Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2023

The Current Transcript for February 2, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Humanitarians have the duty to stay with people that suffer. And that duty implies engagement with whoever is in control.

MATT GALLOWAY: More than 100 million people have been displaced around the world, from Afghanistan and Ukraine to Myanmar and the Horn of Africa. They're on the move because of conflict, famine, climate change and more. It's the job of Filippo Grandi to mobilize the world to pay attention and help those seeking refuge. In 30 minutes, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is here to talk about a year of war in Ukraine, the need to talk with the Taliban, how nationalism and political polarization have made his job and the lives of refugees harder. Also this morning, we will remember the CBC radio journalist Michael Finlay, whose documentaries helped shape programs like Sunday Morning. He died after a random attack in broad daylight on a downtown Toronto street. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

After MeToo, after other denunciations, I think the women finally felt like now they could speak out and it could mean something.

MG: The billionaire Robert Miller is one of the richest men in Quebec. He's known as an incredibly private man. In an hour, inside a Radio-Canada investigation alleging that for years, he paid teenagers in cash for sex, allegations Miller denies. We start, though, in Ottawa with suggestions of high priced consultants running a shadow government and a former Canadian ambassador to China on the hot seat. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

CORPORATE CONSULTING

Guests: Amanda Clarke, Mike Forsythe

SOUNDCLIP

DOMINIC BARTON: First, I want to be clear that I had no involvement whatsoever in any awarding of paid work to McKinsey by the federal government since I relocated to Asia in 1996. And joining the public service as Ambassador to China in 2019, I underwent a thorough conflict of interest process with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that my prior roles with McKinsey and elsewhere would not conflict with my public service obligations. And that included a full, proactive recusal like screened me from dealing with McKinsey and of course, any decisions made by the federal public service relating to McKinsey.

MG: That was Dominic Barton, Canada's former ambassador to China and the former head of the consulting firm McKinsey and Company. He was speaking yesterday at a parliamentary hearing looking into the federal government's contracts with McKinsey. It is estimated that since 2015, the Liberal government has awarded McKinsey at least $116 million worth of contracts. Amanda Clarke is an associate professor of public administration at Carleton University. She testified ahead of the same parliamentary committee earlier this week on the rise in government contracts awarded to McKinsey and Company. Amanda, good morning.

AMANDA CLARKE: Good morning.

MG: Why exactly is the federal government and its consulting contracts with McKinsey being questioned right now?

AMANDA CLARKE: I think part of it is that there's a suspicion that there's a connection between the prime minister's office and the firm itself, and that the Prime Minister's relationship with Dominic Barton, the former global managing head of McKinsey, sort of explains why these contracts were awarded. So there's a suspicion of kind of inappropriate use of public funds to further your buddy’s career. And then the second part of it is that McKinsey's sort of been in the hot seat globally for several ethical breaches, including helping Purdue Pharma drive the opioid crisis. And then the third reason, which I think is the most legitimate reason, is that the federal government's reliance on contractors more generally has been exposed in recent months and years. And I think now we're finally getting some focus on it, albeit through the lens of one particular firm.

MG: We should say in the questioning yesterday, Dominic Barton was asked whether he was friends with Justin Trudeau, and he said explicitly that he's not friends with him, that he has a business relationship, a working relationship, but they are not friends. You testified ahead of the parliamentary committee about government outsourcing with private consultancy firms, and you said that a reliance on management consulting firms betrays the principles of responsible public administration. What did you mean by that?

AMANDA CLARKE: I think the first thing is to be clear that it makes sense for governments to turn to outside firms for external advice, to maybe break any group thing that could be going on in the organization. In some cases, for a sort of search capacity where you have an immediate need and it's not reasonable to deliver given resources in-house. And that's all well and good. But that's not what we see in practice. And in most cases, that kind of core public service work is being outsourced to these firms who have a profit motive, are not subject in many cases to the same rules around transparency and disclosure or a conflict of interest and values and ethics that we expect of our public servants. And so I think that's the kind of the crux of the issue is why do we have a public service if we're then going to pay high, high dollar values for work from private firms to do what is supposed to be kind of the bread and butter work of government workers.

MG: People have used the phrase shadow government. When consultancies are brought in, that they are operating in some ways as a shadow government. Is that a fair characterization?

AMANDA CLARKE: In some cases. I mean, the kind of things that I hear that are concerning our public service telling me about employees of these consulting firms who are brought in to work in government and are given government email addresses, security clearances, they're working side by side with public servants, and sometimes it's not obvious who in the room is representing Deloitte and their various interests versus being a member of the public service and kind of stewarding public goods in the name of public value. And so that's really problematic. In some cases like certain functions like the IT function where we see a really high number of jobs being outsourced to private firms, management consultants, but also IT firms as well, there's a sense that we're no longer sufficiently investing in that capacity in government, and we're just going to kind of rely on this external source of expertise. And I think that's where the concerns start to come in around the shadow government. Yes.

MG: You've said in some ways that focusing just on McKinsey is a distraction. Obviously, the Conservatives have used this as a political opportunity to hammer the Liberals. But governments, and it's not just the Liberal government, have used consultancies beyond McKinsey. The NDP says that it wants the House of Commons to expand its study to include other firms like Deloitte, Accenture, KPMG, PWC. Do we know what they might find there in terms of how active those consultancies have been in working with the Federal Government?

AMANDA CLARKE: Yeah. That was one of the things I recommended to the committee is that they should be taking a bigger picture look at this. I think McKinsey's not a distraction if you're looking specifically at this question of should the federal government set up contracts with firms that have questionable ethical records? That's an interesting question that does directly, I think, implicate McKinsey, and that's worth studying. But I think there are larger set of issues relating more broadly to how much the federal government relies on a whole range of firms. So focusing on McKinsey is a distraction in that sense. My analysis of the federal government data shows that McKinsey is actually sort of one of the smaller players in terms of total dollar spending. I think, you know, there's a couple other firms like Deloitte, for example, or Price Waterhouse Cooper, that deserve quite a bit of attention for not only how much money they're getting, but also how implicated they are in some really, really significant policy areas. Like for example, there's a ton of work being done by Deloitte and IBM on transforming all of our major federal benefits, including things like old age security, employment insurance and Canada pension plan. And so I think if you focus just on McKinsey, you're going to miss all these other really important areas where these firms are basically kind of driving major public programs.

MG: Driving major public programs. When you say that they're working on those major files, what are they doing? Is it advising? Is it advising on options? Is it advising on execution? What actually is the work that these consultancies are doing?

AMANDA CLARKE: That's like one of the fascinating things about these consultancies is how they're able to kind of remake themselves to provide whatever services any company or government wants, right? So, you know, originally, these were kind of auditing firms. They did more like financial evaluations. But now, I mean, they can really provide anything you want. One public servant told me if you tell them you need X, they will deliver it for you tomorrow and they will claim to be experts on it. Specific things that they tend to work on a lot, one is major IT projects. These kinds of management consulting firms are very implicated in any effort to like digitize public services or develop strategies around IT and digital in government. They do direct policy advisory work, even though often they claim they don't. They are involved in executive coaching and training. So kind of telling public servants how they should manage and lead. They're involved in developing large scale strategies for policy reform such as like managing integration systems. In other cases, they're actually designing and delivering citizen based services or kind of poor public service programs. Like for example, Deloitte was involved in developing vaccine registration systems during the pandemic. So really, like basically anything you can imagine a government doing, these firms are doing.

MG: Jennifer Carr is the union president for the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. So you can imagine, not entirely pleased with the outsourcing of some of this work to consultancies. Take a listen to what she said about that outsourcing.

SOUNDCLIP

JENNIFER CARR: While contracting out can serve certain purposes in some case when we're talking about surge capacity or having a skill that might not exist in the public service, what is actually happening is contractors are coming in and doing the whole job of what a public servant can do. And when that happens, we basically erode the capacity of the public service to deliver the consistency for the services and programs that Canadians rely on. And basically, what happens is we enter into this perpetual cycle of contracting out instead of making sure that we have the proper permanent public sector solution to deliver those high quality, cost effective services on behalf of Canadians.

MG: Aside from the issue of transparency, which in many ways is at the heart of this, trying to figure out what work is actually being done, what the arrangements are, is it possible for the public service to do the work that you have been talking about, or are there cases where it makes sense for it to be contracted out?

AMANDA CLARKE: Absolutely. Governments can be doing this work. But I think two things have to change in how the federal government is managed for you to be able to expect and have them deliver innovative, timely responses to policy issues. So one is a major shakeup of the HR processes in government which are at the federal level. Incredibly clunky and time consuming, and also can be quite restrictive in terms of your ability to hire some pretty highly sought after talent, especially in areas like IT or data. And so that's one thing. So just trying to bring more talent into government, which in some cases, requires putting money on the table. But if we weren't spending so much on these management consultants, you'd have that money. And the second thing is really, I think the major issue at play here is that over time, we've really bogged down federal public service workers in excessive oversight and accountability, completely nonsensical internal rules and policies that make it impossible, frankly, to be creative and innovative in that organization without using all of your spirits and becoming largely disillusioned about the entire enterprise. This is something that consistently comes up when I speak to public servants at the Federal government. And so how do you actually reform the civil service so that it can be more innovative? Part of that would be really streamlining those rules, ensuring that you have obviously enough oversight and process to make sure that the entire government is accountable. And I'm not saying you get rid of rules, but rather I think we've kind of over calibrated for that. And in that context, it can sometimes be faster and easier to go to these firms. But the problem is what they deliver is of questionable value. It's really high price. And to speak to the comments of Jennifer Carr that you just cited, I mean, I think when we do that, it's an easy solution that means you ignore the more chronic problem of under-investing in public sector capacity.

MG: Amanda, we'll leave it there. It's good to talk to you about this. Thank you very much.

AMANDA CLARKE: Thank you.

MG: Amanda Clarke, associate professor of public administration at Carleton University. She was in Ottawa. We did ask McKinsey and Company for comment on concerns raised in the House of Commons this week about the sharp increase in federal contracts to McKinsey. They sent us a statement that reads in part: “While the number of Government of Canada contracts awarded to McKinsey has grown over the last five years, these represent a small share of government contracts outsourced to similar consulting firms. Government contracts are awarded by the public service following a rigorous review of technical and price criteria.” Mike Forsythe is a reporter with The New York Times. He's also co-author of a book called When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm. He's in New York City. Mike, good morning to you.

MIKE FORSYTHE: Good morning.

MG: Just I guess briefly off the top, from your perspective, how concerned should Canadians be that the federal government has awarded $116.8 million in contracts to McKinsey over the past five years?

MIKE FORSYTHE: Yeah. I think that what is very interesting is the rate of growth. You know, and certainly, there are other consulting firms, you know, as Professor Clarke pointed out, that have a larger share of the pie in Ottawa. But the growth is interesting. And we see this pattern around the world. Certainly in the United States. You know, there was a very large controversy in Germany a few years ago, you know, with contracting. And in England, you know, the NHS, which is in crisis right now, has been a client of McKinsey's for about 50 years now. And so it's around the world. And the big concern really is, as we point out in the book, is a matter of transparency. If the taxpayers are paying for this, then there is an expectation that what they're paying for should be transparent and we should see, you know, what the work is. And also if there's any potential conflicts of interest, which we certainly found in the United States in their work with the opioid makers and with the regulators of the opioid makers.

MG: Which is essentially where they were working with both sides at the same time.

MIKE FORSYTHE: That's right.

MG: One of the things in this fascinating book, one of the things that comes up in the book is also and that's to the point, I suppose, around accountability. What sort of accountability does McKinsey face from the governments that they work for?

MIKE FORSYTHE: Mm hmm. You know, they're not regulated. You know, so many industries are regulated both in Canada, the United States and the world over. You know, the consulting industry is not. So where they face accountability is when there's potential laws violated. And, you know, certainly, that came up with the opioid case. You know, what happened in early 2021 is McKinsey settled many investigations by attorney generals in many states in the United States, almost all of them, in fact, for about $600 million. But they did not admit any wrongdoing. And that settlement happened before McKinsey, you know, before anything went to trial in South Africa. You know, McKinsey did come under a criminal charge just recently. So it's really the laws, the statutes in countries, you know, books. That is the only really way to hold these people accountable other than the press and public pointing out these concerns.

MG: At the centre of yesterday's hearing was Dominic Barton. He is the former global managing director for McKinsey. He's also the former Canadian ambassador. He has advised governments, including this government and previous governments, on issues of finance. He told the committee yesterday he played no role in the Federal Government's decision to grant contracts to the consulting firm. He says that the processes are rigorous conducted by civil servants, not politicians. You've looked, as we've talked about it, McKinsey, around the world. What did you learn about how governments went about, I guess, awarding contracts to McKinsey?

MIKE FORSYTHE: You know, so I mean, one thing that distinguishes McKinsey, I think from the other consulting firms around the world, and this is their main competitors in that very elite area are Boston Consulting Group and Bain. But then, you know, you've got the bigger consulting firms, Accenture, Deloitte, you know, PWC, which are so big in Canada as well. But the thing that distinguishes them is their prestige. And these are really the cream of the crop. Dominic Barton is a Rhodes Scholar, the current managing partner of McKinsey is a Rhodes Scholar. You know, you've got really some of these smart people who are in very elite circles. And so it's a mark of prestige often for a company or a government to bring in McKinsey. These people will work to the bone to solve any problem they have. And, you know, it's really taken off in the last 20 years. Until around the turn of the century, McKinsey really focussed on private companies. But they made a decision around the year 2000 to focus on governments and their political connections. Their prestige, you know, really has opened the door around the world with authoritarian governments. Russia, China, also Saudi Arabia as well, you know, really corrupt governments like the former government in South Africa, the former Malaysian government. They're going anywhere where they can get fees. They need to feed the beast. These partners and senior partners make millions of dollars a year. So they need to generate the fees to pay them.

MG: And again, that speaks to, you've hinted at this, McKinsey's involvement with the drug manufacturer Purdue, and McKinsey's role in the opioid epidemic. Dominic Barton was asked extensively about this yesterday. Take a listen to this exchange with NDP MP Gord Johns.

SOUNDCLIP

GORD JOHNS: You can look at the court decision. McKinsey agreed to pay $600 million for a lawsuit because of thousands of people that died as a result of cutthroat marketing of opioids. You think that's ethical? Do you think those are values that espouse any government in this country to be doing business with a company with that track record?

DOMINIC BARTON: Again, I acknowledge that there was work done on the opioid side. I do not believe you could say that McKinsey is responsible for the whole piece.

MG: What do you make of Dominic Barton's response?

MIKE FORSYTHE: So what Canadian listeners need to know is that McKinsey's decision to, you know, recommend to Purdue that they turbocharge OxyContin sales happened in 2013 and 2014, smack dab in the middle of Dominic Barton's nine year term as managing partner.

MG: And that's the language that was used, turbocharge the sales.

MIKE FORSYTHE: That's right. Yeah. And that happened right in the middle of his tenure as managing partner. I think in the one interview we had with him in 2018, he did say managing partner McKinsey is kind of like herding cats. It's not like you're the CEO, you're kind of the first among equals. It's a very decentralized organization. But still, you know, there were some very prominent people at McKinsey who were working on this project, including a guy named Martin Elling, who was far and in a way the biggest political donor in the entire firm of more than 30,000 people. So these are not like wallflowers that are working on this Purdue project.

MG: We're almost out of time, but do you believe that that work and the work with governments that you listed earlier should give governments pause?

MIKE FORSYTHE: Yeah. I think, you know, governments need to demand transparency. I think as a journalist, I'm safe in saying that because we're all about transparency. You know, Canadian taxpayers are spending a lot of money on these people. So, you know, we need to know these conflicts of interest. And certainly, the regulators in the United States, as we asked, had no idea that McKinsey was working with the drug makers and the opioid makers.

MG: Do you think a hearing like this changes anything if McKinsey is working with governments all around the world, including Canadian government?

MIKE FORSYTHE: It’s certainly bringing up a lot of attention to this issue. And there's been hearings in the U.S. and France as well. So there's a lot of attention on this now.

MG: Mike, thank you very much.

MIKE FORSYTHE: Thank you.

MG: Mike Forsythe is an investigative reporter with The New York Times and the co-author of When Mackenzie Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm. Your CBC News is up next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

We are more and more playing with a fire that risks burning all of us. And I'm not just talking about climate. And I think that we're approaching dangerously that limits.

MG: Filippo Grandi has seen firsthand the devastating reality of the global refugee crisis. He is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. And it's his job not only to get more attention to these issues, but to actually get action on those issues. And that job is becoming more complicated as time goes on. When we come back, Filippo Grandi and what's at stake for the world if we continue down our current path. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. We are back in 6 minutes. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

FILIPPO GRANDI

Guest: Filippo Grandi

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, allegations of grooming and paying teenagers for sexual favours are being levied against one of Quebec's richest men. The Radio-Canada investigation and the women speaking out coming up in just under 30 minutes. But first, the ever growing global refugee crisis.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

FILIPPO GRANDI: You know, the needs are escalating so quickly that frankly, sometimes it's like fighting against the windmill. You advance, you make progress, and then another strike happens, another thousands of people are displaced. And it's very, very harsh and very difficult. And the winter there is one of the harshest I've seen personally.

MG: That is Filippo Grandi, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. He was speaking late last year just after he reported to the Security Council about the situation in Ukraine. Since then, there have been further strikes on civilian buildings, killing hundreds of people and leaving many more homeless. Filippo Grandi recently visited hard hit areas of Ukraine to observe the response. And it's just one of the dozens of crisis zones that he has been to in the last year. Today, he's back in Geneva and that is where we have reached him. High Commissioner, hello.

FILIPPO GRANDI: Hello. Thanks for inviting me here.

MG: Thank you for coming back on our program. You and I spoke last year. We were both at the Ukraine border with Poland. And then again we talked when you were here in Canada in the spring. Almost a year later, I wonder how you would describe the situation for people who have been displaced in Ukraine as a result of Russia's invasion.

FILIPPO GRANDI: I just came back last week, as you said, from a rather extensive travel through the country. I spent six days following literally the road from Odessa to Kyiv that goes behind, so to speak, the frontlines, very near the frontlines. So this is where you see the real impact of the war. This is where you see the destruction of buildings, of apartment buildings. This is where I have seen a kindergarten flattened, where I have seen the energy infrastructure being destroyed, leaving people out in the cold. And it's very cold there. So I was shocked by the impact on civilians of this war. There's so much talk and understandably, of course, about the military political aspect of the war that sometimes we forget that people pay a very high price. Ukrainians pay a very high price every day.

MG: You said you were shocked. You said that you were sad for the lives lost, but you've also said that you were angry. Can you tell me where the anger comes from in what you saw?

FILIPPO GRANDI: The anger comes because you see what I just said. You see the civilian infrastructure being destroyed. And you see old people left freezing and young children left without school. And of course, let's not forget that every day, people are killed or wounded, civilians are killed or wounded in this war. So, you know, the Russian invasion has had an immense cost on people's lives. But I also have to say, if one purpose of this war is to weaken their resolve, well, that's failing, if I may say. And people are tremendously resilient. And I have seen so many families, so many individuals, including elderly people, ready to rebuild as soon as the destruction happens. They need help. And that's why we're there. But they have the energy and the spirit that is there to continue living.

MG: Do you worry that the energy and the spirit of the rest of the world in watching this will wane as this conflict goes on? We are already seeing some signs coming out of the United States and elsewhere that perhaps people believe they've given enough, that they've given already what they can afford to give. Do you worry about that?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Well, it is possible, of course. Unfortunately, every single crisis that I have dealt with in My by now, rather long professional life, decades of it, this pattern has been followed that you have a lot of interest and support. And then with the passage of time, this diminishes. Now, I think Ukraine is such high profile and this is a situation followed so much across the world that the risk is less that it happens quickly. But we must continue to remind, and I want to do it now again, that we need to continue to provide humanitarian assistance and what the Ukrainians call recovery assistance, the preamble to reconstruction. That is a very important aspect of their own resilience. May I add one point? And at the same time, let me add this, because I think we said it last time we spoke, not to forget all the other crises as well. I know it's a lot to ask, but unfortunately, there's a lot of crises around the world.

MG: I want to ask you about some of those other crises. But one final point on Ukraine. I know that you were in Moldova and you expressed a lot of gratitude for what has happened in Moldova for Ukrainian refugees. What do you think is going right there and what do you think other nations perhaps could learn from what's happening in Moldova?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Moldova is a very small country with few resources, bordering Ukraine, outside the European Union, with a slice of its territory under the control of a separatist force, with Russian presence. So it's a country in an extremely fragile position. And yet, they've taken in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees, many of whom have moved on, but more than 100,000 of whom have stayed and stay in Moldova. And just a few days before my visit, this was my second visit there, they gave these people what is called temporary protection. This is the status that has been given in most of Europe to Ukrainians which allow them to access services, employment, children can go to school. So a very good move, very good direction. We cooperate, of course, we support as much as we can. But that support also needs to continue, especially in Moldova.

MG: How important would it be for that temporary protection to be extended to other people fleeing conflict?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Very. And here we're not talking specifically about Moldova, but in general, I think, you know, what Europe did in activating this temporary protection directive, as they call it. It's like a measure, a special measure that was approved by the European Union 20 years ago, but only now finally activated. It proved precious, valuable. People have freedom of movement, Ukrainian refugees. They can access those, as I said, services, employment. It has been extremely important not only for them to be able to have better lives during their exile from Ukraine, but in my opinion, it has also relieved pressure on states because many Ukrainians, by going where they had communities, help, contacts, ask for less public support. So it's a very good measure. And I think, of course, each refugee influx is different. But there are very important lessons there learned that can be applied to other groups of people.

MG: You mentioned other crises. And you and I spoke before about what's happening in Afghanistan. There have been calls for this country to do more for people who are at risk in Afghanistan. And those calls have become louder in the wake of the murder of the former MP Mursal Nabizada. She was working with MPs here to try and get to this country. People have been saying that Canada needs to do more. It needs to do more right now while they're facing risk to get the other eight women who served with her in parliament out of danger. What is it that Canada should be doing to help those who more than a year later, a couple of years later, after the fall of Afghanistan are still facing, you know, an immediate threat on their lives? What is it that we should be doing, do you think?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Well, first of all, let us put things a little bit in perspective. Canada has done a lot, has given money for humanitarian assistance inside Afghanistan, has helped also Afghan refugees, especially in countries neighbouring Afghanistan, and has resettled already thousands of Afghan refugees, maybe not as many as was hoped for, but that process continues. And I hope that it will grow and accelerate so that the targets can be met. Having said this, you know, there's a lot of attention, of course, and rightly so, for people and especially women inside Afghanistan. Inside Afghanistan, it's not like you can send a plane, take people out and fly out. Inside Afghanistan is under the control of the Taliban. So everything has to be agreed with them. What I would say, my advice would be to three things. One is continue to help those that have managed to get out of Afghanistan refugees, especially women, especially minority members or LGBT community people that have made it outside Afghanistan, and that could be resettled faster. There's many that we can identify and help states resettle. And then continue humanitarian assistance inside Afghanistan as well. Now, that has been enormously complicated recently by very bad decisions by the Taliban to preclude women from areas of work, from higher education and so forth. We're negotiating with the Taliban to try and reverse some of those decisions. But it's a difficult balance because we cannot condone those decisions, but we also cannot abandon completely Afghanistan to their fate, Afghans to their fate. So we are in the middle of complex balances, complex dilemmas, and we want countries like Canada to help navigate those dilemmas in the best interest of Afghan women and all Afghans in fact.

MG: Can I ask you about those negotiations? When you were here before, you talked about the importance of still speaking with the Taliban. You said, what is plan B? And I just wonder now whether you have changed your opinion on that. In your speech, you said that this is controversial. That engagement, though, can create space for meaningful discussions. Are those meaningful discussions with the Taliban actually happening at a time when Afghan women say that they are being erased in many ways from public life?

FILIPPO GRANDI: You know, this is a very difficult question that you're asking me because I must say in all honesty, that our engagement, not our as UNHCR, but collectively UN, NGOs and others with the Taliban has not produced the positive results that we hoped for. We've seen some backtracking on women education, on women at work and so forth, for example. On the other hand, the question is if we hadn't engaged, would that backtracking be even worse? This is always a question that has no answer. Unfortunately, I have to say, and this may not be popular, my proposition is that we continue to engage. We continue to engage. But where we see really negative decision, where there is a stubborn decision not to allow women to work and allow only men, then we have to say, sorry, we cannot do that. And we will say that. We are already saying this. Another point, sorry, just 2 seconds to say. The situation is very complex. You know, the Taliban are not a homogeneous group. They have made decisions in one province that are very different from another. In some provinces, some of this very bad discriminatory edicts are not even applied. So, you know, what do you do in those situations? Do you work in one province and not in another? I would say yes, to show them that where the decision is good, where bad practices are not carried out, you know, we cooperate and we support.

MG: I just wonder what you say then back to former Afghan MPs who say, and they've written about this and spoken about this, that the negotiations don't go anywhere, that the role of the international community is to stop talking to the Taliban, to speak with opposition forces, because any conversation essentially legitimizes this government.

FILIPPO GRANDI: I understand that position, but I would not agree entirely. I think humanitarians have the duty to stay with people that suffer, and that duty implies engagement with whoever is in control. That engagement is not recognition. We've made it very clear with the Taliban, and they know that very well. They don't expect that recognition to come from us. They want recognition at the political level and that they know very well we cannot provide. But without that engagement, Afghans out there under their rule will be even more alone.

MG: We know broadly that there are more than 100 million people who are displaced, who are on the move. And as we've talked about too, those numbers will increase as the climate crisis exacerbates. How do you square the need against the help globally that's being offered?

FILIPPO GRANDI: First of all, yes, the climate, but also this rampage of conflicts around the world. You know, sorry, I'd make a slight addition here. Today is the second anniversary of the change in government, the takeover by the military of power in Myanmar. And we've had a lot of discussions this week about that. That is causing because of violence, repression, fight against certain minority groups, hundreds of thousands of displaced people moving. That's not climate. That's conflict. There's a lot of that as well. And often a combination. Like in the Horn of Africa or in the Sahel, in West Africa, conflict caused by climate change. And you ask an important question. We have seen globally an increase in humanitarian aid. But it's worrying because how far can that huge bubble of humanitarian aid expand? And we are always worried that we reach the outer limits of what we can receive. Mind you, the humanitarian aid globally, 20, $30 billion a year, difficult to say. This year the needs are estimated at 50 billion. Sounds big, is big, but it's just a fraction of what is spent on military aid or other types of expenditure. So we have to put things in context as well. Still, you know, we are worried that we're reaching that outer limits. So it is so important to do other things as well more decisively and go to the root causes of this humanitarian problems, which are always the same. Conflict, climate change, poverty, inequality. Unless we are really serious about the Sustainable Development Goals, for example, for all the world, we will never be able to address seriously the causes, and we will have a humanitarian bill that increases year after year.

MG: Is your sense that enough is being done to look at those, you use the phrase root causes, the upstream causes of the fact that so many people are on the move?

FILIPPO GRANDI: Not enough is being done. You know, this year 2023 will be a year of reflection, of discussion on the financing of the Sustainable Development Goals, for example. And it is very clear that first, COVID, then the Ukrainian war, this is taking valuable resources away from those objectives that are so crucial. I think that this is really so important. This is not what my organization does. We deal with the consequences. But, you know, how far can we go? How much more can we do to deal with consequences if the root causes are not addressed?

MG: And I know that's not what your organization does, but as you said, you have to deal with the issues down the line if those root causes aren't being dealt with. What's happening in those negotiations that would prevent what we know is unfolding? What would prevent that from being addressed in a meaningful way, do you think?

FILIPPO GRANDI: You know, unfortunately, I think that politics and economic competition trump the wish to get those things resolved. The problem is that if that continues, we are more and more playing with a fire that risks burning all of us. And I'm not just talking about climate. And I think that we are approaching dangerously that limits and we cannot ignore anymore. And what does that mean? That means that if we're serious, and this applies to every global challenge, be it war, be it poverty, be it climate, what it means is that we have to make compromises. Rich countries have to pay more. And all countries have to give up some of their, let me use a difficult word, some of their sovereignty somehow, or their sovereign aspirations in order for our collective aspirations to be met and for all of us to have a better future. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening yet. You don't hear this in national election campaigns enough. I always tell people, vote for candidates who have global concerns because those global concerns are becoming local very, very fast.

MG: Do we need a different party to address that? People have talked about the United Nations and whether the United Nations has reached its sell buy date, whether it's actually doing the work that it was created to do. Is there a possibility to restore that body or do we need something else that is going to allow us, to your point, to think bigger, to not vote and not think of what's immediately in front of us, but to think with a wider lens and see with a wider lens?

FILIPPO GRANDI: You're asking me questions that are increasingly further away from my modest and focussed mandate. But let me tell you, as an old U.N. official, I think I can say surely the organization, and especially its political institutions like the Security Council, which are the most important ones in terms of decision making, in terms of peace and security, need a lot of reform, need expansion, need other voices, need better mechanism to avoid paralysis, which we have seen in the last few years. But I cannot think of a more comprehensive institution than the United Nations to address these issues.

MG: When you see what's happening right now, I spoke with an activist who'd been charged with espionage in Greece because he was part of an NGO that was rescuing people who were at risk of drowning at sea. We know that in Italy, the government has forced rescue boats further up the coast at an enormous cost because then the boats can't be in the sea where people actually are at risk of drowning. It has to be further up to drop those that it has rescued off. When you see that, what goes through your mind in the context of what we've been talking about?

FILIPPO GRANDI: On the second point, since I'm just back from Rome myself where I did discuss this issue with the government, it's a complex issue. And I think that the government agreed that distributing people that are disembarked throughout a larger number of ports, which is what they're trying to do to avoid clogging some disembarkation points, in itself, that's not a bad decision. But if that means that NGOs or others involved in rescue at sea miss out on some boats in distress, that that cannot be done. Rescuing boats is stronger than any other provision, even from the legal point of view, from the point of view of international law. So this is to say that we are actually taking up all these issues with governments and discussing and trying to find a way forward. So we are trying to work with governments. How can we do that? How can we have more expeditious procedures? How can we ensure that if somebody does not need international protection, either can avail himself or herself of proper migration channels? But once again, the secret to finding a way forward is to have cooperation between states.

MG: It would be easy to listen to what you have said in our conversation and feel despondent about the state of things. And I know that you have described yourself as a relative optimist. Where are you finding optimism in what you're seeing?

FILIPPO GRANDI: And I apologize if I have inspired that despondency. That was not my purpose and we should not give up. Refugees don't give up by definition, so we should look at their example in this respect. What happened throughout the world, like we said a few minutes ago in respect of Ukrainian refugees should also make us think positively. There was, I think, all over a clear understanding of why they were fleeing under the bombs, destruction, invasion, and there was a lot of solidarity. And look. Almost a year after the beginning of the Russian attack, that solidarity is still largely there. And I think that this is what needs to inspire governments as well. Governments are obsessing about rejection. They are afraid that if they are too generous, quote unquote, with people coming, there will be a backlash in public opinion. But if that reception, if that receiving people, if that generosity is well organized, well supported, I think acceptance will be much easier.

MG: Filippo Grandi, it's a great pleasure to speak with you again. This work is important and so I hope we have the chance to talk down the line. In the meantime, thank you very much.

FILIPPO GRANDI: Thank you very much for this conversation.

MG: Filippo Grandi is the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. He was in Geneva. Well, coming up after your regional update, allegations that one of Quebec's wealthiest men was paying teenagers for sexual favours. Multiple women are now sharing their stories with Radio-Canada. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current, and we're back in 90 seconds.

[Music: Theme]

GIRLS AROUND ROBERT MILLER

Guest: Brigitte Noël

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. A warning. This story contains graphic content that some listeners may find disturbing.

SOUNDCLIP

SOPHIE: I was thinking, well, you got yourself into this situation, so. He brought us into his room, and well, that was it. I just closed my eyes and tried to think of something else.

MG: Sophie says she was only 14 years old when she was recruited to have sex with one of Quebec's wealthiest men. We're not using her real name to protect her identity. Another teen we're calling Jane, was 17.

SOUNDCLIP

JANE: Robert didn't like to sleep with the same girls for very long. He needed a variety. Each girl had an expiration date. He'd get sick of them. We had no idea who he was. We called him Bob. There had never been any photos of him out there, so we didn't know that Bob was really Robert Miller.

MG: Robert G. Miller is a Quebec billionaire. A new investigation by Radio-Canada's Enquete, in partnership with The Fifth Estate, has uncovered how he allegedly paid young women in cash and gifts for sexual favours. Enquete spoke with 10 of these women. Six were minors when they met Miller. Robert Miller has denied the allegations, and a Montreal police investigation in 2009 resulted in no charges. Brigitte Noel has been researching this story for the past year and joins us from Montreal. Brigitte, Good morning.

BRIGITTE NOEL: Good morning.

MG: Who is Robert G. Miller?

BRIGITTE NOEL: We are talking about one of the richest men in Quebec. He has a fortune that's estimated at around $2 billion U.S. And if you've never heard this name, it's a bit by design. He's an incredibly private person. So he owns a company called Future Electronics, which distributes electronic components all over the world. It's a hugely successful company. It's in 44 countries, more than 5000 employees, all of this based in West Montreal. But despite this international success, Miller is nowhere. He's notoriously private, rarely gives interviews. Very few pictures of him are in circulation. So a man with a lot of money and power, but a lot of mystery around him.

MG: And how did that sense of secrecy, that mystery factor into your investigation of what it was that you were trying to find out?

BRIGITTE NOEL: Well, for one, he never used his real name with these women. So as we heard from Jane, he said his name was Bob, Bob Adams. And so the women told us various stories. Some were under the impression that he was an American businessman coming to Montreal for work. Others were under the impression that he owned a record company in the US. So various stories, various little facts here and there, but no real concrete details about the man that they were recruited to sleep with. And the fact that, you know, this was the 90s and the early 2000s, Google wasn't readily available. There were no pictures of this man in circulation. So a lot of the women had no means of finding out who he was. Many of them only found out later.

MG: How did you come across these allegations against Robert Miller?

BRIGITTE NOEL: It's kind of been in these whispers circles in and around Montreal. For years, there's been this kind of whisper network. We've been hearing these stories of a very wealthy man who paid a number of young women for sex. And other journalists have poked around at this story without much success. But I think we landed on it at the right time. The women had not been ready to speak. For a lot of them, it's a very shameful secret they told us. But after MeToo, after Epstein, Weinstein, Nygaard, after seeing this groundswell of other denunciations, I think the women finally felt like even though this was a man of tremendous wealth and power, now they could speak out and it could mean something.

MG: What can you tell us about the women that you did speak with?

BRIGITTE NOEL: Well, we contacted a number of women and we gathered the detailed testimonies of ten of them who say they met with Miller between 1994 and 2006. These are women from different backgrounds with different kind of profiles. But one thing they all have in common is they were very young when they met Miller. One was 14 years old. Well, six of them were minors. Others were in their early twenties, but all relatively young. And some were teen runaways, others were high school students. Many of them tell us they were in a vulnerable place in their lives. And they tell us that Miller really positioned himself to them as a mentor, as this benefactor who could help them in life, someone who cared about their future and who could bring them to their goals.

MG: Now, how did he meet them?

BRIGITTE NOEL: Initially, it's our understanding that he met them through this middleman, a man named Raymond Poulet, who placed ads, classified ads in the back pages of newspapers for sex work. This middleman told the girls that Miller was his VIP client. Some of the girls at this point are of age, but of the women we spoke to, again, more than half were minors.

MG: What did those women tell you about their experiences then with Robert Miller?

BRIGITTE NOEL: All the stories are eerily similar. So they were asked to meet this man either by the middle man Raymond Poulet, and eventually by a friend, so that the recruitment became this word of mouth where all the women were encouraged to bring a friend or an acquaintance to Miller. So they go to a hotel room or to a luxurious Montreal house. They all tell us he was very polite and kind, that he was interested in their lives, asked them questions, wanted to talk, and then he would request that they bathe. All the women talk about this fixation with hygiene, so the women would all go bathe. And then after they were ready, they would perform sexual acts with him. Some had intercourse, others did other things. And afterwards he would pay them. He would give them envelopes that were colour coded with different amounts of money, huge amounts, anywhere from $750 to sometimes $4,000. And some girls tell us they met with him once. Others kept this going for years.

MG: I know that you contacted Raymond Poulet for comment. He denies knowing anything about this. As for the women, though, how are they reflecting on their experiences now, now that they're adults?

BRIGITTE NOEL: I think it was very difficult for a lot of them to talk to us about it initially. A lot of them describe feeling trapped in this type of Stockholm Syndrome where for years, they remained convinced that Robert Miller was their friend. But they say that now, in retrospect, you know, 20 years have passed and they realize that it was grooming. And some say, you know, now we know that we were children who were being exploited. And the women all asked that we protect their identity. They were all afraid of the impact that the story could have on their lives. They didn't want to be identified. So the four women who did come on camera to speak with us had their voices dubbed by actors. Their names are aliases. So here's one woman that we are calling Samantha.

SOUNDCLIP

SAMANTHA: You wonder, was it really worth it for that money? It really wasn't. I think it's like you feel so dirty, so dirty. And you have to live with those memories your whole life.

BRIGITTE NOEL: Here, we have Samantha who was 15 at the time, talking about her one encounter with Miller. So at this point, he had asked her to take a bath with him in a hotel room. During this bath, she says he made her wash him. He had to wash her. He touched her intimately, which she had not consented to. And she says after this bath, she was so uncomfortable that she asked to leave. He had asked her to go to the bedroom. She declined. He paid her and she left. But Samantha and other women we spoke to describe this as a really isolating experience, because when you're a teenager and you're going through this, when you're getting paid thousands of dollars, you can't talk about it with anyone. And so one woman who we're calling Sophie, she was delivering the newspaper at this point. And suddenly, she was flushed with all this cash. They say that Miller really introduced them to a world that they wouldn't normally have had access to, and that this was really difficult to reconcile with their current lives.

SOUNDCLIP

SOPHIE: Who can you tell? Especially at that age. I wasn't about to go see my mother, like, Hey, mom, I really don't feel well. I slept with an old man for money. Can you help me?

MG: So Sophie says that she couldn't go to her mom. She couldn't tell her mom. Did any adults notice what was going on?

BRIGITTE NOEL: Some of the women mentioned that they met Miller at the Intercontinental Hotel. This was around 99. And just to put it in context, he had a room he rented there almost year round. This is a room that's 15 minutes from his house. He got the room renovated on his dime, adding a really large bathtub that was designed to hold more than one person. And in a written statement to the CBC, Robert Miller says he rented that room to have a calm place to rest and work. He says the tub was updated because of his illness, because he's had Parkinson's for 20 years. And so just as an aside, this is also why, according to his lawyer, Robert Miller couldn't grant us an interview because he's too sick. But to get back to your question. Staff at the hotel got a different impression of this whole rented room. And they told us that they saw a steady stream of young women going to visit Miller on the 25th floor when he was there. They noticed that the women would stop by another room on the same floor, which was rented by Raymond Poulet the middleman. So there was this ritual where they would go to Poulet’s room, and they would be brought to Miller's room, and then they would leave after a few hours. And we spoke to Donna Loupret, who was the director of security at the Intercontinental at the time when this was happening. She told us about an interaction that she had with someone from Miller's entourage.

SOUNDCLIP

DONNA LOUPRET: One of his security people had said to me, I don't know what the big deal is. So he had a bunch of hookers in his room. Hookers? The hell are you talking about? These are kids. There was no hookers in his room.

MG: Did Donna Loupret report to authorities what was going on or what she saw?

BRIGITTE NOEL: She did not. Initially, she didn't know these girls’ ages. She also says she felt like her hands were tied because none of the girls ever came to the hotel staff to complain about Miller or anyone. So without this complaint, she felt she couldn't call the police. She says her staff did start keeping a close eye on Miller and his entourage, and this caused a bit of friction. And eventually, Miller called Donna Loupret directly. He wanted to complain to her about her staff's behaviour. But she says she took the opportunity to confront him.

SOUNDCLIP

DONNA LOUPRET: By the way, Mr. Miller, aren't those girls awfully young? He says, no, you don't understand. They are my nieces. I said, Your nieces? You’ve got a hell whole lot of nieces. And then he hung up.

BRIGITTE NOEL: So just to mention that Donna Loupret did eventually speak to police when they investigated in 2009. But at this point, she felt like she couldn't say anything. Sometime after this interaction, though, it's our understanding that Robert Miller left the hotel scene and started meeting with the young women at a private residence, a home in the wealthy neighbourhood of Westmount in Montreal. Again, a home 5 minutes from his actual house.

MG: Did anything else change about how he was operating?

BRIGITTE NOEL: Yes. So at this point, when he's in the house, the recruitment methods changed. From our understanding, it became more of a word of mouth system. So the girls would recruit their friends, their classmates. You had just teen girls finding other teen girls. And often, this recruitment would take place in high schools. And the girls say Miller knew this. And just to note, in Quebec, you usually graduate high school around 17 before you go to Cegep or to work. So these were minors. And they say he knew that. One girl says that in requesting that she bring in other friends, he even asked her for a virgin. And all of this had a financial incentive too. The girls say they got $1,000 bonus to bring Miller other girls, but they also had other reasons. Here's Sophie again.

SOUNDCLIP

SOPHIE: He said I can make more money, that I could bring him new girls instead. He said he was really my friend and that he would take care of me. When we brought other girls, they were the ones he would sleep with, not the person who brought them. So that's a big part of the guilt I've been living with, that I dragged other people into this.

MG: Did anyone notice what was happening at this private residence?

BRIGITTE NOEL: Yeah. We spoke to John Westlake. He's a former police officer who's become a private detective now. And he was actually hired by Miller's now ex-wife, who at the time suspected that something was going on with her husband. And so John Westlake set up a stakeout outside this house in Westmount.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN WESTLAKE: After three or four days, myself and my team, we were amazed what was going on. After working hours at five, six o’clock every night, there were females going in and out of the place. We were concerned that they were some young girls. When I mean young, 16, 17, 15 years old, we didn't know.

BRIGITTE NOEL: So John Westlake did manage to identify a few of the girls. One of them was a minor, a 17 year old. He noticed at this point that Robert Miller had quite a surveillance system. The home is covered in cameras. It still is to this day. So eventually, they were spotted by Miller's people. And two men, members of Miller's security team approached him.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN WESTLAKE: They said, Look, we'll make you an offer. We're going to make this an offer. Really? What's the offer? We'll give you $300,000 to stop doing the investigation and give us what you got. And myself and Andre went directly to the police department and told them what happened. We presented them to our reports and said, look, we can't do anything more. We can't arrest. We can't do that, but we can provide you with what we got.

MG: And so what did Montreal police do?

BRIGITTE NOEL: So John Westlake is describing something that happened in 2006. Montréal Police did open an investigation in 2009. And some of the women we spoke to say they were questioned by police back in 2009. Donna Loupret, as I mentioned earlier, the director of security at the Intercontinental says she gave a deposition at that time also. But the girls who gave statements to police say that they were made to feel like they were to blame because they had recruited their friends, they had brought other people into this. Police told them that they could also be charged. And so this scared many of them into silence. And the investigation was closed in 2010 with no charges against Miller.

MG: What has Robert Miller said in response to these allegations?

BRIGITTE NOEL: Again, too sick to give us an interview. That's what his lawyer says. Denies everything however. Says the allegations in the story are false and malicious. The lawyer says his client has never slept with anyone under the age of consent. So at the time, this was 14. But the experts we consult all tell us the criminal code is clear. Paying anyone under the age of 18 in exchange for sex is illegal. The lawyer's letter also provides another defence. They say that because of Robert Miller's Parkinson's, he has suffered severe erectile dysfunction for the past 20 years. They even gave us two notes from a Montreal neurologist in support of this claim. And the conclusion of the letter is, “There are simply no victims here save for my client if you decide to air these untrue and defamatory allegations.”

MG: Why was it important for these women to share their experiences now?

BRIGITTE NOEL: I think many of the women have been living with this secret for decades now. Some hadn't even told their family, their loved ones. And in the past few years, they have watched stories on the news similar to their own. Rich, powerful men being brought to justice. And so I think many of them felt that the timing was right and that speaking out could finally bring closure and perhaps even justice.

MG: And is the sense that they would speak to police again if there was a new investigation?

BRIGITTE NOEL: They're a bit split on that. Some of the women who were part of the initial investigation had a really bad experience and don't wish to revisit that. Others are hoping that it will be reopened. They do plan on speaking and they hope that other women will speak up as well. So it's a mixed bag on that front.

MG: You mentioned that the initial investigation was closed in 2010. No charges against Robert Miller. What have police said to you about the possibility of a new investigation?

BRIGITTE NOEL: So police and the prosecutor's office both declined to comment on this story, but they did tell us that if anyone had new information on this case, they were welcome to contact police and any new details would be considered.

MG: Brigitte, thank you very much.

BRIGITTE NOEL: Thank you.

MG: Brigitte Noel is a journalist with Radio-Canada's Enquete. Tonight, their investigation into Robert G. Miller will air in both French and English at 9 p.m. on Radio-Canada's Enquete and on CBC's The Fifth Estate. And you can read the story online at cbcnews.ca. That is The Current for this Thursday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. We want to leave you today with some memories of our CBC colleague, Michael Finlay. Last week, Michael was a victim of a random assault in broad daylight on a street in downtown Toronto. Police are still looking for a suspect. Michael Finlay died on Tuesday. He was a tremendous journalist and is being remembered by many CBC foreign correspondents, past and present with admiration and affection.

SOUNDCLIP

LAURA LYNCH: My name is Laura Lynch and I am the host of What on Earth on CBC Radio. I had the good fortune of having Michael or Finlay as we often called him, as my editor when I was a foreign correspondent travelling to far flung, sometimes violent places. I remember so many times when Michael was not only editing my story, which he always made better, but he was also caring and concerned about my well-being in the field. To that end, he would often tell me stories, some from his own fabled past, or tell me a joke or laugh, or do something just to ease the tension. And when on occasion he told me I had written a good script, it was a small thrill because if it was good enough for Michael, then I knew it was good.

FRANK KOLLER: My name is Frank Koller, and I worked with Michael from roughly 1985 to about 2005. And I'm a former foreign correspondent with CBC News as well. He was the guy that you feared was going to vet your stories before your story was recorded and put on air. He was the guy that you hoped would vet your stories. And after you were done, there might be a little bit of your blood on the floor, but you knew for sure, and this is what everybody at CBC, at Sunday Morning and people who worked with him at Radio News knew, your story was going to be better.

MARGARET EVANS: It's Margaret Evans here. There are many things that I loved about Michael, but I'm pretty sure he would want me to stick to time. So I'm just going to give you two. Number one, his great knowledge of and love for international affairs as manifested in the naming of cats. At one point, he had two. One was called Thabo, and the other, of course, was Mbeki. My other favourite thing, the way he would praise a story of yours if he liked it, because that praise, of course, was worth its weight in gold. And he'd start out also gently with, Well, this is rather nice. Or so this is rather lovely. Just like Michael himself, especially when you got past that gruff exterior.

MG: Michael Finlay worked behind the scenes for many years at CBC Radio's The World at Six. And earlier in his career, as Frank mentioned, he travelled the world making in-depth documentaries for the CBC Radio program Sunday Morning. In 1987, as Canada was debating bringing back the death penalty, Michael made a documentary about a case in the United States. Jerome Bowden, a young black man with developmental disabilities, had been convicted of murder. There was no physical evidence and there were concerns about how the prosecution was handled. This is from Michael's documentary, Death in Georgia.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY PALMER TRICE: It says, Hello, sweet Mary. See, I'm fine at this time, but I just want to take this time out to say that I do appreciate what you have done to help my family. See, I always keep a place in my heart for you. But Mary, I can't say if I will be here for you again. But I got to keep my faith in the Lord.

MICHAEL FINLAY: On the eastern bank of the Chattahoochee River in town of Columbus, Georgia, Mary Palmer Trice reads a letter from a friend. His name was Jerome Bowden. 30 years ago, he used to play hide and go seek in the rundown black neighbourhood that rises from the river up past Second Avenue. Mary Palmer Trice is a teacher and church worker who wrote to Jerome in prison. The letter she's reading is the last letter Jerome ever wrote.

MARY PALMER TRICE: Well, I see that you still try to help people, but you just can't do it alone. But we might not hear from the court until late, so I do hope to be around to get more mail from you. See, I can't put my trust in no one but God. But if I'm not here, I would like for you to promise me that you would try to help my family to deal with it. See, Mary, I'm like you. See, I do hold out that I will get a stay. Well, if I don't get to see you anymore in this world, well, I can see you up in Heaven.

MICHAEL FINLAY: It took Jerome Bowden 24 years to travel the 130 kilometres that separate a child's neighbourhood from this place. Officially, the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Centre at Jackson G. House Death Row. The four two tiered cellblocks, each holding about 30 men are full. Since most of the United States returned to the death penalty in 1976, the population of death row here in Georgia has steadily grown. Occasionally, seven times since 1983, it has dropped by one. Every one of the men here is a killer waiting to be killed. When visitors come, it's a fact not far from their minds.

MG: In Michael Finlay's documentaries, music was always a part of the storytelling. In this case, it's the music of Peter Gabriel, who was among the performers who supported Amnesty International in its efforts to save Jerome Bowden's life.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: “Biko live” by Peter Gabriel]

MICHAEL FINLAY: Jerome Bowden is dead. So are 69 other men and women executed in the United States in the last 10 years. There are now actually about 1800 people on death row awaiting execution. 600 more than Earl Galloway would like to see die in a day. Many have reached the point where they've exhausted all their appeals. The number of executions in the United States is expected to surge in the next months and years.

[Song fades up]

MICHAEL FINLAY: But the death penalty is more than statistics. Those 1800 people are for better or worse men and women. They have histories as Jerome Bowden did. Most of them have families as Jerome did. Shirley Thomas is Jerome's sister. She lives in a small house in Columbus, not far from where she and Jerome grew up. Her own husband was a murder victim. The killer did time and is now back on the street. Now, sitting under the autographed picture given her by those performers who pleaded unsuccessfully for Jerome's life, she wonders where it all went wrong. And she, unlike many in the death penalty debate, knows she doesn't have any answers.

SHIRLEY THOMAS: You know, you don't have an answer. You know, I don't. And you sit up, you try to figure, I mean, what went wrong here? What didn't go right over here? Who didn’t this? You know, I'm still trying to figure out what went wrong, you know. And nobody can give me an answer.

[Song fades up]

MICHAEL FINLAY: For Sunday Morning, I'm Michael Finlay in Georgia.

MG: That was some of the documentary Death in Georgia by the CBC's Michael Finlay. As I mentioned, Michael was a huge music fan. He had particular love for The Pogues. And so for Michael, this is The Pogues and Dirty Old Town. I’m Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current.

[Song: “Dirty Old Town” by The Pogues]

Thursday February 2, 2023 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing