall in love with a generation that we will never know. To be mindful of those who are yet to come, and to make our decisions carefully so that one day when they're here and we're gone into the world of the ancestors, that we can be proud of the legacy we left up them, for them. And the most important one is that legacy of loving justice.

MG: When you would seek him out, maybe you are grappling with, with a really difficult problem. Maybe you are trying to work through something, rationalise something, understand something. What was it that would draw you to him? Why was he somebody that you would connect with?

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: Well, you're right to say I often seek him out because I just thought he was a person who could see through the kind of unimportant, you know, like I was once taught that in doing what is urgent, you miss what's important. And because Murray was such a great listener and a, had such a grounded cultural and also just brilliant mind, he would get to the essence of what the real issue is. And sometimes, I found myself getting caught up in the unimpor--, the urgent and missing what was important, and he would help me get there and see what would the issue was and move forward.

MG: In his memoir, he tells a story of how when he was a young judge in Manitoba, he encountered in an alley behind his office, a teenager who tried to mug him. And this is a young man that he recognised from the courtroom. He was in foster care. He's being bullied at school. And he talked to this young man and gave him money for food and told him to go back to school and call him for help if he needed it. And one of the things that he said in telling that story was he told the story because he believed that that young man could have been him. What does that story tell you about who Murray Sinclair was, who he became in the wake of that encounter?

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: He always saw the potential for better in people. And he always knew that although people may act out in ways of pain and anger, that was always a symptom of a lack of love. And to think about those moments when we are most in need and when we're feeling all those, those big emotions, that anger, that fear, the frustration and feeling alone. When someone reaches out in love, it can truly be a turning point. And that was the magic of Murray. He was able to overcome those kind of reflex emotions so many of us would have had in that situation, in that dark alley with that young man, which is to run or, or to, you know, maybe resist in some other way. Instead of resisting, he was giving. And he did that for the country, too.

MG: Did you ever sense anger or frustration from him as he tried to push people toward understanding uncomfortable truths and take action in the in the light of those uncomfortable truths to make a better country? Did you ever sense that he was frustrated in that work?

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: I think he was disappointed. You know, like I think about the 30th anniversary of the Aboriginal Justice inquiry, had that those great recommendations been put in place, many of the current challenges, for example, in Child and Family Services, the overrepresentation may have been addressed early on, 30 years ago and but his disappointment, in my view, wasn't necessarily with individuals. His disappointment was that the institutions were not moving fast enough so that we had, we'd gotten to a place where we could capture the hearts of people through the TRC or through the Aboriginal Justice inquiry. But what was necessary now is to, is to get those hearts in a way that they can change the institutions because it was the institutions that we had built since Confederation that were really perpetrating these systemic harms. And I think that that's the challenge all the rest of us need to build on his example to be able, to be able to do.

MG: Just in the last minute or so that we have. I mean, I'll ask you the same question that I asked the Premier, which is: We talk about him in, in these various roles. But as a person, how will you remember Murray Sinclair?

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: I think that word that comes to me is just that loving justice. I feel like Murray held a flashlight and he'd walk into dark spaces and he'd cast a beam of, of light that would enable the rest of us to safely follow. And now that he is making his journey, that, that beam of life, light endures and the best memory that we can give and best honouring we can give to someone as incredible as Murray Sinclair and his beautiful family is to actually pull out your copy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and get to work.

MG: I'm always glad to talk to you, Cindy. Thank you for doing this.

CINDY BLACKSTOCK: Thank you for having me.

MG: Cindy Blackstock is executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. She is in Kamloops, British Columbia.

MG: Your CBC News is coming up next. And then...

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: I think that we need to have policies, economic and otherwise [Music: Theme fading in], that look to the future of where we want the United States to be and who we want to become.

MG: It is the 5th of November, a Tuesday, big day in the United States of America. In September, we spoke on this program with undecided voters, three people in three swing states about what it would take to move the needle for them ahead of the vote, which happens today. Well, that day has arrived. The undecideds will be back and we'll talk to them coming up in six minutes about making a decision and who they have decided to vote for. Those undecideds obviously key to determining what will happen in the election that's unfolding today. We'll tell you more coming up after the news. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Decision time for undecided U.S. voters

Guests: Jeff Herr, Amy Danzer, Cameron Lewellen

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. It is, as you might have heard, election day in the United States. And according to the polls, it remains one of the tightest presidential races in that country's history. Just over six weeks ago, I spoke with three undecided voters from three battleground states about what it would take to help them make a final decision as to who to vote for. Well, I have since made up their minds, and they are back with us this morning. Amy Danzer is a grant writer at the University of Pittsburgh. She is in Erie, Pennsylvania. Cameron Lewellen, is an IT professional. And he is just outside of Atlanta, Georgia. And Jeff Hur is a publisher of a lifestyle magazine in Tucson, Arizona. Good morning, everyone, and welcome back.

JEFF HERR: Good morning.

AMY DANZER: Good morning.

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Good morning.

MG: Let's get right to it. Amy, when we last spoke, you said that if you had to vote that day, it would be, in your words, unfortunately, Kamala. How did you end up voting?

AMY DANZER: Nikki Haley.

MG: You wrote in. Can you explain why you did that?

AMY DANZER: I felt that I couldn't necessarily go and vote for somebody and live with my own conscience if I didn't fully believe in that person as being the leader of the country.

MG: So, why of the two people who are on the ballot, why did neither of them speak to you? And why did somebody who ran and then ultimately ended up stepping out of that race? Why is she somebody who you think deserves your vote?

AMY DANZER: I believe that the parties have done us a disservice by going and not allowing a full, thoughtful process, allowing individuals across the country to give their opinions well, that they have set it up in such a way that the party decides who the candidate is. I could not go and vote for, for Donald Trump. Anybody that uses retribution as an ongoing theme within his way of governing is not someone that I want to have governing our country. Harris did not give me any good reason to go and vote for her because there are problems with the way we continue with our policies that have already been put into place without evaluating those carefully.

MG: And so, Nikki Haley, it is for you. We'll come back to that decision. Jeff, you weren't sure if you were going to vote at all for the presidential candidate. Who did you end up voting for?

JEFF HERR: So all through the summer and into the early fall, I've been trying to figure out, you know, is Kamala the right answer? Because Trump was absolutely a no go. I mean, zero possibility of voting for that guy. But then I realised about a week ago, you know what? I don't, I'm not, I don't have to vote for something. I can just vote against somebody and try to move the needle that way. And so, I got good with that. And then the more I started looking at her policies some more, a little bit. You know, I don't know. I'm a little bit kind of, I don't know, ill-founded, kind of like what Amy was saying. It just doesn't seem like it's fully baked up. But, you know, there's some good stuff in there. I've been reading her position papers and they're better and better, so I'm looking forward to voting in a couple hours.

MG: And you're going to vote for Kamala Harris?

JEFF HERR: Yes, sir.

MG: And is that going to be I mean, to your point, is that going to be a vote against something or is there enough there that you're voting for something?

JEFF HERR: Right. I think I'm voting for something now. And the positive tone and the focus on bringing everybody together. This has been a horrible couple of years. And so, be nice to get into something a little bit more positive.

MG: Can I just ask just about one specific issue and I ask this because we were down in Tucson just a couple of weeks ago and then had it even further south down to the US-Mexico border. You live right near there. And so you know that immigration is a huge issue in your part of the country. How much of that impacted where your vote lands?

JEFF HERR: It's a big deal. I mean, not because it's an invasion, like Trump says, but because we need to process this situation in a more thoughtful and rigorous way. We, we had legislation that would have brought, you know, thousands of immigration judges to review the cases, thousands more Border Patrol agents. And that was scuttled for political reasons. So, it's very important.

MG: Cameron, you also voted early, kind of, I guess, beating the lines and getting ahead of, of a big day like today. Tell me about your final decision.

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Yeah, unfortunately, I kind of voted in a way that I've never had to vote for because and in some very real ways, the genocide in Gaza became one of my major issues, and specifically, I don't have any confidence in Harris. And so I stared and stared for what must have seemed like a, at least five minutes, right, just at my ballot. But ultimately, I did cast a vote for Trump in the way of a protest vote, in part to Kamala Harris, but specifically because I don't have any confidence that she would not have us into a war.

MG: Can you tell me about those five minutes where you're standing looking or sitting looking at the ballots? What was going through your mind?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Well, it's awful. I mean, there's, there's not really an easy way to say this. I was standing there with my daughter. You know, I was, I was hesitant to even come on the program, to be honest, just because of the fact that the vitriol specifically in Georgia has gotten to a height where it's affected me in some ways that I didn't expect being a job suitor. I try to vote my conscience. And yet, do you really want to be seen as the person who's standing necessarily in line with President Trump and some of the things that he is, he's known for? Well, in this particular case, if it prevents us from having an all-out war, that I unfortunately would be that person.

MG: Do you mind me just asking about that? Because I know when you mentioned your daughter, the vitriol you posted up a photo of, of your daughter on social media, right?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Yeah. So, you know, I, like a lot of American males, never saw themselves necessarily having a daughter. I kind of, I guess, idolised myself as having a son. And that may be because since I didn't have a dad growing up. But fast forward and I love being in a girl Dad and I posted a video of a costume that I had gotten her where I, I may have gone a little bit overboard, but it was just all in good fun. And I posted that video and someone that I literally know from high school and have not seen in over 20 years posted that you don't love your daughter if you vote for Trump. And then, it just, it just was so shocking. Right? Not, not just to me, but other people who saw the comment. And I want to be honest here, Matt. Right? There's, there's part of this discussion which really affects women in a way that I'll never understand, right? Feeling that you had some sort of medical choice or medical liberty and a right to bodily autonomy and having that taken away as a motivating factor, which I'm not sure anyone's necessarily qualified in any of the polls quite yet. But at the same token, it has also led to a kind of, like I said, vitriol where people who really don't have any sort of contextual information about why you might support a candidate will just lambast you because that person goes against whatever your one issue is.

MG: And so for you, just the last point on this for you is, as you were making that decision, I mean, all of this is going through your mind, right?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Right. And again, I cannot stress this enough, right? When we're talking about a situation in which a person was sort of selected to run for the office without any sort of primary, a person who has had no remorse for what most people feel like was an attempted coup, having to seriously kind of think about, you know, what is the worst thing that can happen, whether, you know, each one of them gets elected. I've never been in a situation where that was the reason why I had to make a vote.

MG: Amy, in the wee small hours of tonight, we will be watching the map of Pennsylvania because this is one of those bellwether states. What happens in Pennsylvania may help determine what happens across the country. In a very, very tight state, in a very, very tight race, how would you answer the concerns or the criticism that some people might send your way saying writing in Nikki Haley is I mean, it can be a protest, but it could also be seen as a waste of a vote. How do you, how do you reckon with that?

AMY DANZER: I will have to live with whichever candidate is elected and that I will do for four years. And then, we go back to the polls again. But I have to live with my conscience for him. And that's the reason that I made the choice that I did.

MG: I was wondering whether you think I mean, depending on who wins the election, you might have regrets about writing in a candidate rather than selecting one of the two people who is in front of you that will. I mean, it's not Nikki Haley that will determine the future of the next four years. It's going to be either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, whether you might regret voting for one of those two people.

AMY DANZER: I, I may regret voting for one of those two people either way. You know, if the person ends up being the president and deciding on things in a way that I don't think is appropriate, or if the other person wins and again goes and decides on things in ways that I don't think are appropriate. This, this is the best way for, for me to, to vote my conscience and be able to live with that myself for the rest of my life.

MG: Jeff, you voted Republican all your life until Donald Trump came into the picture. We talked about this the last time you were here. When you speak with friends and family about the state of this vote, and I don't know whether you've disclosed to them where you're casting your ballot or not, but I'm just wondering what those conversations are like now.

JEFF HERR: Well, first of all, it's a, it's a, it's a dangerous spot to enter into in terms of talking about who you're going to vote for president this year. It's really rough. And so, you got to move carefully. You know, you really don't know where people are coming from. But that said, my closest friends and family, they know where I stand. And, and, you know, we all have to make our choices, much like Amy was saying, you have to make a decision somehow or another.

MG: Tell me about that and what you're living with in terms of, I mean, Amy talked about, you know, being able to, you know, answer her conscience in some ways. For you, how, how does that play out?

JEFF HERR: I guess you would say it is a process of elimination. Trump is out immediately. There is just absolutely no way. But when the Democratic Party at their convention selected her to be the candidate, it was time to quickly get on top of the issues and understand who this person is. And, you know, I have a few close friends who we're all the same opinion about how, you know, never Trump. So, it was pretty straightforward with some people. But for the most part, I mean, I don't have a yard sign out. I would never do that because it's just, it's just too scary and, you know, and polarised.

MG: Too scary to have a yard sign out.

JEFF HERR: Yeah. Yeah. People are going after each other just for yard signs now.

MG: Cameron, does that sound familiar? I mean, you talked about what, what you received online, but in conversations with people, what have those discussions played out like?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Yeah. I mean, as you can tell, I'm a reasonably thoughtful person, so I wouldn't put a yard sign up, not necessarily that I would be in fear of someone taking it down. That doesn't mean that I haven't seen, you know, ridiculous acts of, of violence in surrounding areas around campaign signs. And there's an app that we have here in the states called Next Door, and Next Door seems like it's, and it's littered with people talking about what happened to signs in their yard. Interestingly so, though. Right. Although I would, you know, cast my vote as a Republican, I've seen more of the signs being stolen of Democratic yards and more on that that way, which is not necessarily what you would expect. But to the gentleman's point earlier. Looking for a job, I mean, again, I was hesitant to even come back on just because, you know, expressing the fact that you chose a candidate in some ways could be disqualifying if people think it's some sort of virtual signal virtue signalling of who you actually are.

MG: As a black man in Georgia, you are a prized voter. People want your vote. And we have seen Kamala Harris release what she called the opportunity agenda for black men included forgivable loans for black entrepreneurs, legalisation of recreational marijuana use to try to create these opportunities for black men in that industry. You had the former president Barack Obama telling black men, get over yourself in some ways, if you're worried about voting for a woman, that this is the right choice to make. What was it like for you to, in some ways be the target of those pitches? Because they came from Trump as well. And then, Donald Trump and the Republicans would be saying that they could do more for black men than the Democrats could. What is it like to be, as I say, in the hot seat getting those pitches?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Well, for Kamala Harris, right? The, the problem that I had specifically was that all of this came so late, right? On, on one hand, we have identity politics in which it was really kind of put up that she was running as a black woman. And yet when asked originally about what she would do for black people, she said she wouldn't really do anything, right? Like that, not anything specifically because she was going to be the president of everyone in the United States. That definitely works from an idea standpoint. However, at different points in this country, we've done things specifically for targeted groups. So, whether or not it was, you know, the laws that we changed to make places more accessible for the handicapped, whether or not it was making gay marriage legal so that the spouses could receive benefits, right? We've done those kinds of things. And then when you fast forward and this agenda comes out all too late, there are some things in it that were interesting, right? Like, I like the idea of the National Health Equity Initiative that was focussed on black men's health challenges. But if that's the case, you could have said that in the beginning, right? You could have said that the systemic issues that have plagued black America because of where you came from and being that little girl on the bus, you know, that was the line that she used to attack Biden. You could have said that in a meaningful way. But it feels, it feels so disingenuous, if for no other reason than the last part about legalising marijuana. Look, I am all in favour of freedom. I actually think you should legalise marijuana. But for the number of incarcerated black males, specifically in America, I don't see how you're going to square that circle because you're obviously not going to do criminal justice reform. And if you are going to create, you know, some sort of opportunity for black Americans and recreational marijuana, that very much feels like a misnomer because I don't see how you're going to get that through Congress. I don't see how the people that are corporate entities making money in that space are going to allow anyone else in. And then last but not least, it feels a bit offensive that the major initiative that you have is not around tech, not around quantum computing, it's around marijuana, which makes me feel like you're sending black people back to the fields.

MG: Amy, you had, that's quite a statement to make, by the way, to say that you're sending black people back to the fields. Amy, you had said that you wanted to hear more policy, substantive policy from both candidates. Why didn't you see that, do you think?

AMY DANZER: I, I think unfortunately, at this point in time that they're going after the various constituencies as, as Cameron said, and, and almost trying to buy votes with particular policies that are being proposed. We're not going to attack Social Security for people who are older. We're not going to go and tax tips for people who are service workers, those types of things, as Cameron said are at the end and they seem disingenuous and only trying to go and to buy votes of people of a, of a certain demographic, you know, to the point where, you know, Elon Musk was going and offering people money to sign a, a petition.

MG: $1 million cheque.

AMY DANZER: $1 million. [MG: Yeah.] Yeah. And that was allowed yesterday by a judge in Pennsylvania.

MG: Yeah, something like that. I mean, does that seem like the most obvious example of what you're talking about when somebody, you know, a billionaire can offer up $1 million? That, to you, is the demonstration of what you're talking about, the demonstration of where politics has gone now?

AMY DANZER: Yes. I think that we have devolved to a new low.

MG: If Donald Trump loses, Jeff, there are a lot of people who believe I mean, this will be the last of Donald Trump in politics. He's facing prison. He's facing any number of other legal concerns. And people think that this would be the last time that he would be on a presidential ballot. What would a post-Trump Republican Party need to do to get you back in its fold?

JEFF HERR: Well, Trump has been consistent, at least that's one thing that I can say about him. Consistently horrible. So, but he's brought on this whole crew of boot lickers that have been supporting him through Congress, through the courts. And that has to be cleaned up. It's a mess. I've been a John McCain supporter since, well, as long as he's been in, as he was in office. And there's just, it's, there's a whole cult around that Trump. It's a cult of fear, by the way. But as soon as hopefully he, he's out of the limelight, he's out of the discussion, he's off the television, out of the Internet, then maybe we can go to, you know, some of the more moderate, reasonable and professional leaders that have been pushed to the sidelines.

MG: What about J.D. Vance? I mean, people see him not just as the vice presidential candidate, but many people in the party say that he is, he's MAGA 2.0, that he's the inheritor of Donald Trump.

JEFF HERR: Yeah, I don't, I don't see how that plays out. He doesn't have, he doesn't have the charisma. He doesn't have the base. He doesn't have the fear factor that Trump holds over all the Republicans in Congress. I just don't see him pulling that off.

MG: And so, do you have hope that you could find yourself back in that party that, that if Donald Trump were to lose and that if he is and those who are around him are taken out of the picture, that there could be a place for you back in that party?

JEFF HERR: There could be. But until that happens, there's you know, there's no place to go there.

MG: Yeah. I mean, it's really interesting, Cameron, in your state in Georgia, huge numbers of people have voted already. Something like 4 million people were already casting their ballots in early voting. What do you think is motivating people there this time around? Why is it that people, they couldn't wait, that they wanted to get out and vote right now?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: What's interesting is that with the last election, it was one of the first times in my lifetime that I had heard non-minorities talking about voter suppression, talking about, you know, voter restrictions and things where they felt as though the path to, to voting was, was made easier or somehow corrupt. And so, I do think that a lot of that animus was due to people trying to get their vote count. And so, that there's, there's no mix ups. You know, historically, we'd never had such a turnout in terms of mail-in voting. And so, I think that that's a lot of it. You know, me in part, I wasn't going to take a chance that I would be in a precinct that had any sort of malfunction. Right? Like, I just value my, my opportunity and my right to vote so much that I wanted to secure it. So, I think a lot of other people are in that same camp.

MG: Jeff, do you worry about that down in Arizona? Again, there is a real concern that history could repeat itself and that you could have disputes over election results at the highest level trickling down that people may not. No matter what happens, if it's as close as people say, that people may not buy the result.

JEFF HERR: That certainly is the risk today. It hasn't been that way in the past. And I think it all comes down to the uncertainty and the fear that's been brought by Trump. There are good people who are in government, in leadership positions, and we just need to get them, you know, back at the table and get back to work.

MG: Let me just ask you, just in the last couple of minutes that we have, Amy, at the end of this. No matter what happens today and in the days ahead, people are going to have to live with each other. They're going to have to live next to each other. And we've heard about the divisions. You've talked about the divisions. What has to happen to address that polarisation in the United States coming out of this? And are you confident that, that neighbours will still be neighbours in the wake of an election like this?

AMY DANZER: I hope they will be. I think, unfortunately, we don't let kindergarteners talk this way to each other or behaves in. This way. And yet we're allowing those who are running for leadership positions up and down the ballot to do so with impunity. [MG: Inaudible]. I hope that we are, you know, in a way able to go and talk about what brings people together after this. I hope that whoever wins the presidential and actually all the other races do so definitively and in such a way that people are able to get behind that that is the person who has been duly elected to those positions.

MG: Cameron, I heard you in the background there. Go ahead.

CAMERON LEWELLEN: No, I was just agreeing. Right? In order to have some sort of resolution, we need to get back to civility. The idea that, that we were impressed by a vice presidential debate, just because they actually talked about policy, that just represents the new all-time low. You know, the, the biggest negative impact of Donald Trump has been the wrecking of what used to be a gentleman's agreement that we would we would go and do the people's work, right? And specifically argue vehemently for our positions, but afterwards that you could still get things done, legislation passed, and that you understood that the person who was advocating on behalf of their state did not represent some sort of existential threat. I'm tired of every election feeling like some sort of, you know, bachelor's rose history. You know, it's the most important thing ever. It would be so nice if we had competent leadership where the continuity in government was one in which the American ideal of American exceptionalism and freedom, those things were the things that we were voting on to promote as opposed to, you know, this situation in which it feels like we have to pick the lesser of two evils, neither of which make a lot of people comfortable.

MG: Jeff, last word to you. I mean, what has to be done to make sure that, as I said, people can live next to each other and not be at each other's throats because of political rhetoric?

JEFF HERR: You know, the steady drumbeat of anger, fear and just general negativity from the Trump campaign. That is a, that is like atmospheric level impact on all of our psyches. And the sooner that he's off the airwaves, the sooner we don't have to look at him, the better. And it will also take away a lot of his, the wind in his sails at that whole movement, the MAGA movement, when he's gone. So, that's the first and most important step.

MG: It's a big day in your country, and we have been fortunate to be able to tap into your brains as you work your way through this decision making process. Thank you for being here and good luck today and good luck in the days ahead. Glad to talk to you again.

ALL: Thank you.

MG: Amy Danzer is a grant writer at the University of Pittsburgh. She's in Erie, Pennsylvania. Cameron Lewellen is an IT professional. He lives just outside of Atlanta, Georgia. And Jeff Herr publishes a lifestyle magazine in Tucson, Arizona. Your CBC News election special begins tonight at 8 P.M. Eastern on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app hosted by Suzanne Bonner and Piya Chattopadhyay. And on CBC Television, Chief Correspondent Adrienne Arsenault begins covering the special she's hosting at 8 p.m. Eastern. Again, full details of the results as they come in can also be found on the CBC News app, and you'll get the latest tomorrow here on The Current as well. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

FILIPPO GRANDI: The potential for this conflict to expand even further and to become an incredibly [Music: Theme fading in] dangerous threat to not only regional peace, but world peace. That likelihood is very high, and I trust that everybody has conscience of that.

MG: More than half a million people have fled to war-torn Syria since Israel began striking Lebanon late last month. This as the total number of people forcibly displaced worldwide soars past 120 million. We'll hear why the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees says the U.N. Security Council is failing. That's coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

And UN refugee chief Filippo Grandi

Guest: Filippo Grandi

Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current. For years, we have heard stories of refugees fleeing Syria for Lebanon.

[Background noise of refugee office]

MG: But now, as Israel's war with Hezbollah continues, many of those refugees are actually going the other way.

[Sounds continue]

The road at the Al-Masnaa border crossing has been pounded to rubble, the result of an Israeli airstrike last month. A steady stream of families, many with small children, clamber over the deep craters. They are weighted down with backpacks, duffel bags, shopping bags. Lebanese authorities say Israel's offensive has displaced more than 1.2 million people. And it is alarming to think that Syria might actually be a safer place for those people to be. This humanitarian crisis is one of many my next guest is contending with. Filippo Grandi is the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. He is in Ottawa this week. High Commissioner, good morning.

FILIPPO GRANDI: Good morning to you.

MG: I want to talk specifically about that border crossing, but there is a statistic in the UNHCR's latest Global Trends report. It says the number of forcibly displaced people is now over 117 million. That's one in every 69 people that have been forcibly displaced as triple the population of this country, Canada. When you take a look at that statistic and again, we'll talk about specifics, but when you take a look at that statistic, how difficult is it for you to wrap your mind around that?

FILIPPO GRANDI: And how difficult it is for my colleagues in the different crises location to have to deal with growing numbers of people forced to flee? In fact, Matt, that figure in the last few months since it was issued has grown to well over 120 million. What is striking is that it has grown constantly, relentlessly for the past 12 years. You know, I say this all the time, but I think it's, it bears repeating. We have become unable to make peace in the world. That's the fundamental driver. Conflict is the fundamental driver of displacement.

MG: And so, you have seen the impact of that conflict firsthand. You were at the Al-Masnaa border crossing just a little over a month ago. What does it say to you that so many refugees are now fleeing in the other direction, that they find Syria a safer place to be?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Definitely. In fact, we are close to reaching half a million people, having left Lebanon to Syria, fleeing Israeli airstrikes. Half a million people. That's a lot. And about a third are Lebanese. So, you have now Syrian refugees in Lebanon fleeing back to Syria and Lebanese refugees fleeing to Syria.

MG: I mean, there's a civil war there. Millions of people have fled the country because of that civil war. The cities are in ruins. And then we know that Israel has also been striking targets within Syria. So how much safety are they actually able to find?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Well, they go back to, as you said, to a very fragile situation. But they go back in large numbers. I was there as well just last month. I spoke to many of them. Now, there are two tracks, two, two elements here that need to be considered. One is their security and the possibility for them to go where they want, to be reintegrated as best as they can into their communities. We need to talk to the Syrian government, and we do that. We are through this exodus, through this crisis, we have now the space, the permission to monitor returns. And I think this is positive. This is something we need to build on. But, you know, they go back to a very fragile situation. So, we're asking donors to help address the challenges they have to face when they go back, too often staying with families that are even poorer than they are. It's quite frightening because, as you said, Syria comes out of years of conflict divisions that continue in the country of sanctions. So, the humanitarian conditions of the existing Syrian population are terrible. And in addition to that, now they have to absorb back people that are coming from Lebanon. It's a really difficult situation, but we have no choice but to work on the one hand with the Syrian authorities, on the other, with international donors, to try to, to do our best in the present [inaudible].

MG: This is part of the widening conflict between Israel and its neighbours that was sparked by the attacks by Hamas on the 7th of October of last year. You've been calling for an immediate ceasefire and a peace process. And you said at the beginning of our conversation, in many ways what we've seen is that we as a world can't find peace. How do you understand why it's so difficult to get to that point of peace in this conflict in particular?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Until the logic is military, is confrontational, it is going to be impossible to reach that political phase of the conflict that should be the goal of everybody. At the moment, with the tensions between Israel and Hamas, between Israel and Hezbollah, between Israel and Iran, as we have seen in the last few days. It seems very remote.

MG: And where does that leave you?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Very pessimistic that we will get out from this constant cycle of violence, a cycle of violence that we saw triggered in Gaza, now expanding to Lebanon and the potential for this conflict to expand even further and to become an incredibly dangerous threat to not only regional peace, but world peace. That likelihood is very high. And I trust that everybody has conscience of that, because if we really have conscience of that, we should put much more pressure on all concerned to go back to that re--, not looking very remote now, but that negotiating table, that should be the only goal.

MG: In the meantime, there are those who are caught in the middle of this conflict. And we were talking about what's happening in Lebanon. Last week, Israel's parliament passed a law banning UNRWA, the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees from operating within the territory that it controls. What are you hearing about, about the impact that that is having on the ground?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Well, that law, it's a very unfortunate occurrence, of course, because UNRWA is such a fundamental provider of services. That law has a 90-day period before it gets implemented. And I hope some solution can be found, because without UNRWA, not only key humanitarian services cannot be provided to people that are living in one of the most catastrophic humanitarian situations in the world, the people in Gaza, but without UNRWA, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children cannot go to school. And more than half of the Palestinian population in the, in Gaza and the West Bank will be deprived of basic health services. Imagine an entire population of several million people without education and without health. That's what Android's about. And so if it cannot fulfil its role in these areas, the damage would be not just humanitarian, but much, much if it will go much further than that.

MG: The head of UNRWA has said that when it comes to the funding of that agency, suspending the funding of that agency is a form of collective punishment. Do you agree with that?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Yes, I do. I think he's right.

MG: That's a war crime.

FILIPPO GRANDI: Well, that's not for me to determine, but to say that it's a collective punishment, I think it's pretty obvious.

MG: But sorry, it's not for you to say. But a collective punishment is a definition of a war crime, is it not?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Certainly a collective punishment goes beyond the proportionality of measures that one takes in a war and therefore goes against international law.

MG: Israel has been, as you know, very critical of UNRWA, even before staff members were fired over involvement in the October 7th attacks. There's been concern that UNRWA's funding can get siphoned off by Hamas, that it schools radicalised children, that there were Hamas tunnels that were found under UNRWA buildings. Do you think that the United Nations has done enough to ensure that UNRWA is neutral and worthy of trust, if I can put it that way?

FILIPPO GRANDI: In that very fraught and difficult context in which UNRWA operates, there is a long tradition of Israel raising with UNRWA its concerns about its neutrality and an equally long tradition of UNRWA investigating and responding and acting when that neutrality was not upheld. So, I think we need to go back. Ideally, we should go back to that relationship, which was difficult, was fraught, but was always constructive from that point of view. I hope this can be restored. And let me say, I speak for an agency that is not that, you know, it's another organisation, but I think that this is really the situation as it should be.

MG: I just wonder whether those concerns that Israel has raised, whether you think that they're valid concerns.

FILIPPO GRANDI: They need to be investigated. You know, these concerns regard different events and they need to be investigated. There were investigation. The Catherine Colonna investigation was carried out and was published. So, things were responded. It needs to go back to that type of dialogue. Difficult as it may be.

MG: In the absence of that dialogue, you tweeted last month that the U.N. has never been under so much political, moral and even physical attack. Were you thinking just about Israel or were you thinking more broadly there?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Much more broadly. You know, in fact, my organisation is not involved in the response in Gaza, in the West Bank. This is the prerogative of UNRWA and of other organisations. But you know, we lost two colleagues, for example, in Lebanon at the beginning of this escalation. Our colleagues in Sudan face incredible risks at the hand of the military groups fighting each other for supremacy in that country. We have colleagues in Myanmar that had to be evacuated recently because also of civil strife between the military people in power and the different local groups. You know, I can continue for quite a while and tell you how much colleagues, not only of UNHCR, but of other U.N. and humanitarian agencies are risking all over the world and not only risk physically because of the security dangers, because of conflict, but risk also because they are put increasingly under pressure by these warring parties. And this is extremely difficult to, to manage.

MG: When it comes to the political and the moral pressure that your agency is facing, what do you think and then that the U.N. is facing? What do you think is at the root of that?

FILIPPO GRANDI: First of all, I would say that it's not just the physical risk that's bad enough. It's the disrespect for humanitarian action. You know, that's and that's severely at variance with international humanitarian law, with the international law and the disregard that the violations to international humanitarian law have become almost a feature of every such conflict.

MG: I just wonder, I mean, you would well know that the United Nations, in the face of, of those conflicts, has been unable to stop war in Ukraine, has been unable to bring people to the table in the Middle East successfully in parts of Africa as well, has failed to prevent gangs from taking over Haiti and causing mayhem and misery there. In the face of that, what would lead you to believe that the U.N. is still worth defending?

FILIPPO GRANDI: You have to make a distinction here. The U.N. as the political system, meaning essentially its member states, I agree with you, is failing. When I said that the world has become incapable of making peace, that's what I was referring to. States have, you know, 75, 80 years ago, almost, in fact, 79 years ago, put in place a system essentially aimed at resolving conflict. The United Nations and its different organs. That system is not, is not fit for purpose anymore. This is very true. Now, the United Nations system also has many other organisations like mine, and I think especially the humanitarian agencies continue to deliver. That part of the system, if I may say, continues to work, is very much needed and needs to be funded. I'm grateful to Canada for supporting us in this respect. But what needs to be looked at? It's the political system. It's the Security Council, it's the veto system. It's the way that peace and security are dealt with by the U.N. as a whole, as a global organisation, that's not fit for purpose.

MG: It's a remarkable thing for you to say that the U.N. Security Council and that political organisation is your words, not fit for purpose.

FILIPPO GRANDI: It may be remarkable, but unfortunately, I've said it many times before and it is the truth. You know, that the Security Council finds difficulties, remarkable difficulties, even finding the unanimity necessary to issue humanitarian resolutions. I'm not talking about political resolution. There is no consensus, even on the most fundamental of obligations, which is to help the victims of war. So, I think it is failing and it needs reform.

MG: One of the things that often comes up in the conversations that you and I have is about what we aren't talking about. The situation in Ukraine took up a lot of oxygen, and there were other crises that weren't being discussed. The situation in the Middle East obviously is taking up a lot of attention for good reasons. But it's not the only crisis that, that you're dealing with. What keeps you up at night that we aren't discussing?

FILIPPO GRANDI: That that we have discussed so far keeps me up at night. But in addition, I would say, what about the other crises? What about the Democratic Republic of Congo? I was in East Africa last week. I met the women coming from the east of Congo. And I can assure you that in my long career, I have seldom heard stories of abuse as horrifying as what I heard from those women. And frankly, Matt, this is not new. This has been going on for years now. Who is moving to address that? And there's so much and rightly so, attention for the plight of women in humanitarian crises. What about these women that suffer the most undignified, horrifying criminal violations? And in a situation in which nobody's trying to address the cause of this, which is a very complex but nevertheless a conflict that could be resolved if there were adequate humanitarian pressure. Same thing in Darfur, in the west of Sudan. You may remember that in 2003, there was a very bad conflict there with important ethnic overtones. The same is happening now. We hear the stories of refugees arriving in Chad. Women in particular, same horrors. Who is moving?

MG: There is a monumental election in the United States in which Donald Trump could become president. He is promising mass deportations if elected U.S. president again. He's also talked about withdrawing, if not funds, then certainly attention from some of those conflicts around the world. What do you think when you hear those sorts of promises from a politician who could soon be leading the most powerful country in the world?

FILIPPO GRANDI: I think that the United States has faced for a long time very, very complex challenges along its southern border. And we have worked with all administrations, including the Trump administration before, the Biden administration and even before. The last few years, Canada was part of that discussion. We have started, you know, some more innovative approaches along those routes that lead to that border. We think that we need to scale up and intensify these solutions. You know, giving opportunities to people along the way, creating legal and safe pathways as alternatives to what the traffickers and smugglers are doing. That's the way to go. We think that mass deportations, which are, of course, against international law, whichever administration does them, we would not agree.

MG: And so what I was down at the US-Mexico border just in the last couple of weeks, and one of the things we heard from people who are very close to that is a sense of frustration that those efforts have not done anything to address a situation that they see in front of their very eyes. And they talk about sealing that border, for example. When you hear that, what goes through your mind?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Well, I do understand the frustration of the people that have to manage such a difficult and complicated border. Unfortunately, all efforts that you do to better regulate, if you wish, the inevitable flow of people, which requires cooperation between many, many countries, not just U.S. and Mexico, but much, many other countries further upstream. They will not give quick results. They require patience, but they require to be scaled up. Everything that has been done has been done in two microscopic away compared to the size of the challenge.

MG: In this country, we have seen the impact of, of those crossing into Canada over time. And this country, I think many people believe, has had a general consensus on the benefits of, of immigration, where there's now a conversation about whether there are too many people arriving in this country, whether jobs are going to those who come from abroad, whether people who are coming from abroad perhaps are driving up the cost of housing. This becomes a political narrative in this country. Do you think that the consensus on immigration in Canada is being threatened?

FILIPPO GRANDI: I think the consensus or rather the, the more positive view towards immigration and of course, as a subset of that, refugees, it continues to be strong in this country. But of course, there are challenges. Now it is important that these challenges are addressed. I understand that the government is more, has been more prudent in future plans for immigration because it is mindful of these challenges. I think it's also important to be mindful because without proper tools to integrate large numbers of people arriving, that can backfire. At the same time, I have a strong appeal for the Canadian government that people don't lose your very specific and very unique positive attitude towards immigration, towards refugees, which in the end has saved many lives in the case of refugees, but has also been very beneficial to the country.

MG: What is your message to the Prime Minister, to Justin Trudeau? You're there in Ottawa speaking with him. What do you say to him about that?

FILIPPO GRANDI: I will say what I just said. We'll support measures to increase the integration capacity of the country for people arriving, in our case mostly refugees, but I will say preserve that window that you have always kept open for people that are fleeing from violence, from persecution, because it has been so valuable in saving so many lives.

MG: Let me just end by, you and I have spoken a number of times about the work that you do, and these aren't good news stories when we talk. The numbers, as you said, continue to go up and up in terms of the number of people who have been forcibly displaced. How do you avoid despondency?

FILIPPO GRANDI: As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, I don't think there is a risk of despondency. And you know why? Because we're there. We see, we talk to these women who have been raped and separated from their families, whose children have been killed in front of their eyes. When you see that, you understand that despondency is a luxury that we cannot afford. What I'm worried about is the despondency of the international community. A friend was telling me the other day, you know, we keep putting out these figures, millions displaced here, thousands killed there, hundreds of thousands at risk of, of hunger or other hardship. The world has become numb to these figures because this to many, it's almost a reaction. Right? We don't want to hear this anymore. We, we put our head in the sand and we forget about the crises that are happening elsewhere. You know, these crises concern all of us. And if you were in Europe, when you see all these people arriving across the Mediterranean Sea in countries that in the past didn't even know what a refugee was, you can see how it has become an issue of global concern. So, unfortunately, it is important to fight back that despondency and continue to be concerned, just as my colleagues and I continue to be.

MG: I'm always glad to have the chance to talk to you. Filippo Grandi, thank you very much.

FILIPPO GRANDI: Thank you very much.

MG: Filippo Grandi is the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. He is in Ottawa this week.

MG: That is The Current for this Tuesday, the 5th of November. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. Of course, it is election day in the United States. We'll have full coverage of the results, such as they may be tomorrow on the program and in the days following as those results come in and become clearer. Earlier on this program, we remember the life of Murray Sinclair. He died yesterday at the age of 73, Anishinaabe judge and senator, Chair of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Near the end of his life, he shared his thoughts and personal stories in a memoir that was published this fall called "Who We Are: Four Questions for a Life and a Nation." And we'll leave you today with the voice of Murray Sinclair. This is Murray Sinclair reading a story about his family from that memoir. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll see you tomorrow.

SOUNDCLIP

MURRAY SINCLAIR: My Auntie Louise told me the story of how my parents met. My mother, Florence, was from Fisher River. She was sent to the hospital in the St. Peter's area, then called the Denver Indian Hospital because she had tuberculosis. Tuberculosis was usually a fatal illness and they didn't really treat it. They just let you find your own way through. Andy Louise worked at the Denver Hospital as a nurse's aide. She saw this lonely young girl often sitting in a chair in the yard, and all of a sudden, nobody came to visit her. The mirror looked so lonely that Auntie Louise started to bring her home over the weekend. The family house was only about 400 yards from the hospital. When Auntie Louise returned to work on Monday, she would take my mother, Florence, back to the hospital. My father's family had enfranchised so that they could remove their children from residential school. Enfranchisement meant that they gave up their Indian status and the Indian Act. But because the priests kept hassling my grandparents to send children back, the boys signed up for the army. Uncle Melford was first because he was the oldest. Then Uncle Elmer and then my dad, Henry, who was about 16. Charlie tried to sign up as well, but he was too young. He was only 14. It was on one of my father's off-duty visits home that he met my mother. He said that she was so beautiful that he fell in love with her from the moment he saw her. But he was nervous and he didn't know how to talk to her. He got Louise to act as an interpreter. Louise let my mom know that he liked her and told my dad that Florence liked him, too. When my dad was deployed to go overseas, he told my mother that he would come see her when he got back, that he wanted to talk to her about getting married. He couldn't marry before he left because he was not yet of legal age. Eventually, all the brothers were deployed to Europe on various missions. My dad was deployed to a mission, a battle in northern France in late 1944. Many men were killed in that battle and a bomb landed very close to him and he was badly injured. He was initially believed to be dead. He was left on the field. But then as often happens, the Army medical team went in to look for any survivors. And they found my dad. He was taken to a hospital in France, and then transported to a hospital in England. The message that came back to the family was, your son is in the hospital here. He's not likely to make it. We'll take care of him until he passes. My grandparents were prepared for him to leave this world. My mother cried and cried and cried for days. But he recovered. Suddenly, he got better. He was back on his feet. And within a short time, he was deployed back to Canada, to Montreal, where they put him on a train. That train brought him to Winnipeg. And in Winnipeg, he boarded another to Selkirk, where the family met him at the train station. Years later, my mother's matron of honour told me that she was there when my mother and my grandmother saw my dad stepped out off that train. She said that they immediately ran towards him and that because she was younger and faster, my mother got there ahead of granny, but she stopped [Music: Theme fading in] and she reached back and helped my grandmother get to my dad so that they could hug first.

[Music: Theme]

Tuesday, November 5, 2024 Full Transcript

Social Sharing