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 1, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Oil and gas production won't stop. It can't stop. And so what we need to do as an industry is get the footprint of that barrel of oil down to as lower carbon footprint as possible.

MATT GALLOWAY: This spring, the federal government will unveil what's become known as the Just Transition Act. The name has sparked a war of words with Alberta's premier. The Federal Government says the act itself is meant to provide a road map for workers in oil and gas toward green energy jobs. In 30 minutes, three of those workers in Alberta on what just transition means to them and what they think their jobs could look like in a net zero future. Also this morning, hundreds of thousands of people are on the move around the world seeking refuge and a better life. The program that allows Canadians to privately sponsor refugees to this country has been a huge success. And now, the United States is taking notice.

SOUNDCLIP

Whether we're talking about addressing the trauma, navigating the paperwork and bureaucracy of helping a family enroll their kids in school, we just want to make sure that these sponsors are prepared for what's in store and that they're vetted.

MG: In an hour, how the United States is building a refugee program modelled on the one Canada created in the 1970s, and what needs to be done here to strengthen our own sponsorships. But we'll begin with new standards for long term care homes in the wake of the pandemic and questions about whether they'll actually make life better for residents. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LONG TERM CARE STANDARDS

Guests: Janice Keefe, Mary Oko

SOUNDCLIP

She said, this is not living. This is existing. And I'm not interested in doing this anymore. It is much more of the theme of prison inside of there with their restrictions and their way of doing things. And it's always the staff's way. Well, it's supposed to be a home. It's supposed to be their home.

MG: Long term care facility does not feel like a home for many of those living there during the pandemic. And that's something that Maureen McDermott heard a lot from her mom, Elsie. Maureen McDermott says the conditions in the home where her mother lived took a toll and Elsie died in May of 2021. More than 17,000 residents of long term care homes in Canada died because of COVID during the pandemic. And Marie McDermott and many others have been advocating for drastic changes to the system. This week, new federal standards for the sector were released. Janice Keefe helped create the guidelines as part of a government committee. She's director of the Nova Scotia Centre on Ageing and a professor of gerontology at Mount Saint Vincent University. Janice Keefe, good morning.

JANICE KEEFE: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What difference do you think national standards can make in the lives of seniors who are living right now in long term care?

JANICE KEEFE: Well, the standards really give a pathway for us to provide the best quality of care, the best quality of life for the residents in long term care.

MG: I mentioned that 17,000 seniors died in long term care over the course of the pandemic. If the standards were in place a couple of years ago, do you think some of those lives could have been saved?

JANICE KEEFE: Yes, I do. I think there needs to be more attention to long term care. We've learned a lot through the pandemic, particularly around protection for residents. The whole infrastructure around double rooms. But I think we've learned and the standards are really trying to put those learnings into action.

MG: You've used the phrase quality of care. People talk about resident centred care. What exactly does that actually mean? If you're taking a look at the standards that have been put forward, what is resident centred care actually mean?

JANICE KEEFE: Resident centred care means that the resident, if possible or their substitute decision maker, have a say in what they experience in a home. So what their desire is, what gives them joy, what gives them meaningful quality of life. So be it an assessment of what their needs are. Every resident is different and so there needs to be a piece planning that fits individual residents. So that's putting the resident at the centre and including where they want their essential care partner or family friend who they choose to be involved.

MG: Why isn't that in place already?

JANICE KEEFE: We do say that it is in place. Many, many homes have resident centred care. Unfortunately, with the pandemic, there was so much attention given to the safety and security. We threw out all of the other aspects that actually give people quality of life. We didn't allow families to come in. We didn't allow residents to go out. There was a real lockdown, right? And so that really affected their quality of life. So this is really putting in mechanisms and giving standards and processes to make sure that facilities are putting the resident at the centre.

MG: The standards also recommend things like a flexible meal plan and to your point, flexible visitor policies. We heard at the beginning of our conversation Maureen McDermott talking about the conditions that her mom, Elsie, lived in. She said it wasn't like a home. She said it was like a prison in many ways. How did we get to a point where people feel as though, and their loved ones feel as though they're not living in a home, that they're living in prison-like conditions because things like meals or visitations are so tightly controlled?

JANICE KEEFE: Yes. And I think that is a function of what happened with the pandemic. We first wanted to do no harm. And so we really did lock down the facilities with this idea that we were protecting people, but we failed to ask the residents what they wanted. In our standards, we talk about the right to live at risk for our residents so that as long as they're not putting, of course, other people at risk, that they have the right to make choices, given their capacity to do so.

MG: How much of this has to do with the nature of long term care in this country, where it is a mix of not for profit, but also for profit care?

JANICE KEEFE: I think that can be considered a component, but not really in terms of the care that's being provided. It fundamentally comes down to the staff and the working conditions of the staff and the philosophy of the home.

MG: I want to get to the staffing piece in a moment, but let me bring one more voice into our conversation. Mary Oko is an advocate for reforming long term care. Also, the former chair of the Family Council at Copernicus Lodge, which is a long term care home in Toronto. Mary, good morning to you.

MARY OKO: Good morning, Matt.

MG: When you take a look at these new guidelines, how far do they go in fixing the problems in long term care that we have been talking about and that we saw in tragic detail during the pandemic?

MARY OKO: Well, I think that the guidelines are a good start. It's a good framework, considering that it's guidelines that would be encompassing all long term care homes across Canada. Unfortunately, a lot of these issues existed even before the pandemic. And what the pandemic highlighted was that we don't have one system across Canada. We have 13. So depending on which province or territory you live in, which city or town you live in, or even which type of home you live in, things can be very, very different.

MG: The drive for this is important broadly, but also very personal for you, because I know that your mother died in long term care during the pandemic.

MARY OKO: Yes. Unfortunately and sadly, she was, I would say, a casualty of COVID. She never got COVID, but she suffered immensely because of the isolation, the lockdowns. My mom has advanced Alzheimer's. So any period of having to be stuck in your room 24/7 with little mental and physical stimulation, it took its toll on her.

MG: I'm sorry for that.

MARY OKO: Thank you.

MG: As you watched that unfold, I mean, we've been talking about this idea of patient centred care. Did it feel at all like patient centred care to you?

MARY OKO: Resident.

MG: Pardon me. Resident centred care.

MARY OKO: Yes, residents. Because it is their home.

MG: Yes, absolutely.

MARY OKO: And no, because I agree with Janice. You know, during the pandemic, I felt that, you know, the people that all these things were being impacted in terms of the directives, the rules, everybody was making decisions, but the people that were most impacted, the residents, they never were able to provide their voice. And so it was very frustrating to see that. My mom and the other residents, you know, whenever there was an outbreak, even though she was fully vaccinated, she never got COVID, but she was sent back into her room and having to eat out of Styrofoam containers and lying in her beds 24/7 without any access to any kind of physical and mental stimulation. You know, when the home first got hit with this outbreak, the residents were locked up and no family members were allowed to access them. So, you know, the homes prior to COVID relied heavily on volunteers and family members to provide assistance because of extreme staffing shortages. But when COVID hit, the volunteers and the families were taken away. But there wasn't a miraculous infusion of new staff that were coming into the home because of funding restrictions that could provide assistance. So then the few staff that were there were left to do a lot of work. And so people suffered and my mom suffered.

MG: Janice, staffing has come up a couple of times right now. But why did the guidelines not mandate a certain level of staffing and a number of hours of care for those residents?

JANICE KEEFE: Because I think as Mary has pointed out and Mary, I'm so sorry for your loss and the challenges you as a family member must have experienced, where she pointed out there's been a lack of attention to long term care for many, many years. It's not visible, I think, as much for the public and the health care system. And so why did we not put standards? The long term care is operated differently in each province, and so it's very difficult to latch onto a number without understanding the composition of individuals in the facilities.

MG: But there is a number in the standards. The evidence suggests that an average of 4.1 hours of daily care is required for residents. But that's a suggestion, not a recommendation.

JANICE KEEFE: That's right, because that's actually an older number. In fact, maybe in some cases it should even be higher. So it's very difficult to just say thou shalt do X because there's a lot of issues around staffing mix. Should we have more physio assistance, for example, to help people continue to be mobile, together with more care aides or more registered nurses or licensed practical nurses to be able to provide that care? So it's a whole composite group. The recreation therapists are very important, occupational therapists, all of the allied health need to also be involved in this care.

MG: Mary, you raised the issue of staffing. How do you want to see staffing addressed in this? Because again, we've heard from family members, we've heard from residents and we've heard from personal support workers, from occupational therapists, from a range of people who are working in long term care homes, who also point out that staffing needs to be addressed. And part of this is about paying people more money so that it will be a more attractive profession. What do you want to see when it comes to addressing the staffing issue?

MARY OKO: Well, I would like to see in the ideal world, is that we do have more staff in long term care because a lot of these problems, especially during the pandemic, was attributed because of a lack of staff. You know, it's not the staff's fault when you have say two PSWs for 30 residents. I mean, that's just unheard of in terms of the expectation of being able to get people up, getting them dressed, toileting, getting them fed. We actually paid them a living wage because that also was exposed during the pandemic that, you know, a lot of our staff, not only just the PSWs, but everyone from dietary staff to our cleaners and to our laundry. Because of the staffing mix, they're forced to have to work multiple home just to earn a living wage. So if we were to treat them with respect and pay them a living wage, if we gave them the proper training because the level of care that's needed for residents in long term care has increased. The average age of someone going into a long term care home today, they're in their eighties and they're not just, you know, somebody who's in their eighties, but they might need some additional assistance. Either they've got cognitive issues, they've got physical issues, you know, they're dealing with dementia. So the staff need to be trained about, you know, how to be able to provide the care that these residents need. And again, not just the PSWs and the nurses. It's everyone, because it takes the community to be able to take care of our residents. And so every person plays an integral and important role in the care of the residents so that it is their home. And we talked about, you know, resident centred care. And I'll just give you an example, if I may. You know, there's a resident who she doesn't want to get up in the morning because she likes to sleep in. But because of the staffing issues, sometimes, you know, the residents, whether you want to get up or not, they have to get them set dressed and ready into the dining room at a certain time. Well, if it's really truly resident centred care, that person should be able to get their breakfast whenever they want to. It shouldn't be dictated to them as to when the staff are ready to give them breakfast. It should be the person saying, I'm ready for my breakfast now. Please give it.

MG: Janice, Dr. Samir Sinha, who is a long term advocate for seniors and for better standards in long term care, helped draft the standards. He said they're only useful in some ways if they become the basis of enforcement. These are voluntary guidelines. What good are they if they are voluntary? People wonder whether there are teeth attached to these guidelines.

JANICE KEEFE: I think what we had hoped as a committee helping to develop the standards is that they would become mandatory, that provinces would see the value of adopting these standards for their delivery of care. And with that needs to be funding, of course. And so there has to be some real ownership of the devastating effects and situations in long term care by all levels of government. And I think, you know, it was front and centre during the pandemic, but people easily go back to their own lives and they forget about some of what Mary's talked about around the conditions of work. And, you know, we say in our committee, the conditions of work are the conditions of care. So we need to better pay. We need better benefits. We need ongoing training. Not just a one-time training to get entry, but ongoing training in the facilities to be able to support the care that's provided and enable that resident centred care.

MG: Is any of that likely to happen, though, if it's not mandatory? And Ontario has already said that it's not really interested in these because it believes it has kind of a gold standard of care. So if that jurisdiction is already saying No, thank you, can the standards actually mean much if they aren't truly enforced?

JANICE KEEFE: Well, I think that they can be used as a comparative point. I don't know that Ontario, well, I won't get into different provinces, but I think they really do need to take a closer look and look at these standards being outcome focussed. We're really looking at how we can improve long term care and lay out some pretty detailed guidelines to enable that to happen. It could be considered required if all homes were required to be accredited. That would be one way forward for sure.

MG: Terry Lake is the CEO of B.C. Care Providers Association. This is an organization representing care homes. Have a listen to his thoughts about the new guidelines and I'll get your reaction.

SOUNDCLIP

TERRY LAKE: Most long term care is supported by taxpayers through provincial and territorial governments. And so without increased investment on the part of government, it will be impossible for many homes to meet these standards. They simply don't have the newer homes available to provide a level of care that the standards call for. So it will require a lot of investment in both infrastructure and in people to make sure we have a workforce that can work in long term care and provide the necessary services.

MG: Mary, The federal government has budgeted something like $3 billion to better improve long term care. The Parliamentary Budget Office says that fixing long term care will cost almost $14 billion a year. We're almost out of time, but briefly, from your perspective, what's it going to take to make sure that what we are talking about actually comes to pass, that these standards become a reality in Canada?

MARY OKO: I feel that the guidelines have to be legislated because without legislation and without a link between the funding and what the funding will actually be used, they're just nice to haves because homes that are working will always work towards what they're forced to do. And as families who put our loved ones in the care of these homes, we would like to have some comfort to know that what are the rules? Are people following the rules? If they're not following the rules, then are they being held accountable and are they being penalized? Because that is not the case. And, you know, I would dispute the Ontario government comment that they have the gold standard because even with this gold standard, you know, rules are not enforced equally across all the homes in long term care. And so at the end of the day, residents suffer and families suffer. You know, it's very frustrating for us as a community to know that, you know, there's nothing we can do. We can raise our complaints. Maybe an inspector will come and do an inspection and then nothing happens. And the cycle continues and continues. Without legislation, without any teeth, it's useless.

MG: Janice, we're just about out of time. But again, at the worst of this, when the army was being called in, when we heard these appalling stories coming out of those homes, we talked about this idea of a reckoning when it came to how we as a society treat our elders. Is this the reckoning, do you think, that people were calling for?

JANICE KEEFE: I think it is. And I couldn't agree more that it should be mandatory. We need to look at residents as people. We need to think about what we want when we go to long term care. We really need to understand that these are real people, real lives, and we have to put some funding behind that so that they have a meaningful quality of life in our country.

MG: This is incredibly important conversation that we have had over the course of this pandemic, and I'm sure we'll come back to it. In the meantime, thank you both for being here this morning.

JANICE KEEFE: Thanks very much for bringing attention to this.

MARY OKO: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Mary Oko is former chair of the Family Council at Copernicus Lodge, a long term care home in Toronto. She's also an advocate for long term care reform. Janice Keefe is a member of the Health Standards Organization and director of the Nova Scotia Centre on Ageing. Would love to hear from you on this. Do you think anything will change in the wake of the release of these standards? Email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. Your CBC news is next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

The world is changing fast and you better get on board with that. And if you had the right tools and opportunities to help each other, it’s not that big of a scare.

MG: I’ll speak with three energy workers in Alberta about the shift away from fossil fuels and the concept of a just transition. It is a loaded phrase. What does it mean to them? You'll find out coming up in 6 minutes. My name is Matt Galloway and this is The Current on CBC Radio One. Stick around.

[Music: Theme]

WORKER PANEL

Guests: Chad Miller, Amanda Hall, Ken Wallace

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the Welcome Corps is a new refugee program in the United States. It's taking a page out of Canada's book by using private sponsors for refugees. In just under 30 minutes, what we could teach the Americans and how we could improve on our own refugee sponsorship program. But first, making sense of a just transition.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

DANIELLE SMITH: When I hear the words just transition, it signals eliminating jobs. And for Alberta, that is a non-starter.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Energy workers that we rely on, the natural resource workers will continue to be essential parts of our economy moving forward, and this government will always be there to recognize their work and to support them into a world that is changing.

MG: Those are Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Over the past few weeks, we have heard plenty from politicians and pundits about the so-called just transition. This spring, the Federal Government is expected to introduce a new bill that it says will help oil and gas workers move into green energy jobs. It hasn't even been tabled yet, but there is already a lot of debate. And so joining me now with their perspective are three people who actually work in this industry. Chad Miller is a pipeline facilities consultant and founder of a Facebook group called Oilfield Dads. Ken Wallace is a geologist who recently returned to the oil and gas industry. And Amanda Hall is a geophysicist who previously worked in the oil and gas industry. She's now CEO of the Lithium Company Summit Nanotech. Good morning, everyone.

AMANDA HALL: Good morning, Matt.

KEN WALLACE: Good morning.

CHAD MILLER: Good morning.

MG: Ken Wallace, when Danielle Smith says that she hears the term just transition, to her, that is a code phrase for eliminating jobs. What does that phrase mean to you, Ken?

KEN WALLACE: I think it means just keeping up with the times and providing the jobs that are necessary for the economy. The thing is that there needs to be alternate jobs to go to. And as long as those jobs exist, then everyone can stay employed and we can continue to work.

MG: Okay. I want to talk more about that in a moment. Chad, from your perspective, it’s a bit of a loaded phrase. When you hear that phrase just transition, from your perspective, but also from the perspective of other folks in your oilfield dads Facebook group, what comes to mind?

CHAD MILLER: Oh, well, from the blue collar side of it, it is quite worrisome because a lot of people don't see it for what it's worth. They're focussed on the blue collar jobs out there that mean that we're transitioning away from oil and gas. I think that’s the wrong term to use actually, just transition because we are transitioning already into renewable resources as well and innovative technology. So I think the terminology is not the right word for a lot of people to take in because it's a loaded question for sure.

MG: What do you think better terminology would be?

CHAD MILLER: That's a good question as well. Well, we are most definitely transitioning into a greener future. You know, Alberta is 10% on renewable resources already and 89% of it is from fossil fuels. But I think that we are on track in the next few years to become quite more energy efficient with the carbon capture and whatnot. So I think the terminology would be, you know, adapt, adapt into change I guess is what we're doing.

MG: I want to talk more about what that might look like for workers like you. But from Amanda, your perspective, when you hear that just transition phrase and again, it's being debated whether that's the phrase that will be applied to this bill or not is another matter entirely. But what does that phrase mean to you?

AMANDA HALL: Interestingly, it made me smile the first time I saw it or heard it because it's exactly what I did. It was a leap of faith to leave the oil and gas sector and enter the lithium world. But I just did it and I just transitioned. So for me, it was a very action oriented terminology, and I think it's fantastic. The oil and gas sector, there's always going to be workers going into that sector, but there's another growing market out there that we can just join.

MG: Tell us just briefly your own story. I mean, you made the move from the oil and gas industry. Tell me about making that decision, because that's a big change.

AMANDA HALL: It was a big change. And it was very strategic for me. I was a single mom and I was looking at my future in oil and gas and climbing through the managerial ladders that we're all in front of me. And I decided just to give it all up and start my own company. So I sold my house, started summit nanotech, and started looking into developing technology to do a better job of extracting lithium from the ground based on everything I learned in the oil and gas sector, of course. And, you know, we stand on the shoulders of giants. I wouldn't be where I am today without 18 years of having dirt on my work boots in the oil and gas sector and in the potash mining sector. So I have a lot of respect and there's a lot of value that came out of that sector. But for me, transitioning was the best thing I've ever done. It opened up a whole new world globally for my career. I built a company, I've got 70 employees right now and we're still growing. And we're based in Calgary, Alberta, in the heart of oil and gas.

MG: Was there a moment in your career that was kind of like that light bulb moment where you thought, I need to take a different path. I don't know what the path is going to be. And as you said, sell your house. I mean, these are huge life changes, but something that twigged to you that this was the time and this was the moment?

AMANDA HALL: Yes. Actually, I was in Tibet at the top of a mountain in a monastery, and I saw a monk pull a cell phone out of his robe. And it was just like mind blowing in that moment for me. And I knew the future of energy was going to be extremely different. And so I noodled on it for about another year and still drilling heavy oil wells as a career. And then one day I just said, okay, I'm done. I want to be on the new energy path and I just did it.

MG: That's quite an image to think about, being in Tibet with the monk in front of you pulling their cell phone out.

AMANDA HALL: Yes.

MG: Chad, how long have you been working in this field?

CHAD MILLER: 25 years. It's kind of funny how she mentioned that about transitioning. And I did, so to speak. I was always investing in myself every time. We went through a boom and bust cycle.

MG: Yeah.

CHAD MILLER: But we went from a recession turned a depression turned pandemic. And, you know, climbing out of that, you have to adapt and change. And with transitioning, I myself was transitioning into different fields of interest. I wear many hats. I'm a journeyman pipefitter, a heavy equipment operator. I've done safety as well. And, you know, every time there's a downturn, we always have to look at ourselves and how can we adapt and change and transition into something different that could benefit our future? And I think that's what I've been trying to tell my group as well. We're so focussed on going to work and coming home to feed our families. Sometimes we have to take a step back as well as a mindset to reflect on where we are going to go into the future and how we can contribute into these renewable resources and get into a different profession to help the economy grow and thus be prosperous.

MG: What's the conversation like on the Facebook group Oilfield Dads?

CHAD MILLER: Well, the conversation is just that when you hear the transition bill, a lot of us think that face values like you're never going to get rid of the oil and gas industry. How can you stop that suncor and Syncrude, these gas plants and whatnot we have in the oilsands? there's always going to be maintenance. There's always going to be oil and gas for quite some time. And I think everybody thinking that we're going to shut the taps off by 2030 is not the case. I think you have to look at it as where we're going as an industry. I think we're the top leading industry out there that contributes to net zero. You know, if it wasn't for oil and gas, we wouldn't be able to have these innovative technologies to prove that net zero would be possible. So I think a lot of people are misinformed. And if they educate a little bit more on the opportunities that are there, I think a lot more people will be at ease.

MG: One of the reasons why people say that 2030 deadline or, you know, dates in and around there are necessary and that you have to accelerate towards that is because of climate change and that that is the driver that has to push whatever you want to call it, whether it's a just transition, whether it's renewable jobs, sustainable jobs, etc. Do you share that concern about that urgency and the need for that urgency?

CHAD MILLER: You know, as myself, I I'm a guy that looks at what I can control and what I can't control. I know back in the day when I was riding down the road with my parents and you through something out of the window, you didn't think anything about it. But nowadays, you don't do that. You know, you make sure that you're more conscious about the environment because, you know, as a whole, we are a wasteful species. We waste food. You know, fashion is the biggest contributor to waste as well. So I think looking at what we can control and what we can't control is the biggest factor that I look at. And I'm sad that I can't control what's going on in the rest of the world. So I think it's a big factor in how we look at climate.

MG: What about for you, Ken? I mean, how big of a concern is climate change in your world?

KEN WALLACE: I mean, it's certainly a consideration. You know, we hear about it on the news all the time. It's really hard to ignore it. But also, we have this energy challenge that we have to meet, right? We have this life that we've created for ourselves in the Western world. And we really like it. And a lot of the rest of the world also really wants what we have. And they're going to need a lot more energy than we have right now to meet those needs. And sure, we can try to get a lot of that renewable energy, but a lot of that still needs to come from fossil fuels as well. And even in the process of creating the methods to capture, transmit and store that energy, we need a lot of non-renewable resources to go with that. We need to mine a lot more metals than we've already mined, more than we've ever mined as a civilization, and that's going to use a lot of fossil fuels in the process. So this is a long term game and we're going to have to be realistic about it. That's just our reality. And so when we mined all the copper we need for the wind turbines and solar panels and the electric wiring, we're going to need a lot more of everything to go with this.

MG: Where are you working right now?

KEN WALLACE: So I currently work at an oil sands mine north of Fort McMurray. I came here about six months ago. My career started in oil and gas in Calgary and I worked in Calgary for about 12 years. And about 2019, I started making the change to mineral exploration. And in that time, I worked for junior exploration companies looking for copper, gold and silver namely, in projects all over Canada. And that was really great experience for me. But the opportunity came back to me to come back to oil and gas, this time in mining. And I think it's a really great time to be at the oil sands mine because if I ever need to be doing another mining job, I have these transferable skills in all the different areas that I just described.

MG: Were you surprised that you came back?

KEN WALLACE: Yes. Yes. I am surprised. I didn't expect it. When I was in 2019 making this transition to mineral exploration, I thought that I had lost the petroleum geology musical chairs, and that there was never going to be a chair for me again. But things have gotten more active again in the petroleum industry. And to be honest, I'm glad to be back.

MG: What do you love about the work that you do that somebody on the outside might not understand? What is it that you love about that work?

KEN WALLACE: What I love is the exploration and production aspects of it, you know, creating value, enhancing people's lives with energy. This may sound corny, but I feel like I'm doing my part to solve the world's energy challenges.

MG: You said something really interesting, Amanda, before, and it picks up a bit on what Ken's talking about. You said that you respect and value the work of people who are in the oil and gas sector right now. Why is that important for you to say?

AMANDA HALL: Oh, absolutely. And I think Ken's touching on something really important too, is that oil and gas production won't stop. It can't stop. And so what we need to do as an industry is get the footprint of that barrel of oil down to as lower carbon footprint as possible. And that's what Alex Pourbaix was talking about recently, the CEO of Cenovus. When he was interviewed about the just transition bill, he said, look, this is inspiring people, innovative people to use clean technology and use new methods to bring down our carbon footprint in the oil and gas sector. And it's a beautiful thing to see. And they're doing the exact same thing in mining. So like where I'm mining down in South America, we're looking into building solar fields and using wind energy and using electric vehicles and lowering our footprint as much as possible. I think that's the only way we can do resource extraction in the future.

MG: Do you think that's possible? Because people who want a more accelerated transition, again, that word, will say that that's not possible to do. That you can't do both, that we have to figure out a way to move faster because there is no lighter footprint, if I can put it that way.

AMANDA HALL: We have to do both. It's kind of like when you go off a medication and get on to a new one, you have to taper off the old one and like ramp up the new one. And that's what's going to happen with oil and gas. Like the population of the world is growing. We can't stop supplying energy, especially in a country like Canada where we freeze to death. Renewables can't come on fast enough to bridge that gap. So we have to continue working on innovations in the oil and gas sector while we transition and ramp up the renewables.

MG: These are well-paying jobs. And one of the concerns that you hear, Amanda, is that perhaps the green jobs, whatever the jobs that will be transitioned to, may not pay as well. It's tricky to ask people about money, but have you had to make a financial sacrifice in leaving that industry?

AMANDA HALL: No, not at all. And in fact, I do compensation surveys with my team continuously. And we use a peg a pay scale, same as oil and gas sector does for geoscientists and engineers, and we pay the exact same rates as they would. So it's no different.

MG: Chad, is that a concern that you hear in the Facebook group, that the people worry that the jobs that will exist down the line may not be as good as the jobs that people are in right now?

CHAD MILLER: I think a lot of it is challenging on their own aspect as you have to educate yourself, you have to go back to school. So I know a lot of these jobs. I see them. You know, you have to go back to university or get your master's degree. I know myself, I had to go back to get a trade and whatnot. But a lot of people are concerned about is that job going to be there for them? Obviously, they're blue collar guys who are not necessarily educated enough to get into that. So I think a lot of it stems on that. And then it ties into a bit of mental health. And a lot of people are worried. And with Oilfield Dads, it's a group of camaraderie and mental health to help people get through this transition, so to speak. And with that is it comes full circle. Wasn't how I built it.

MG: So can you talk a bit more about that? Because this is one of the concerns that's been raised. A lot is tied up in your work. It can be a way to keep the lights on, obviously, but a lot of people's identity gets rolled into work as well. What are the mental health concerns that people are raising to you about the fact that these jobs could be on the chopping block?

CHAD MILLER: You know, it goes for everybody's psyche, you know, imposter syndrome. Am I good enough to be here? I know when the boom and bust happened, a lot of baby boomers as well as is, you know, are we good enough? Did I educate myself enough? Look at the Ontario Factory workers for auto. If you do one job for many, many years and you don't know how to transition out, you're going to have that imposter syndrome. If you did enough, then that's where that mental health comes in. And, you know, I partner with Kim. Kim has a retreatment centre to help people get over that fact of anxiety and overwhelming, this, you know, the world is changing fast and you better get on board with that. And if you have the right tools and opportunities to help each other, it’s starts to be that big of a scare. So when we say transition, you know, we are already transitioning every day. It's just a matter of how you look at it. And you can only control what you can control and look forward to helping yourself mentally and as well as educationally to get into the fields that you might enjoy. You know, it doesn't necessarily mean your oil and gas job is going to be gone. You might just transition to help carbon capture. And you already know how to do this a bit. So just educate yourself and your mindset is where the biggest key is for a lot of people.

MG: Is this something that personally you yourself have been looking into, kind of what might be next for you?

CHAD MILLER: You know what actually, it is exactly that. Amanda said she transitioned out. And I myself, I've been trying to transition out of oil and gas for quite some time because it's too volatile of an industry. But as soon as we leave, a lot of people leave the industry, we have a big gap of people when we get the boom. So I've transitioned out to kind of the tech side. I'm actually building a game called Rig Kings, and it's actually a drilling game. And it's teaching people and bridges the gap from fun to fundamentally educational, the lingo of how we extract oil from the ground. And hopefully, where it's going here can allow safety companies and opportunities for other oil and gas companies to come in to help get accredited tickets to get into the industry, to help get back in and fill that void that we might have. And also, you know, educate people on that renewable resources and how we can go from maybe diesel electric to natural gas and whatnot and carbon credits, so to speak.

MG: That's really interesting. Amanda, What if you pick up on a bit of what Chad is saying? What do you want to see from governments to make that transition if it's coming and if it's coming sooner rather than later to make it easier on people who are in the industry so they don't feel that anxiety that Chad was talking about?

AMANDA HALL: Yeah. I think this bill is positioned to be just what Chad’s talking about, just a safety net below you as you transition from one sector to another. And in terms of mental health, like I used to call it, the oil and gas yoyo, the boom and bust cycles where, you know, year by year there was blood baths in the streets, with layoffs, with the price of oil dipping. And then a year later, it would go back up to 100 bucks a barrel and everyone would get rehired. It just was so traumatic. So that mental stress and strain on a family is unbelievable. So when you join the renewable sector, you've got a clear path forward with no yoyo. So I think the government can support the transition. We've gotten grants to transition people out of oil and gas and into the lithium space. And everything we do in my sector is drilling completions, re injection infrastructure. It's all the exact same. It's just using your brain differently and making almost a mental transition into clean tech instead of old energy.

MG: Ken, the CEO of Cenovus, I mean, Amanda referenced this, says that there's going to be something like 35,000 jobs that could be created through this transition. What do you want to see from government to help make this an easier move?

KEN WALLACE: What I would like to see is the government encourage more companies like Amanda's company, because she is one of a handful of companies in Calgary in the lithium space. The rest are junior exploration companies with very small budgets that don't have full year employment for their employees. So it's a very difficult transition to make because you may work through a busy summer and then have no work in the winter. So what I would like the government to do is to encourage more of these companies so that there are more jobs for people to go to. And those jobs hopefully would be all year round, long term and attractive for people to go to. And I'm not saying that I wouldn't be interested to go to Amanda's company because it sounds like a really great company, but I'm sure she only has maybe a dozen geologists.

AMANDA HALL: We’re hiring.

KEN WALLACE: That's amazing. We should take this offline.

MG: And here we are. See, it's a connecting point there. Somebody gets a job out of this conversation. I mean, no, but your point is well taken. I mean, people may not know and people might feel better about what's coming if they know that those jobs exist, right?

KEN WALLACE: Yeah, absolutely. And like I mentioned at the very beginning of the program, the jobs need to be there for people to want to change. And the mineral exploration industry is full of junior companies that don't have long lifespans. And they don't have long programs in the sense of if they work, say, in British Columbia or Yukon, they may only work from June to October. And so they require a seasonal staff. And that's not what most of us are looking for. And also because of that timeframe, then they need the staff for very long stretches during that period in the sense of they may need you for three or four weeks at a time and then they give you a week break because they're understaffed too. And that's really tough on a family like my family when I was doing that. And I'm not saying I would never go back to that, but what I have now is better because I have predictability. I don't work Monday to Friday like I used to in Calgary, but I work seven days on seven days off. And my family knows exactly which days I'll be home and which days I'm away. And that's all year round. It's so much more sustainable for my family.

MG: Chad, just before I let you all go, I mean, what do you want Canadians to know about the work that you're doing, but also what the people who are in that industry that you hear from through the Facebook group, what they are going through right now?

CHAD MILLER: Just like I said, there's a lot of uncertainty. And you look at it as a glass half full type of mentality. You know, in Alberta especially, we have more entrepreneurial people out here with small businesses and subcontractors. There's like I said, the blue collars that are just employees that are looking at how can I get these minerals? Or, you know, maybe they don't want to start a business, it’d be too scary. How can we get into being part of this? And I think, like I keep reiterating it, is educate yourself just a bit. And little bit by a little bit, you can most definitely be part of this transition a little bit or a lot. But I think with the Alberta government or even the federal is giving them opportunities and the resources to show how step by step, how you can get involved. Just as my wife always says, just take little bites and take it for what it's worth and the opportunities will come for you. It's just a matter of if you want to change.

MG: I'm really glad to talk to you all about this. This is really important. And maybe as this unfolds, we will check back in down the line. In the meantime, thanks for taking time to speak with us.

CHAD MILLER: Thank you so much.

AMANDA HALL: Thanks so much.

KEN WALLACE: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Chad Miller is a pipeline facilities consultant, founder of the Facebook group Oilfield Dads. Ken Wallace is a geologist who recently returned to the oil and gas industry. Amanda Hall is a geophysicist who left that industry to create her own lithium company. She's founder and CEO of Summit Nanotech. If you are in that oil and gas sector and this conversation resonates with you, we'd love to hear from you. You can reach us through email: thecurrent@cbc.ca. Coming up after your regional update, the U.S. government is calling it the Welcome corps. It's a new program for private citizens to sponsor refugees. Does it sound familiar? It should because it's something we've been doing in Canada for decades. We'll talk about what we could teach the United States, concerns around long term support, but also what we need to do here to make our program better. That's coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

U.S. REFUGEE PROGRAM

Guests: Mark Hetfield, Brian Dyck, Ratna Omidvar

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

SOUNDCLIP

ANTONY BLINKEN: Providing a safe haven and a new home for people fleeing war, violence and persecution is one of America's noblest traditions. Building on this proud tradition, the State Department is launching the Welcome Corps, a private sponsorship program that will harness the generosity and goodwill of American citizens to resettle refugees. For over four decades, our system has relied primarily on resettlement agencies to do this work. Under this new initiative, people and communities, faith based organizations, colleges and universities, veterans associations and other groups will be able to play that role.

MG: That's U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announcing a new refugee resettlement program in that country. It's called, as you heard, the Welcome Corps, and it will allow private citizens to sponsor refugees. Very similar to the system we have here in Canada. When the pilot project launches in a few months, ordinary Americans will take on the financial and logistical needs for settling newcomers. One of the groups looking to take part in this program is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, or HIAS. It's a non-profit refugee resettlement and aid program. Mark Hetfield is the president and CEO. Marc, good morning.

MARK HETFIELD: Thank you. Good morning.

MG: How long has the sponsorship program in Canada been on your radar?

MARK HETFIELD: Forever. We've always envied Canada for having this alternative way to welcome refugees. And so we're really glad that the United States is now embracing it.

MG: And so how, as you understand it, will this impact the work that you're already doing with refugees?

MARK HETFIELD: Well, for HIAS, it will impact it in the following way. Right now, HIAS runs a traditional refugee resettlement program with the US government. We're one of the nine national resettlement agencies, six of which are faith based. And we have a national network across the country of Jewish family service agencies, and we resettle refugees through those partnerships. The problem is that we only have 25 of them. We're a big country. 50 states, many metro areas. And there's so much excitement in the Jewish community about welcoming refugees. And we have congregations and individuals and groups all over the country that would like to welcome refugees. And prior to this, we could only do so through those 25 sites that we have. Now, any place where we have a congregation or a small group of people or interfaith groups who want to welcome refugees, they can form their own welcome circle under the auspices of HIAS, and then work with the U.S. government to privately sponsor these refugees and welcome them into their communities.

MG: This is a pilot program and it hopes to enlist, as I understand it, something like 10,000 private sponsors to resettle some 5000 refugees by the end of the year. What do you make of those numbers?

MARK HETFIELD: Well, we're trying to work to an overall refugee admissions number of 125,000 for the coming year. That's the goal that the president set for the last couple of years. We have not come close to making it, frankly, because the refugee resettlement system was so eviscerated under the previous administration. So we're trying to build it back. And frankly, private sponsorship is one way to increase our capacity.

MG: How many people is your team alone hoping to sponsor through the program?

MARK HETFIELD: It's a good question. And we're really not numbers driven on this. But if we can sponsor in the hundreds of refugees, we consider it to be an accomplishment. But we're really not numbers driven. We want this program to work. And so we're trying to set it up for success. And then, of course, it is being done one congregation and one refugee family at a time.

MG: I was just going to say that idea of, you know, one step at a time and the fact that you actually do want it to work, because there's a lot at stake here. What are you hoping to learn from aid groups or sponsors here in Canada about their experience with a private program?

MARK HETFIELD: Well, there's a lot that we need to learn. You know, for one thing, how do we ensure that refugees are undergoing a consistent experience? How do we make sure that boundaries are appropriately set between sponsors and the refugees whom they welcome? And how do we make sure that the sponsor groups are actually trying to facilitate independence and self-reliance by the refugees rather than dependence? Right? So these are all things that I think we have a lot to learn on.

MG: Let me bring a voice into our conversation who may be helping with that learning. Brian Dyck is National Migration and Resettlement program coordinator for Mennonite Central Committee Canada. He's in Winnipeg. Brian, good morning to you.

BRIAN DYCK: Good morning, Matt.

MG: You were involved in helping to shape this American program, such as it is right now. When you got the call that the United States government was hoping to start a program similar to what we have in here when it comes to private refugee sponsorship, what was your reaction?

BRIAN DYCK: Well, it was a bit of fear, actually. I've helped through the refugee hub at the University of Ottawa to work with states and NGOs around the world to think about how a Canadian-like system could be implemented in various places. But the U.S. is big and they're the big player in terms of resettlement. So it was kind of daunting. But I did say yes to a Refugee Hub. And so I spent about six to eight months kind of working part time as a consultant to some groups like HIAS in the United States to help them think through how you set up something like this.

MG: Aside from the scale, how different is this pilot project in the United States from what we have here?

BRIAN DYCK: Well, I mean, in many ways, it's similar. I mean, we're dealing with people in communities who have no experience with working with refugees or very little, welcoming refugees. And so the fundamentals are the same. And in fact, what we did at the beginning is very much look at material that had been developed here in Canada and just adapted it a little bit, you know, changed the spelling of some words and things like that. And a lot of it really transferred quite similarly.

MG: What is it that we can teach our folks and friends south of the border? Because this program, I mean, we talk a lot about it when it comes to the current crisis in Afghanistan and obviously, what was happening in Syria. But this came out of the emergency in 79 with the arrival of Vietnamese refugees. So what is it that we've learned here in that time that we can send down to the United States?

BRIAN DYCK: Well, I think that one of the things that we have both in U.S. and Canada is we have these two parallel programs in Canada. We have a system where the government supports, government assisted refugees. They have a system like that. And then there's this private sponsorship program that's been alongside of it since 1979. And how you think about how those two work together, what different roles they play. I mean, that's one of the things that we've tried to and we continue to struggle with here in Canada. And I think that as the U.S. starts this up, they'll have to think about how the different models of settlement work together. And I think Mark’s points about, you know, how do you make sure that these groups have a consistent way of processing the consistence experience in different models, and consistent with the HIAS and other agencies, traditional settlement services? It is a really important thing that we struggle with. And I look forward to struggling with them on that as well.

MG: Just tell me a little bit more about that in terms of what you've learned specifically about ensuring that those who arrive here, that are sponsored to come here have, I'll use the phrase that you both have used, a consistent experience, that, you know, the initial sponsorship doesn't simply then just drop off and people are left on their own to sink or swim.

BRIAN DYCK: Yeah. I think that the government in Canada has looked at how we, they oversee this program. And that's been a challenge particularly in the last little bit. But it's an important thing. It's important that we as Mennonite Central Committee and other sponsorship agreement holders in Canada take our commitments seriously. We have an agreement with the government to make sure that these people settle in. And so we work with the groups that are doing the hands on settlement and making sure that they know what they need to know, that they are doing these sort of things. Again, Mark mentioned. Making sure that they are not building a sense of dependency, but supporting them. And I think that one of the things that the private sponsorship in Canada and in the U.S. as it develops will do is it allows more players to be involved. And that really strengthens, I think, the whole system.

MG: Mark, is the sense from your community that people understand, to Brian's point, the longevity, the depth of that commitment, that it's not just the initial sponsorship piece, but that it's about ensuring that people settle, that they survive and thrive here?

MARK HETFIELD: Well, yes. We're certainly coming to that understanding because we did have kind of a trial run, a pilot run of this pilot project during the evacuation of Afghanistan, where 80,000 Afghans were brought here, evacuated here to the United States. Not through the refugee program, but through something called humanitarian parole. And that's when we first formed welcome circles across the United States to assist with their integration, because we and the other resettlement agencies simply could not absorb, could not integrate all 80,000 of them quickly enough. So we used this initially as an experiment. It worked well. We learned a lot from it. And then we applied a similar approach to Ukrainian parolees who are paroled into this country. And now we finally get to use it in the context of the refugee program. So this is actually our third pilot of this pilot, but this one is for real.

MG: There's a lot of excitement around this. One of the concerns that's been raised over time is that in some ways it allows government to pass this responsibility off to private sponsors. Do you worry that government gets a pass on this as opposed to taking care of and being responsible for this important issue of resettling refugees itself?

MARK HETFIELD: It's a good question. I think it's a great complement to the traditional refugee program, but it is definitely not a replacement and shouldn't be a threat. I hope that certain politicians don't try to…

MG: I wonder which politicians you're thinking of there. But continue.

MARK HETFIELD: I know. Slip of the tongue there. Don't try to privatize the refugee resettlement program entirely.

MG: Is that a real worry though? Is that a real worry for you?

MARK HETFIELD: Everything is a real worry for me these days. Anything is possible. But I do know that over the long term, our standing refugee resettlement program has the best capacity to respond to refugee crises. This private sponsorship program is particularly good when there are emergencies that raise the attention of the public to a refugee crisis such as with Afghanistan or with Ukraine or with Syria. But when we're talking about refugees who are coming through the normal flow, through the normal resettlement program, it's really good to have this standing capacity that the government program provides.

MG: Bryan, how real is that concern that private sponsorship becomes a way in some ways for governments to avoid what they really should be doing?

BRIAN DYCK: Well, I mean, that was a discussion back in 79. And while some parties were hesitant to get involved in this space, the agency I worked for, Mennonite Central Committee, jumped in and said, We've got to do something and we can do more. And the 1976 Immigration Act had a provision for this. And so we got in there and other agencies got in there and we did amazing things. 60,000 people from Southeast Asia in the space of 18 months and half of them were sponsored. And, you know, Mark is right. This is a type of program that works well in moments like that. And in 2015, 16, when people were saying, we've got to do more about Syria, it's also, I think in Canada, been well integrated into the whole system. So that the question of is this an addition is are we taking this over? Is not as significant a question anymore because different parts of the program play different roles. And this program, because it has this ability to name people, has been Canada's family reunification program where, you know, refugees are brought here maybe through the government or other channels, and then they still have family and friends. They care about who are refugees. And this allows them to do that. So it's played that role, but it is also a tool for people getting involved in times when this is really in the front of the public imagination.

MG: I'll let you both go. But Mark, just briefly, what does it tell you about… these are tough times and people talk about polarization and people not agreeing on almost anything. But what does it tell you that in your community and beyond, there is a real desire for people to throw themselves into this work?

MARK HETFIELD: Oh, absolutely. I have to say, there are two sides to the polarization coin. You know, the positive side is that we have more enthusiastic support for refugees than ever before. The bad news is that we also have more opposition to refugees and more xenophobia than ever before. Both of those things are our current reality. And we're hoping that this program will be one way to bridge those two, that divide.

MG: Glad to talk to you both about this and the best of luck to you. Mark, thank you very much.

MARK HETFIELD: Thank you.

MG: And Brian, thank you.

BRIAN DYCK: Thanks. Thanks very much.

MG: Mark Hetfield is president and CEO of HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. He's in Silver Springs, Maryland. And Brian Dyck is the National Migration and Resettlement program coordinator for Mennonite Central Committee Canada. He was in Winnipeg. Ratna Omidvar is an independent Canadian senator for Ontario. She has been involved in this work for many, many years and she's been listening in to our conversation. Senator Omidvar, good morning to you.

RATNA OMIDVAR: Good morning, Matt. Thank you for having me on this.

MG: Thank you for being here. When you heard that the United States was going to launch a private refugee sponsorship program and was hoping to learn from what we have been doing here, what went through your mind?

RATNA OMIDVAR: Well, a couple of things went through my mind. Mostly positive. It's a real relief to have the United States step back into its rightful place in the global displacement crisis. You know, they're starting off with a modest number of 125,000 refugees, but it does bring them closer to their original aspirations. You know, if you go to the Statue of Liberty as I do, I always read those words carefully. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I would lift my lamp beside the golden door. They have actually not been doing that since 2016, when, under President Trump, the refugee numbers dwindled to, I think, a handful. Taking the United States from the country that resettled the most refugees to the bottom of the heap. So this is a huge piece of good news.

MG: As you understand it, what's going to be different from what we have here?

RATNA OMIDVAR: Well, it's a smaller program. It's smaller in scope, scale, ambition. And maybe that is okay because they're starting off. But, you know, 5000 sponsored refugees over the next year, I think that's a good objective to target. I'm worried about the level of support, which is I believe American sponsors have to support their families for three months. We have to support our families for a full year. They have to raise, I believe, $2,250. My goodness! Matt, when I sponsored the original family of 12, we had to have 27 to $28000 in the bank. So I think the ambition and the scope and scale is different. But, you know, I'm going to be hopeful and say this is a step in the right direction.

MG: You said you were mostly positive. Is there anything else that you're concerned about aside from that support issue?

RATNA OMIDVAR: Yeah. I'm concerned about the politics in the United States. This program has been launched by presidential order. And we know that presidents in the United States come and go and presidential orders come and go. So I'm a little worried about the short amount of time the United States has given this program to take root and be embraced by the people of the United States.

MG: When we take a look at what's happening here, as I mentioned, we've had a private sponsorship program in Canada for over four decades now. What would you like to see that would strengthen what we have here in this moment?

RATNA OMIDVAR: Well, we have a really, you know, an excellent program that is the envy of the world. And I should add that this replication, adaptation of a Canadian good idea with very long legs has not happened accidentally. You know, I think full credit needs to be given to Professor John Bond of Carleton, who took up the mantle and said, I'm going to spread this good idea to the U.K., to Germany, to Spain, to Argentina, and now to the U.S. Having said that, our program could do with some tender loving care. Let me put it this way. It has become overly clunky. It has become bureaucratic. The timelines, the waiting periods are incredibly long, as long as two or three years. One crisis always overtakes another, so the timelines get longer and longer. And in non-crisis countries, there's a lot of red tape. You know, there are gatekeepers. Now there are even audits. So all of this, you know, maybe I'm being nostalgic. I hark back to what I know happened in 1978 where people organically got together, found each other, raised the money, found the refugee family, settled them and got them to work. In the meantime, there's a very, very long wait between finding your refugee, applying for them, and waiting to get the approval for them to travel.

MG: Well, and that clunkiness matters because we're seeing private sponsor groups like the Anglican dioceses in British Columbia leave the program. They say that the paperwork and to your point, the audits stretch their resources. They can't handle that. Individuals have echoed this. What are you worried about when it comes to that?

RATNA OMIDVAR: Well, I'm actually precisely worried about that. There is a canary in the coal mine. And I'm certainly hoping that the government listens and sort of puts its mind together, you know, with new voices. You know, I have to tell you. I just met a wonderful young man. His name is Victor Lal. He's an Oxford graduate. He swims across Lake Ontario. He bikes across Canada from small town to small town to small town talking about refugee sponsorships. He's maybe the new kind of person we need to have in the mix to update with technology, the matching, the facilitating the arrival of refugees. I think the system we have perhaps is a little last decade.

MG: Why do you think that is? I mean, I ask you this as somebody who's been involved in this for a long time. And it's not just nostalgia to look back at what happened at 79 in the face of people thought there would be great opposition to this. And Canadians, for the most part, leaned into this from leadership on down. What's different now? Why have we complicated it?

RATNA OMIDVAR: Well, you know, I'm in government, so I understand the complications of transparency, of accountability, of risk, all of these things together. Every time you have more regulations, like right now with the audits of the Anglican Church in B.C., you have more due diligence. You have more admissibility criteria. You can't sponsor a refugee unless they have biometrics, what have you. You know, everything. And I think I've talked to you about this before. Protocols have become impregnable fortresses. It's very hard to climb over them and get into them. And if there is one hope I have is that we start taking a look at what must be and what can be used at discretion and what should be put aside completely.

MG: Do you know how many Canadians have been involved in the sponsorship program over this time?

RATNA OMIDVAR: I do. It is an incredible number for a country of 37 point something million people. There are close to 2 to 3 million people who are sponsors. There are another 25% of Canadians who know somebody who has been a private sponsor. I know that wherever I go in Canada, I can find a sponsor and have a cup of coffee with them because there is an experience that holds us together.

MG: How do you think that that has become part of our story, of the fabric of the country?

RATNA OMIDVAR: I think this has become a new way, a new approach to nation building. You know, I mean, we always talk about the building of the railroad east to west in the 1800s, and that was nation building that we took great pride in. And we ought to talk about our health care system as something that holds our nation together. As we know, our health care system is sitting in an emergency room right now waiting for treatment and diagnosis. The private sponsorship program is a people to people connection, and I think it sort of creates the glue that brings the emotional distances between people together. Not just refugees and sponsors, but sponsors and sponsors. So it's kind of a new idea. And because it's done so well in Canada, I do believe it sits right up there in terms of how do we hold this country together? With all our differences, with all our diversities, how do we have common experiences that we can share in and celebrate?

MG: We're almost out of time. But I mean, in part, this is inspired by your own experience, right? I've known you for some time and the work that you have done that we've talked about over time comes from, in many ways, the impetus of your own experience in coming here in 81 from Iran.

RATNA OMIDVAR: Yes. And I did not come as a sponsored refugee at that time. I didn't know what the word refugee meant. I was displaced from Iran with my family and applied for immigration and came through the regular route. But I came with very little. You know, I had family and friends here, But you need more than family and friends. You need social capital that helps you navigate new territory. So, you know, the last Syrian family that I sponsored, we were able to through our social capital, find volunteer dentists. We were able to, you know, get our sponsored earning head of the family a union job. They have a house. They bought a home I think four years ago. They are all citizens. They look forward to voting in the next election. And I know that would not have been all possible without the team. We were 17 of us working on one family to resettle 12 people.

MG: Ratna, good to talk to you as ever. Thank you very much.

RATNA OMIDVAR: Thank you.

MG: Ratna Omidvar, independent Canadian senator for Ontario. We reached her in Ottawa. That's The Current for this Wednesday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. We're going to leave you with a giant. Barrett Strong wrote incredible songs for Motown. He died earlier this week at the age of 81. Heard it through the grapevine, Ball of Confusion, Papa was a Rolling Stone, all from the pen of Barrett Strong. We’ll leave you with another classic. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Song: “Money, That’s What I Want” by Barrett Strong]

Wednesday February 1, 2023 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing