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

The Current Transcript for March 29, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I am so proud to announce the creation of a new Canadian dental care plan.

[audience cheering]

MATT GALLOWAY: As Canadians grapple with high interest rates, soaring inflation and an increase in the cost of just about everything, Chrystia Freeland yesterday tabled the government's latest budget. She characterized it as fiscally responsible. Opposition parties alternately demanded more or less spending in the face of a recession. In 30 minutes, the Finance minister is here to talk about meeting the cost of living crisis and more. Also this morning, the Olympics prides itself on being above politics. Easier said than done.

SOUNDCLIP

THOMAS BACH: We took these protective measures at a time already with a heavy heart and expressing our dilemma because we said it's going against the mission of the Olympic Games.

MG: In an hour, why calls to exclude Russian and Belarussian athletes entirely from next year's Paris Olympics are growing louder, including here in Canada. And we'll discuss whether you can ever separate sport from politics. But this morning, we're in Nova Scotia where the cost of rent is driving people out of their homes. And that is where we begin. Good morning from sunny Halifax. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

RISING RENTS

Guests: Shannan Craigg, Susan Leblanc

MG: For years, we have talked about the soaring rents in Toronto and Vancouver. But Canada's rental crisis is now hitting places far away from those big cities, places that used to be relatively cheap like Halifax where I am this morning. Last year, the cost of renting in this city increased faster than ever before.

SOUNDCLIP

MALE SPEAKER: There's a note on the door that your rent will be going from 700 to 1500. Well, I just dropped right to the floor. I was like, are you kidding me?

MG: The vacancy rate here is a record low of 1%. Halifax is now the second fastest growing city in the country. And that is in part because so many Canadians are moving here from other provinces. Add to that that it's more expensive than ever to buy a home, so more need to rent to find somewhere to live. And this is all squeezing the poorest Nova Scotians out of their rental properties. It's a problem that stretches down this province's highways out of the big cities to small towns like Bridgewater on Nova Scotia's south shore.

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD DIXON: This is my room. This is my home for now.

MG: This is Richard. He is staying in a barebones hotel room with a microwave for cooking. Richard has a secret that he has never shared publicly. When his road construction hours were cut by half during the pandemic, he became one of this town's growing number of people who are homeless. He has since lost that construction job.

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD DIXON: At first, I did not want to use my name in this interview. I'm still young enough that I have 10 years of work life ahead of me at least and I am afraid of being stigmatized by using my name. But then, it occurs to me that I'm actually so passionate about this issue that's going on because I never imagined that I'd be sitting in this position at my age that I can't do anything else but use my name. So I'd like to introduce myself and my name is Richard Dixon. And I hope that I can help other people to be somewhat of a voice so that we can at least start addressing and looking at some of these issues here in the province.

MG: Richard Dixon got his room through a social agency in town. On one bed, he has an open suitcase with his clothes folded neatly inside and two new hardhats. He was living in his car until January.

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD DIXON: Living in a car is expensive. Gas price right now is at an all-time high. And when you're living in a car, you have to move. You can't stay in one place all the time or you’re going to attract attention to yourself. I have to be able to move around too. I can't just sit and park for eight or 10 hours a day somewhere and just sit there. I have to function. I have to try to find a place to shower. So I end up going to, in the summer time, I can go to camp grounds, I can go to the Y, these type of places. And I'm doing it in a way that I don't want anybody to know that I'm homeless. So for me personally, I'm looking after my hygiene, I'm looking after my car. So my typical day is I'm trying to have a routine because if I don't have a routine, I'm going to fall deeply into depression. Everything's going to start falling apart for me. So I try to clean my car. I try to organize my things. I try to go on my phone and look for work and do all these different things. And I try to occupy my mind in such a way that I don't constantly dwell on the situation I'm in. But The Night-Time is the hardest part because even though I'm a bit of an introvert and I'm used to living alone, there's nothing more lonely than sitting in your car somewhere parked where nobody can see you. Perhaps in the woods or in a park or something like that. And that's where you live. That's your life. And then you have to get up in the morning, you have to start functioning, you have to start moving around. It becomes an exponential load in a way because as more time goes on, I'm basically wearing down. I'm not eating the same way that I'm used to eating, I'm not sleeping the same way I'm used to sleeping and I'm physically wearing down. I guess if we tie that back into my room, this room represents to me at least a place where I can rest, a place where I can become whole again, a place where I can start to think where can I go from here? How can I start to fix the problem?

MG: Shannan Craigg is Richard's housing support worker in Bridgewater. About 40% of her clients work. We’ve reached Shannon at the hotel where Richard is staying. Shannon, good morning.

SHANNAN CRAIGG: Good morning.

MG: Tell me about who's living there in the hotel.

SHANNAN CRAIGG: Well, I have almost 20 rooms in this hotel. As far as who it is, we have families, we've got some kids, a handful of seniors. It's pretty much everyone.

MG: And I mean, everybody has their own story. But if you were to pull back a little bit, why is it that they're there living in the hotel?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: There just isn't anywhere else for them to go. And once that happens, of course, then it's kind of a domino. If you don't have anywhere to live, if you did have a job, you're probably not going to be able to keep it. You know, some of them were sleeping on cardboard. They didn't even have a tent. Like you can't maintain a job that way. So then once the job goes, everything else goes after it. But the root cause would have been they didn't have anywhere to live.

MG: And generally, how long have people been there at the hotel?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: I think the longest I had someone here was about nine months.

MG: Wow!

SHANNAN CRAIGG: He is housed now. So I think after that, we're looking at probably seven or eight months I’ve had some people here.

MG: And how are they doing being between permanent residences, if I can put it that way, living in a bit of a state of limbo until they can find permanent housing?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: I mean, it's not real life. It's hard because some of these people, half of them had real lives and are now trying to create a real life out of a hotel room. But you can't cook, you know, there's not very many places to store food. You can't run a real life in here. And then some of the rest of them have been kind of in this situation so long they don't know what real life looks like. And now they're trying to build a real life out of imagination and a hotel room.

MG: And as you said, there's kids there as well who should be living that real life.

SHANNAN CRAIGG: Yes, absolutely. And like for the people that are here, I remember coming up in August and the kids that I had in the hotel, their parents are asking me like, what am I supposed to tell my kids? Like what are they supposed to tell their friends at school? And they were the lucky ones. Some of my clients didn't even have a hotel room. And they're asking how am I going to help my kid do their homework in a tent? Like what happens when it gets dark? Like how am I supposed to get them ready for school the next morning when we don't even have showers?

MG: What has changed in your community that has led to this kind of situation?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: There isn't enough housing for everybody. And then rents are skyrocketing. Like a lot of the rents in Bridgewater aren't something that I could afford to pay. So any of your entry level jobs, which there are a lot of here, there's a lot of support jobs here. The rents are just too high.

MG: You said earlier that had there been, you know, normal rent, people might have been able to afford something. How much has rent gone up? How abnormal is the rent right now?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: Well, I have people that are losing their housing, that they've been renovicted or the buildings have been bought and they're leaving rents of 675 and looking at rents of 1300, 1400 dollars.

MG: More than double.

SHANNAN CRAIGG: More than double. And some of them are triple, which if you're coming up on being homeless, especially if you have kids or seniors are really terrified of being homeless, you pay what's there. And sometimes the only thing that's there is $1800. Some of those rents are triple.

MG: As you say, your job is to try and find accommodation for these people. If there aren't spots, what are you up against? I mean, tell me what that's like. If you have a client who's living in the hotel and you're trying to place them, what is that process like?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: Trying to keep them afloat. It's a dark world out here. And anybody that struggled with addiction in the past, it's all waiting for them. Anybody that suffered a job loss, like I said, the wolves are at the door. And when you don't have a door.

MG: And so when you're out trying to find places, you say there's nowhere really for people to live. But what are you doing to try to place people?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: The lists are so long to get into any apartment, even one that they can't afford. Honestly, sometimes my job has more to do with helping people make the decision to not rent an apartment because people are so desperate they'll show up and say, you know, I got accepted for an apartment that was $1700, but they only have 2300 or 2400 coming in.

MG: You've lived in Bridgewater for how long?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: We moved here when I was two.

MG: What is it like for you to see this in a town that you know so well?

SHANNAN CRAIGG: It's heartbreaking to watch it go from what it used to be. I think I have more hope than some of the other front line staff just in general and other organizations that might not be from here because I know these people and I know the people on the outside are good people. They just don't know. There's a lack of awareness. People don't know what's happening in this town. And I think we get a lot more support than some other places do.

MG: Thanks for telling us about the work that you're doing. It's really important work. Take good care and thanks again. Bye bye.

SHANNAN CRAIGG: Bye.

MG: Shannan Craigg is with the South Shore Open Doors Association. The Nova Scotia government just extended a rent cap that was put in place in 2020 when rents first began to spike. But that cap doesn't protect every renter.

SOUNDCLIP

[packing sounds]

KEN SUTTON: Oh my God. Don't be talking. There’s a lot of work attached to this. So much stuff.

MG: If a renter moves out or he’s evicted, a landlord can hike the price for a new tenant as much as they want.

SOUNDCLIP

KEN SUTTON: When I came here in this building, it was such a nice apartment, right? And I said, I'm here for good.

MG: This is Ken Sutton. He's moving out of his north and Dartmouth apartment. What's happening to him is known as being renovicted. His building sold last summer. It's now a construction zone with no flooring in the halls. Ken is 76 years old.

SOUNDCLIP

KEN SUTTON: This is an awful situation. Tell everybody to get out is the only way we can put the rent up. People are heartless. You don't have a heart or something? How can they come to a bunch of senior people and do this? Come on. The government got to do something with that crowd. You got to slam the brakes on. Like pass legislation and make a bill outlawing what they’re doing.

[door opening and closing]

MALE SPEAKER: I didn't warn you. Of course, that's the flight of stairs to get up to her place.

MG: A few blocks from Ken's apartment, Mike Burgess says he also has problems with the rent cap. Mike calls himself a mom and pop landlord.

SOUNDCLIP

[knocking on door, door opening and shutting, people greeting each other]

MG: He says the rent cap is pushing him out of business. Most of his tenants are on social assistance. Some pay as little as $700 in rent, and the cap means he can only raise that rent by about $35.

SOUNDCLIP

MIKE BURGESS: Over the last year and a half, I've partnered with a couple of others and digressed into the self-storage business. So that's my backup plan. Our heating cost literally doubled throughout the winter. I have one building that is costing me $300 a unit per month to heat out of a rent that’s, you know, maybe $700.

MALE SPEAKER: I'm going to do everything I can to stay here as long as I can.

FEMALE SPEAKER: Get me out of here. I'm not dealing with another landlord.

MALE SPEAKER: I still have a little bit of fight left in me.

MG: A little bit of fight left in him. Susan Leblanc is the NDP MLA for Dartmouth north here in Nova Scotia. Most people in her riding are renters and she is with me in our Halifax studio. Susan, good morning to you.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Good morning, Matt.

MG: We're hearing people in desperate situations, people who have nowhere to live, people who are trying desperately to find a spot where they can call home. What are you hearing from people in your community?

SUSAN LEBLANC: Well, just that. So we have people coming into our office daily now who are about to be squeezed out of their homes because rents are rising. Even with the rent cap that's in place right now, rents are very expensive. We have people that are facing renoviction like Ken that you just heard. You know, whole buildings in Dartmouth North are facing that kind of situation. And in fact, you know, in many cases, it is the landlords using a renoviction to get around the rent cap. So, you know, in that case, on Primrose Avenue, those rents right now are, you know, admittedly kind of low for market right now, $700 ish for a one bedroom apartment, which is affordable but low. And when those renovations are finished, people will be looking at 1600 to $1700 rents.

MG: Why is it so bad now? What's going on and what has changed? It's easy to say the pandemic changed how people live and where people live. From your perspective as somebody who's here, what's different now?

SUSAN LEBLANC: Well, Dartmouth North has always been a place where you could get an affordable place to live. So, you know, there's a lot of rental units available or there were, I should say. But it's the place where if you can't afford, you know, North and Halifax, you come to North and Dartmouth. But with that comes the fact that there's a very low vacancy rate. And so in Nova Scotia, the vacancy rate is, you know, around 1%. But in Dartmouth North, it's even lower than that. So there's literally nowhere to live. And so landlords know that because of that, there is a market to raise rents. And so, you know, it's just a domino effect.

MG: So I mean, the government is enticing people to come here. It's trying to lure people to come to Nova Scotia. Should those people be told that when they get here, they may not be able to find an affordable place to live?

SUSAN LEBLANC: Yeah. I mean, that is obviously a real issue. We do want people to come to Nova Scotia. You know, it's important that our population grows, but we have to make sure that the government is providing services for the people who come here. And so yes, you know, there needs to be a place for people to come when they move.

MG: What about rent control? Your party pushed for this, but we just heard that the rent cap isn't working for people.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Well, I would say yes, we are pushing for a permanent form of rent control. The government has implemented a sort of haphazard rent cap.

MG: And you see daylight between those two ideas.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Absolutely. First of all, a rent control would be something that landlords and tenants would be able to count on as something that's flexible and movable, depending on a number of different factors. And right now, what we're seeing is an all-out rent cap where there's no flexibility. So landlords are feeling a pinch because of the inflation that's going on right now.

MG: We’ll be speaking with Chrystia Freeland, the finance minister, coming up in about 15 minutes. She tabled the budget yesterday. Was there anything in that federal budget that you think will address the rental crisis that's happening across this country, but here in Nova Scotia?

SUSAN LEBLANC: Yeah. I mean, I haven't seen too much to do with housing yet. I haven't dug deep, deep. But, you know, affordability is a problem all around. So, you know, things like the dental care program is important for affordability, the GST doubling, all of that.

MG: But housing is housing.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Yeah.

MG: You need somewhere to live.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Exactly. You need somewhere to live and you need to be able to stay in your home. So what we really need to see is investment from the federal government. And then we need to see our provincial government use that investment to build truly affordable housing. So right now, the government, our government in Nova Scotia will say we're putting, you know, millions of dollars into housing. But in fact, they refuse to adopt a definition of affordable, which is a working definition like, you know, 30% of one's income. So we're seeing all kinds of public money go into housing developments, but nothing is guaranteed to be affordable.

MG: So that's really interesting. We got here yesterday and I mean, you see construction all over the place.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Everywhere.

MG: I mean, just next to the hotel that I'm staying, they're building something. The place that, you know, you look out at that used to be a parking lot perhaps is now built up. Is any of that going to fix this problem?

SUSAN LEBLANC: I mean, it remains to be seen. There are a number of buildings in my community that are going up right now and none of them fit the definition of affordable.

MG: And what is that definition in 2023?

SUSAN LEBLANC: Yeah. Well, for us, a definition of affordability would be 30% of a household income. But for our government, they're talking about 20% less than market value, which does not make any sense for actual affordability.

MG: So the people that we just heard from would never be able to afford one of those new apartments.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Never.

MG: What would you say to them? I mean, it's the family that's living in the tent that's trying to figure out how the kid is going to do the homework because there's no light in the house. You can't plug a laptop in. You can't turn the light on. So they have a flashlight and they're trying to figure out how they're going to do their math homework. What would you say to those people?

SUSAN LEBLANC: Well, I would say to them, you know, it's a terrible situation. They know that already. What I would say to our government is that we need to be investing heavily in, you know, not for profit community led housing.

MG: Which is what governments used to do. The government used to have a huge role in housing.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Yes.

MG: In building affordable housing.

SUSAN LEBLANC: And we need to go back to that. So there's a family in Dartmouth North that we supported who was in exactly the same position where there was a mom with four kids in a hotel room. She couldn't cook for her kids. She couldn't send them to school with lunches because she couldn't prepare anything in this hotel room. She was jammed into it. When her life turned around, it was when she finally got a unit in a public housing development. Not development, a public housing community in Dartmouth North. She now has room for all of the children. They are in a school again and everything is going really well for them. But that's because she has stable housing that she can actually afford, that's 30% of her income.

MG: We just have a minute or so left. We often talk about a housing crisis. And one of the things in the housing crisis is that people will focus on mortgages, people who are buying homes. Do you think in that conversation that renters are being excluded, that the life that they are living and the demands that they would face on their income are not being considered properly?

SUSAN LEBLANC: Yes, absolutely. They're being excluded. You know, you can't buy a home unless you have a down payment. We have some small programs for that kind of thing, but you can't save money when you're paying all of your income into renting. So if you're a renter and looking to buy a home, not only are homes way more expensive, but there's just no way to ever put away money for a down payment. And, you know, to be sure, when one is lucky enough to have a mortgage, then there is a little bit more control. I'm in that situation, thankfully. And when I hear about the rents around me, I go, you know, how is that even possible?

MG: One of the things that's been raised is politicians often own their own homes. And people will say the politicians don't understand the situation that somebody who's renting might be in.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Yeah. Well, I buy my home with some help from a family member.

MG: You know what the price is.

SUSAN LEBLANC: I know. I've been there.

MG: It's an issue of our time in many ways. And it's a story that's happening here in Nova Scotia, but certainly right across the country. Glad to have you here. Thank you very much.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Thanks for having me.

MG: Susan Leblanc is the Dartmouth North MLA. She's with me in our studio in Halifax. This is, as I said, a national story. We'd love to hear from you. If you are a renter, how difficult is it for you to find a place to rent? How are you managing to afford your rent? Have you been renovicted? Let us know. You can email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. And because it's radio, we'd love to hear your own voice. So send us a voice recording on the phone. Just email it to thecurrent@cbc.ca. You're CBC News is next. And then, as we mentioned, the federal government unveiled its budget yesterday. Lots of talk around the cost of living. Perhaps not enough talk for some people about housing. In six minutes, we'll speak with the deputy prime minister, the minister of finance, Chrystia Freeland. She's here coming up after your news. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current from Halifax. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

BUDGET

Guests: Chrystia Freeland, Tonda MacCharles, Nojoud Al Mallees

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the International Olympic Committee has changed its tune on Russian and Belarussian athletes competing in the Olympic Games. We'll talk about how athletes are responding to this news as the war in Ukraine continues. But first, what the new budget means for you.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Billions for health and dental care. Billions for clean energy. Also billions in deficit and measures to address affordability. The finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, tabled the government's 2023 budget yesterday. Chrystia Freeland joins us from Ottawa. Minister, good morning.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Good morning, Matt. And how is the weather and how is life in Halifax today?

MG: It's sunny and beautiful, but it's stressful for people and that's something that I want to start talking to you about. We just spent the last half hour hearing from people who can't afford their rent. And that to a lot of people is the most visible part of this cost of living crisis that many Canadians are facing and something that you tried to address in the budget. Why should Canadians believe that you understand what they're going through?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well, can I start by offering one thought to precisely those people who are struggling to pay their rent? And that is, as you know, in the fall, we created a Canada housing benefit, a one-time $500 top up that is still available. And we think there are a lot of people in Canada who haven't claimed it. So if you're a person who's struggling to pay their rent and you think you might qualify, just take a minute, google Canada Housing benefit and see if you qualify and apply for it now because the portal is still open. So just one little piece of one little thought right away because I know people are struggling.

MG: Let me use that as a way to go back to that question, though. That's a one-time benefit of $500. The applications close at the end of this month. $500 isn't going to cover the gap for a lot of people who are struggling with their rent across this country. So again, why should Canadians believe that you understand what they're going through when $500 is what is being offered here?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: $500 won't close the gap. I absolutely agree. But I also believe that $500 will make a real difference in the lives of people who qualify for it. And we know that people need support. That's why we put forward in this budget some real measures to help people with affordability. Probably the biggest one is the grocery rebate. And, you know, for a family of four, that's almost $500. Again, I agree with you, Matt. That is not going to pay for everything, but it will make a meaningful difference in the lives of people. So will the dental benefit. And two other things to mention quickly, something that I think will make a real difference in the lives of people is automatic tax filing, which we are really stepping up in the budget. About 12% of Canadians don't file their taxes. And that 12%, many, many of them are people who actually qualify for benefits for things like the Canada workers benefit. So what we're going to be moving towards is being sure that every single Canadian who qualifies for the support our expanded social safety net offers them gets that support. The one other measure that I'll mention in the budget that is important to me is what we're doing on predatory lending. We're bringing the maximum rate down from 45, from 47 to 35. That is meaningful for people.

MG: That is important. But let me go back to the housing issue just because it's important, because people are trying to figure out where they're going to live. And ultimately, that's what this is about. We're welcoming, what, a million people into this country. People are being priced out of their homes because of the cost of rent. This is a story that people can relate to across the country. Where are people are going to live in this country if they can't afford basic shelter?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Oh, I agree that housing is an absolutely central problem.

MG: Then why wasn't there more about it in the budget yesterday?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Because we put forward a major housing plan last year, $10 billion. And that wasn't $10 billion which we spent last April when we tabled the budget. That was $10 billion which were rolling out over a number of years. And in fact, just earlier this month, the prime minister unveiled the details of how the $4 billion housing accelerator fund is going to work. That is going to get more houses built for people in Halifax, people in Toronto, people across the country. The other thing which was in that budget, but actually comes into force in April next week is the tax free first time homebuyers saving account. That is also going to be a really important measure that is going to help a lot of people. It's going to help some of those new Canadians you were talking about, and it's going to help young Canadians. So that $10 billion last year, it wasn't, you know, we didn't spend it in April of 2022 when we tabled the budget. That was a thought through long term program that is being rolled out even as we speak.

MG: I know that we have limited time. So let me ask you about a few other things. One is in the United States, as you well know, the Inflation Reduction Act is going to direct something like $370 billion to greening the economy. President Biden last week in his visit said this would be a good thing for Canada. There are many Canadian businesses who find themselves in the crosshairs of this who don't agree. How worried should they be about what the U.S. is doing?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well, I think they should be very excited about what Canada is doing.

MG: What about what the United States is doing and the fact that the U.S. is opening the vault to help subsidize those industries? How concerned should Canadian businesses be?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well, as I said, Matt, they should be very excited that Canada is there absolutely competitive to attract international and Canadian capital. You put the price tag on the U.S. program as 370 billion. We put forward yesterday an $80 billion Canadian program to invest in the clean economy. So Canada is there. And when it comes to the U.S. program specifically, we have also uniquely succeeded in having Canadian made cars eligible for the U.S. EV incentive, in having Canadian batteries eligible for the battery incentive. So not only are we investing now to attract capital into Canada, but some of that U.S. money, Canadian companies are going to be able to compete for and export into.

MG: In that clean economy, why is this government still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: We have made some clear commitments on fossil fuel and we are going to live up to those commitments. Absolutely.

MG: The Climate Action Network has pointed out that in your promised climate agenda, eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel industries this year, that that was missing from the budget. Why was it not in the budget?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: We are in March of 2023 right now, Matt. So we have some time. I do want to mention one other element of our Clean Economy plan.

MG: But just to be clear on this…

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Can I just say something? Which is the labour element to it. It's a very, very important element. It is new for Canada. So we are creating incentives to attract private capital and we are making absolutely sure that these are going to be well-paying union level wage jobs.

MG: Just to be clear because we didn't get an answer on that earlier question. Is the government going to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Our government is absolutely going to live up to our commitments there. Yes.

MG: And the commitments are to end subsidies for the fossil fuel industry as part of a clean economy, as part of a green future.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I think I was very clear, Matt.

MG: I want to ask you just one final thing. And this came up in the budget as well. And it's the issue of a new agency to combat foreign interference. You know that the budget lands at a time when this government is embroiled in a controversy and concerns around foreign interference. The House of Commons has called for a public inquiry. The former head of CSIS called on this very program for a public inquiry. Former senior advisers to your government have called for one. Why is the government still resistant to that, to calling a public inquiry on this?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I'm very glad you raised that issue because this budget includes unprecedented measures to combat foreign interference and money laundering in Canada. We have really stepped up here. It's an issue I personally take very, very seriously, the anti-money laundering measures in particular. I want to thank the Iranian-Canadian community because it's something they are worried about. And I spent a lot of time listening to them, getting their advice on measures to put in place. And I do also want to give a shout out to Premier David Eby. He and B.C. have been real leaders on the money laundering foreign interference in our financial sector front. We got a lot of good advice from B.C. And I think if you look at that section of the budget, you will see Canada really, really stepping up. We take it seriously and we should.

MG: Why is the government resistant to calling a public inquiry?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: The government is absolutely not resistant to clarity and transparency on this issue. And let me just say, you know, I have lived in and reported on authoritarian regimes. I have absolutely no illusions about the fight that's happening in the world right now between dictatorships and democracies. I think, you know, the bloodiest battlefield right now is Bakhmut and the front lines in Ukraine. But I absolutely believe that the world's dictatorships have Canada also as one of their targets. And we have to be absolutely determined not to let them cause us harm, not to let them disrupt our democracy. I'm very personally committed to that.

MG: I know we're out of time, but does that not behove the government to take the strongest possible measures to actually figure out what's going on? And to a lot of people, those measures are calling a public inquiry.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: As I say, take a look and I'm sure you have, but probably all of your listeners haven't. Take a look at these strengthened financial sector measures. You will find we are doing a lot of much tougher things than any Canadian federal government has ever done before. As finance minister, it's something I'm very, very focussed on. And I know a lot of our diaspora communities. I mentioned the Iranian community, but many others, you know, I’ve got to mention the Haitian community as well, they do not want Canada to be interfered with and a haven for this kind of money. We are listening and we're acting there.

MG: You have a busy morning. I appreciate some of your time this morning. Chrystia Freeland, thank you very much.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Okay. Thanks a lot, Matt. And Labour component, it's a big deal in our Clean economy plan. It’s something that’s very important to me. So maybe we can talk about that some more next time.

MG: We'll do that again in future. Thank you very much, Chrystia.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Okay. Thank you.

MG: And you, Chrystia Freeland is Canada's finance minister and the deputy prime minister. Listening in to our conversation, Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star, and Nojoud Al Mallees, the economics reporter for the Canadian Press. Good morning to you both.

TONDA MACCHARLES: Good morning, Matt.

NOJOUD AL MALLEES: Good morning.

MG: Tonda, What do you make of what Minister Freeland had to say about this issue of foreign interference? We'll get to the budget, but this is part of the budget in some ways. She's talking about the issue of money coming into the country. But there are still very loud calls for a public inquiry and the government has not moved on that. David Johnston, former governor general, of course, appointed to see whether something like that might be appropriate. But the calls continue, including in the House of Commons. What do you make of her response?

TONDA MACCHARLES: Well, I was surprised, actually, that she didn't note for you that they've done some things in the budget on foreign interference. They've given another nearly $50 million to the RCMP to be able to detect and track and deal with foreign interference in diaspora communities or expat communities. And they've put 13 and a half million into public safety to create or stand up in the office to counter foreign interference within the Department of Public Safety. But very notably, what they didn't do in the budget is allocate money for David Johnston or for an inquiry. Now, they can book that, I suppose, under some envelope down the road should David Johnston recommend a public inquiry. But it's not that they've done nothing. But to the question of a public inquiry, they're very much deferring to his recommendations in May, which they say they'll follow. So we'll have to see.

MG: We began our conversation talking about affordability. And from your perspective broadly, what does this budget offer in terms of helping Canadians afford to get by, whether it's I mean, yes, groceries and other matters of life. But for so many people, this is about shelter and finding somewhere safe to live.

TONDA MACCHARLES: Mm hmm. Well, look, just on the point of what they've done for lower and middle income Canadians who are eligible to get that GST tax credit, I mean, there's a bit of political marketing going on there. They've branded it as a grocery rebate. And in fact, really what it comes down to is about two weeks worth of groceries for either the single individual who's eligible or a household say of four people, two adults, two kids. So some of the economists that we spoke to yesterday all agreed that, you know, it will not fuel inflation in and of itself. It's not pouring billions of dollars into the hands of people who will go out and spend it and drive up consumption and drive up inflation. It won’t put that fuel on that fire. And it will be very useful to those people who need a bit of a top up. But to the broader point of what it's done for people fighting inflation, essentially the budget kind of encapsulates a lot of wishful thinking on this point. I mean, it's aiming and hoping that all the policies unfolding now, including the Bank of Canada's hiked interest rates will cool inflation in the country and cool housing prices and have the effect of bringing inflation down. And they're saying that, look, it's already coming down. It's gone from like 8% last June down to five, 5.2% in February. And they're guessing that, you know, in the fall of this year, we'll see an inflation rate down around 3%. So then the banks won't continue on the path of raising interest rates. And they're saying that's more broadly going to help all Canadians. But what it doesn't do on the housing thing is you're right, it doesn't put, I think, more new money into the general housing envelope. They're relying very much on what they did last year. They've rolled out that strategy she referred to, but it's not having at this point the take up of building tons of affordable housing across the country that they want it to.

MG: Nojoud Al Mallees, in the context of a cost of living crisis, does this budget meet the moment, do you think?

NOJOUD AL MALLEES: Well, I think as Tonda highlighted, the measures for affordability are quite thin. The GST rebate, which is really what the grocery rebate is, it only goes to lower income Canadians. Beyond that, there's some help for students. They increased the limit for withdrawals on RRSP accounts. They've increased the money available through loans and grants. But beyond that, the rest is really just work that the federal government plans on doing when it comes to going after junk fees or predatory lending. But that's not really going to have results right now for people who are feeling the crunch right now. And as you've said, really the missing piece there is housing, which is a longer term affordability concern that goes beyond just inflation that's high right now.

MG: What about this issue of trying to blunt the impact of the American Inflation Reduction Act? She says that Canadian businesses should be delighted and excited by what this government has announced in the budget. With this larger IRA investment looming in the background, how well do you think Canada and Canadian businesses are positioned in the context of that Inflation Reduction Act?

NOJOUD AL MALLEES: Well, we'll have to wait and see. But there are some key differences between what Canada is doing and what the U.S. is doing. Here, what was rolled out is really investment tax credits. Whereas in the U.S., they're providing tax credits for production. And so industry will have its own opinions about that tactic. There's also a major element that everyone is waiting to hear more about, which is contracts for difference, which is essentially a way to guarantee the future price on carbon so that these companies that are investing in these technologies can ensure that the price of carbon that they're expecting in the future will actually be that price. And the government plans on launching consultations on that, but there really isn't meat to the bones on that yet. And I guess the last piece, which is something that David MacDonald who's an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives mentioned at the Budget is that are there going to be results, right? So you're going to give these tax incentives. What happens after that? And I think that's the question that's still there.

MG: Tonda, what is the government facing in terms of, again, Joe Biden was in Canada last week in Ottawa and talked about this Inflation Reduction Act as an opportunity for Canadian businesses. There are a lot of businesses who don't see it as an opportunity. What does the government need to do?

TONDA MACCHARLES: Yeah. A lot of businesses see it as big competition that they feel ill equipped.

MG: An existential threat.

TONDA MACCHARLES: Right. And, you know, look, I think Canada doesn't want to be seen as, you know, simply hewers of wood and drawers of water. And in the new economy and the green transition, you know, the government has a high level of ambition to situate Canadian companies as not just miners of critical minerals, but, you know, refiners and technology innovators. And so this tax credit package is aimed at stimulating capital investment at the front end of these big new projects unfolding. Will it get the take up? That's an open question. Will it lure global industries or goose Canadian industries to really invest in a big way in these projects? That's the big question, isn't it? It is a massive package that they unveiled. And they've banked a lot on generating and I guess enhancing Canada's advantage when it comes to clean sources of energy that is electricity and how to build on that. But look, that might be a bit problematic too. I mean, those are projects that are very complex. Electricity, for example, is regulated by provinces. What can the federal government really do to emp up electrical, clean electrical generation in this country? Does it rely on this tax credit? It's a very complicated matter. But, you know, they've done things to the point about, you know, back stopping the price of carbon should it change going forward, given that industries want certainty for investment. This is something actually that industries, big, Big Oil has been looking for too. They need the certainty going down, you know, 15, 20 years out. And so that was also a smart, clever political ploy here, because while industry wants it, the government is also trying to jam the conservatives on that, the conservatives and their pledge to kill the carbon tax, kill the carbon pricing regime in this country. So look, there's a lot of moving pieces on this economic plan. And I think a lot of it depends not just on politics, but on business interest in Canada or are they going to bank their future in the U.S.

MG: Well, just in the last couple of minutes that we have, I’ll ask you both this. But first to you Tonda, briefly, it also depends on context and the fact that a recession could be on its way. There are a lot of people who are wondering what that recession might look like. Will this budget do enough to stave off the impact of a recession?

TONDA MACCHARLES: At this stage, it's hard to say. Look, the budget, the first 20 pages of Freeland's budget are actually kind of quite a sobering read and talk about all the uncertainty in the global economy and acknowledge that look, yes, there's an easing of the supply chain and, you know, things have settled down a little bit in terms of energy markets. But the banking sector and financial markets are very nervous and jittery right now. And they are signaling that there is a good chance of a recession. And everyone's sort of pegging it as possibly mild, but nobody's betting on that right now. So I don't know that we know the answer to that yet.

MG: Nojoud, just briefly, is there reason to be optimistic about Canada's economy in the context that this budget arrives in?

NOJOUD AL MALLEES: Well, I mean, the problem is that we haven't seen the full impact of these rate hikes that the Bank of Canada has made over the last year. And so the full effect is not there yet. Right now, the labour market is quite strong. So that's holding up quite well, which has been a positive surprise for economists. But, you know, we haven't seen the Bank of Canada raise interest rates this quickly in decades. And so the impact could be more severe than maybe some expect, especially because Canadians have a high level of debt.

MG: When will we know that? And we've seen those bank rate increases. When will we know the impact of that either?

NOJOUD AL MALLEES: So economists usually say it takes between one and two years to see the full impact. They started raising rates last March, March 2022. And so that's why the peak is expected, you know, somewhere in the middle of this year maybe, and a recovery is expected after that. But if it is a deeper recession, then also the recovery will be slower, which is a concern for the government when it comes to their tax revenues.

MG: Glad to talk to you both about this. There's a lot in here and we will discuss some of the other matters of the budget in days and weeks ahead. In the meantime, thank you very much.

NOJOUD AL MALLEES: Thank you.

TONDA MACCHARLES: Thanks so much.

MG: Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star. Nojoud Al Mallees is an economics reporter for the Canadian Press. Both of them were in Ottawa. Coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

PERDITA FELICIEN: When I think about what Ukrainian people are going through and I think about an individual Russian or Belarussian athlete potentially not going to Paris 2024, to me, there's no comparison in what's at stake.

MG: Some Canadian athletes have been speaking out in support of a wartime ban on Russian and Belarussian athletes at the Olympics. Now, the International Olympic Committee seems perhaps primed to welcome those athletes back, maybe perhaps under a neutral banner. Should athletes pursuing their dreams be punished for the actions of their country's leaders? Can you ever separate sport and politics? We'll hear from athletes and those who observe the Olympics coming up in about 90 seconds. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current from Halifax. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

Guests: Vladyslav Heraskevych, Perdita Felicien, David Wallechinsky

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the International Olympic Committee reacted. It urged sports federations and organizers to exclude Russian and Belarussian athletes and officials from international sporting events. Well, now, the president of the IOC, Thomas Bach, has changed his advice.

SOUNDCLIP

THOMAS BACH: Athletes with a Russian or Belarussian passport must compete only as individual, neutral athletes. Teams of athletes with a Russian or Belarussian passport cannot be considered. Athletes who actively support the war cannot compete.

MG: The IOC has not yet made a firm decision about what rules will apply to the upcoming 2024 Olympics in Paris, but the door may be open to Russian and Belarussians to compete in those games. Vladyslav Heraskevych is one of many athletes who has spoken out against that idea. He competes in skeleton for Ukraine and we have reached him today in Berchtesgaden, Germany. Vladyslav, hello.

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: Hello. Hello. My pleasure to be here.

MG: Glad to have you here. Thomas Bach, the president of the International Olympic Committee, says that it can no longer be a blanket ban on Russian and Belarussian athletes. He says that blanket ban cannot continue. What's your reaction to that?

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: Of course, the decision is pretty weak. As we have conversations on Twitter with special rapporteur from the United Nations, It is her statement about blanket discrimination. So she is not representative of United Nations. So that’s her personal opinion. And I also watch a lot of different other opinions of human rights experts. And why we took her opinion as basic, it's first of all about discrimination. Secondly, of course, this decision is pretty painful for us because nothing has changed since this year. I can’t understand why now they start talking about bringing back Russian and Belarussian athletes to international sport arena.

MG: What to you is the problem with Russian and Belarussian athletes competing at the highest level? What's wrong with that?

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: First of all, it was also requirements about neutral. We also need to know about how it works and more details. In this requirement, Thomas Bach stated that if Russian athletes or Belarussian athletes have contract with army or other government structures, they should be suspended so they can’t compete. Secondly, of course, Russian sport is going very close to Russian propaganda and Russian government. You can't separate it from Russian politics because Russian athletes are attending many, many propaganda shows or military events or they celebrate the occupation of Crimea with Putin or they’re just being part of military and fighting on the frontlines.

MG: So you think if they were to compete, this would be a propaganda exercise for Russia?

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: Of course, because Thomas Bach also say some examples from different sports, for example, tennis. They stated that this wins in tennis is very good symbols before our future wins in politics.

MG: If they were to compete, there’s the suggestion of competing under a neutral flag, not the Russian flag or the Belarussian flag. Would that be acceptable, do you think? As an athlete from Ukraine, would that be acceptable for you to see those athletes compete under a neutral flag?

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: For Ukrainians, it makes no difference because they still will be a representative of their country, which kills Ukrainian people. And it was good question to Thomas Bach about how they will prevent using Russian propaganda. And it was no answer. There was just punishment if they do something. But how you can prevent it, it was no answer. And my answer for this question is only one decision now which can prevent it is suspension. And before we have some normal rules as a doping rules, then it even makes no sense to speak about bringing the Russians back on international sports arenas.

MG: So you think those athletes, all of those athletes, the Russian and Belarussian athletes should be suspended from competition continuing?

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: Yes. Yes. Because even Thomas Bach stated that if they don’t follow some tasks from government, they face 15 years of jail. It was his statement. It puts even Russian athletes under very big risk inside the Russia. If they are not following some tasks, they can face prison or something like that. So it also reminds me of apartheid time. And maybe it's also a good solution if they have so big problem in human rights aspect to suspend them as Africans were suspended.

MG: As they did with South Africa during apartheid.

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: Yeah. If it's not like that, if they don't have pressure, then for them it would be no problem to sign an anti-war declaration. And if they don't want to represent their country, they can refuse their passport and take another passport from another country of the world and be part of some refugee team.

MG: If Russian athletes are allowed to compete in the Olympics, the Ukrainian government has talked about the possibility of boycotting the Olympic Games. Do you support that idea?

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: I'm not really supporting the idea of boycott and also not really support that we start to talk about boycott two months ago already. When it’s that time, makes some different work. But anyway, it will be the decision of individual athletes. And if it will be me, of course my decision will be the same as it was like a year ago. I will not be part of some competitions with Russian athletes who are really guilty in this war. So government position overall is bad position because only Ukrainians are suffering in this way. If you don't have coalition, if for example IOC Olympic Committee don't support us in this decision, then of course this decision makes no sense because just Ukrainians are missing and going to be just changing places and it will look like Ukraine gets some sanctions in the sports. We are not attending to the sport arenas, but Russians are allowed to compete and allowed to try to like say some Russian narratives to international sport arena, to other people all around the world. So it's not really a nice decision. And of course, it's not our goal to boycott Olympic Games. We want to be part of this games and we want to be part of a peaceful movement. But with Russians, it wouldn’t be peaceful.

MG: Just before I let you go, we've reached you in Germany where you're training for a competition. What is that like to be training while your country is at war?

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: Terrible as it was all season when we were competing. Because of that, I’m not standing aside. I have a charity foundation. Also, we've got a lot of support from USA, from our friends from USA. They send us very big amounts of aid and containers of aid. And we really appreciate it and I'm glad that we are able to do it. But at the same time, it's very difficult to compete because your fellow colleagues, your fellow athletes from your country, they've been killed in the frontlines. And of course, when you see this news, it's really hard to be concentrated on the training. So even now, I'm spending all my time not on the training. I’m spending my time to make opposition to IOC decision because it's not right what they’re doing as they try to fool us. And I'm not agreeing with that.

MG: Vladyslav, glad to talk to you about this. Thank you very much for speaking with us.

VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH: Thank you.

MG: Vladyslav Heraskevych competes for Ukraine in the sport of skeleton. We reached him in Germany. Well, Perdita Felicien, you know well, of course. She's a sports broadcaster, two time Olympian, world champion hurdler, and she's one of more than 40 Canadian Olympians who signed an open letter demanding the Canadian Olympic Committee withdraw support for Russian and Belarussian athletes participating at the 2024 Olympic Games. Perdita, good morning to you.

PERDITA FELICIEN: Morning.

MG: What do you make of the IOC's recommendation to have individual athletes from Russia and Belarus allowed to return to competition under this neutral banner?

PERDITA FELICIEN: Well, interesting. A year ago, when Russia began its invasion in Ukraine, the IOC had, you know, a damning statement against the invasion and banned and made the recommendation to ban all Russian and Belarussian athletes. A year later, that stance has softened and has changed. I believe it's because the IOC is opening the door to Russian and Belarussian participation in Paris. Now they're saying, no, this is not that, but this is clear they're opening the door. And once that door opens, it won't shut.

MG: The U.N. experts who are advising the IOC say that athletes should not be discriminated against on the basis of their nationality. Do you see their point of view that if you're a Russian athlete, you shouldn't be held to account for what your government does?

PERDITA FELICIEN: So what's at issue is not one individual athlete's dream. And do I have empathy for athletes who are Russian and opposed to the war? Absolutely. Do they exist? Yes. But this is not about the individual athlete or the individual athlete's dream. This is sport’s position geopolitically. And the fact that the only sanction that international sport has to play right now is to say to Russia and Belarus, you cannot participate. You cannot be a part of this sport. If not, we're just adding to their propaganda. We're adding to Putin's machine. And we know how he's going to use this, right? To prop himself up. The answer has to be unequivocally no.

MG: That is not the answer that the Canadian Olympic Committee has provided. It changed its tune and also says that athletes in many ways should not be prevented from competing because of their passport. You said that was a little bit embarrassing. Tell us more.

PERDITA FELICIEN: Yeah. I mean, the Canadian Olympic Committee is a sport leader, sport powerhouse, and the devil is in the details. So they have come out and publicly said, oh, we don't support Russia or Belarus at the Olympics. But what they are supporting is a neutral pathway like you said. So a way for them to be there without their colours, without their flags. At the last two Olympics, we have tried this. Sport has tried this. It doesn't work. I have been there.

MG: What's embarrassing about the COC, the Canadian body that represents Olympians taking that kind of neutral position, do you think?

PERDITA FELICIEN: Well, what's embarrassing is the fact that they're not taking the moral courage that it takes to stand up to Putin, to stand up to the IOC. And they're really just walking alongside them, as opposed to being like Denmark and like Lithuania, Norway, countries who have said to the IOC, no, absolutely not.

MG: Well, this morning, the Polish prime minister called on the IOC to change its tune. It said that the IOC's proposal was shameful and he says he's going to work to reverse it. Is that something that you'd like to see from Canadian officials?

PERDITA FELICIEN: 100%. And that's why we put out that public statement, that public letter, because that's the kind of leadership that we want in our country.

MG: The head of the COC, David Shoemaker, did an interview with CBC Sports in February. And he says that he wants strong conditions on what it means to be neutral. He also suggested that exemptions could be made for athletes who say that they are opposed to the war. Is there room for exemptions to be made?

PERDITA FELICIEN: Yeah, I saw when he said that. And I think that's problematic because we know that to be a Russian citizen and to denounce the government, the military, the war is criminal. You can be targeted, you can be penalized, your family. And so very few people will take that risk. You can't ask an athlete or a person to put themself there, but you in a position of power who has leadership can actually take this on. And the fact that they're refusing to to me is what's embarrassing.

MG: What do you think? What's behind that? Why would the COC take that position?

PERDITA FELICIEN: Well, what you have to understand is how things work, right? So a lot of the federations who are, you know, stepping alongside the IOC, so going alongside them really have IOC membership. So the leaders of their Olympic committees are IOC members. And so it is very hard to go against Thomas Bach because the inner workings are you could be I guess ostracized or maligned. You could lose your position. And truthfully, people are playing politics over principle and over their positioning. That's what's happening here.

MG: Is there a risk, a personal risk for you in speaking out about this? As an Olympian, but also somebody who is involved in sport and broadcasting, you're still closely tied with sport at the highest level. So for you to speak out like this, not just against the IOC, but against the COC, is there a risk for you in that?

PERDITA FELICIEN: Yeah, I think absolutely. But it's not like the COC is offering me a job or any work. So I mean, I'm not at risk there. But absolutely. But what I always weigh is personally what's at stake and what I have to lose compared to what's happening to Ukrainian athletes, what’s happening to Ukrainian people. I mean, if you listen and read some of these interviews that Ukrainians have given over what's been happening to them, you would find your voice. You would use your voice because it is very comfortable for us to say this from homes that we're walking past that aren't shelled out, that aren't bombed, right? And to me, it is worth the risk because I feel like my position in leadership is more important. And I want to be on the right side of this conversation. And I just want my voice and the 40 Olympians’ voices to be on the record.

MG: So we have just a minute or so left before I let you go. If Russian and Belarussian athletes are allowed to compete under this neutral banner next year in Paris at the 2024 Games, what's at stake, do you think?

PERDITA FELICIEN: On a human level, on a human right scale, I think about potentially being there and seeing a Ukrainian athlete on the field of play have to go up against a Russian or Belarussian athlete and how that would feel, how unimaginable that would be and why we’re asking that. Overarching though, broader, I think it really undermines sport. I think it undermines sports positioning and the role that we have for peace and to be human rights first. And I think it undermines the fact that sport is not always used for good. And that actually makes me sad.

MG: It's great to talk to you, and I'm really glad that you agreed to speak with us. Perdita, thank you.

PERDITA FELICIEN: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Perdita Felicien, sports broadcaster, two time Olympic hurdler who competed for Canada. David Wallechinsky is a historian and executive board member of the International Society of Olympic Historians. He's been listening in. David, good morning to you.

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Good morning to you.

MG: Do you think it undermines sport if Russian and Belarussian athletes compete in the Olympic Games next year?

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Well, I think I appreciate both opinions. The IOC actually has a long history of banning countries because of their war activities. It really goes back even to World War I, the first Olympics after World War I, which were in Antwerp in 1920. What was known as the aggressor nations, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria were banned from the Olympics. And after World War II, the IOC, the International Olympic Committee also banned Germany and Japan. One of your guests mentioned the South African situation. And the IOC eventually, although it's complicated, they took the position that because of the clear racist attitude of the South African government…

MG: This is when South Africa said they were just going to send white athletes to the Olympics.

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: They said under no circumstances would they send black athletes. And so the IOC banned them from the Olympics for seven Olympics starting in 1964, and they didn't come back until 1992. I think the one thing that's interesting, this whole subject of how do you deal with neutral athletes, what the IOC did in the last couple of Olympics was ridiculous and had nothing to do with Ukraine. It had to do with doping. And they just said, oh, you can wear your, you know, play a different song, etc. It was horrible. They were embarrassed. And so what they're trying to do now, it sounds like, is that they want to go back to what's known as the 1992 Yugoslavia decision, which was Yugoslavia had been banned, had been sanctioned by the United Nations. The IOC took the position that, you know, Yugoslavia could not enter team sports, that Yugoslavian athletes could compete, but under the Olympic flag and the Olympic anthem. And that appears to be what Thomas Bach is hinting will be the position of the IOC.

MG: He clarified his and the IOC's position on all of this yesterday. Take a listen to what the head of the IOC said.

SOUNDCLIP

THOMAS BACH: We have been accused by the Russian side of being agents of U.S., and we have been accused by the Ukrainian side of being promoters of war. So we appear to be there somewhere in the middle. But we are standing firm. We're standing firm by our values, which are enshrined in the Olympic charter.

MG: Sounds like he's trying to thread a pretty small needle there. He says that his belief in this decision is in line with the Olympic charter. What do you make of that?

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Well, the idea with the Olympic charter is that, as was said previously, is that individual athletes should not be punished because of the position of their governments. And the idea, although it's not 100%, is that the International Olympic Committee says that governments cannot be involved in their Olympic committees or the Olympics, which of course isn't realistic because they are. And so in the case of Russia, for example, before the Ukraine war, they cheated at the Sochi Olympics. They sent doped athletes and the IOC said, well, you shouldn't be doing that. But they showed up at the next Olympics and, you know, the fans were certainly wearing gear, but that was Russia. So in principle and the way it's carried out are often very different.

MG: How much of this, I mean, and I ask you this as somebody who has written the books on the Olympics. You know these games inside and out. How much of this has to do with the power and the strength of Russia in particular at Olympic Games that the IOC just can't afford in some ways to kick that country to the side?

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Well, let me give you an example that people don't talk about. I'm a U.S. citizen. And in 2003, the Bush administration, George Bush administration, the United States invaded Iraq, invaded and occupied Iraq under false premises. They lied about why they were going in. They lied about what was going on there and they invaded. Nobody asked for American athletes to be banned from the Olympics. And so, you know, the assumption was the United States is too big to be punished. And what we're talking about here is it may be the same thing with the Russians. They're too big to be punished.

MG: What do you think is going to happen in a year's time when the Paris Olympics, you know, under the Eiffel Tower and the spectacle of the Summer Games return? How likely is it that we could see an outright ban on Russian or Belarussian athletes?

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: I hate to predict because in the end, it's only one person who's making that decision, really, and that's Thomas Bach. So it's the pressure that you will receive. It's just really hard to tell at this point.

MG: Do you think there could be boycotts? And again, it's tricky to ask a historian to predict the future, but based on boycotts past and on the politics of boycotts, do you think that there could be, if those athletes compete, that other countries could refuse to send their athletes to the games?

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: I think that is possible, particularly the Scandinavian countries. But it's a very hard one because you're punishing athletes who devoted their life to sport. This is what they want to do. But 72% of athletes only get to compete in one Olympics. And so you're taking away the one thing they've been aiming for. So I think that most national Olympic committees would be very hesitant to say you can't go. They would probably leave it up to each athlete.

MG: David, really great to talk to you about this. Thank you very much. And perhaps we'll talk again as the games get closer.

DAVID WALLECHINSKY: Thank you.

MG: David Wallechinsky is an Olympic historian, executive board member of the International Society of Olympic Historians. We are coming to the end of today's program from Halifax, and I am blessed to be joined in our studio here in Halifax by our producer here, Mary-Catherine McIntosh. Good morning.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: Good morning.

MG: You've been very busy helping to prepare for our visit above and beyond. You are the consummate host. You welcome us. You make sure that everything is taken care of. But part of what you've been doing is driving around so that we could connect with people across this province. And you had a bit of an adventure the other day.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: I did indeed. So I am driving down the highway in the CBC van and then I hear a bang, and then it sounds like I'm dragging a snowbank with me.

MG: Not good.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: No. So, you know, I start to panic. So I pull over and I get on my back on the side of the highway and I don't see anything. I even take the snow scraper and I start feeling around and I don't see anything. So I get back on the highway and there's no noise. And then bang. And then the snow bank again. And so I pull over and nothing. And I do this a couple of times. And then finally when I pull over, I look under the van and what do I see? But the whole, you know that plastic pan that protects the bottom of the car.

MG: Sure.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: Part of it has come under.

MG: That's not good.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: So at least now I know there's no wheel that's going to fly off. It's not that dangerous. And I've got, you know, a story to do and I've got tape to collect. So I head back on the road and I'm feeling pretty good. And I think, I can fix that. I just need some duct tape. So I keep going. I pull over to the nearest service station and they don't have any. But now I've got this idea in my head, so I can't stop.

MG: That you're going to duct tape it all together.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: So I started asking customers, do you have duct tape? So I go up to this guy and I'm like, do you have any duct tape? I have a really weird question. Do you have any duct tape? And he says, that's not a weird question. And he starts rooting around in his truck and he says, oh shoot, I just took it out. Where are you going? I say, Lunenburg. And he says, I live on the way. Why don't you follow me there? So I follow him to his place. And when we get there, the duct tape won't stick. So he gets on his back under the CBC van with one of those like industrial ties. And he's trying to tie the thing back up. And he spends like 30 minutes under there. And you would think that this man, Michael Lohnes, would be cranky, but like he's like giggling under there. At one point, his wife comes along. She's been on a walk and she crouches down beside him. She says, do you need anything, Michael? Do you need anything? He's like a wrench. I need a plier. And at one point, she gets out firewood and he's propping up the bottom of the van. And then his neighbour is curious and he comes over. So then there's four of us crouched under the CBC van. Half an hour, he finally manages to tie it to something and I'm on my way again.

MG: What does that story tell you about the place that we're in, tell you about this province?

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: I think it tells me more broadly that people are good and that people are helpful and people want to help. You just have to ask for it sometimes.

MG: So you managed to get back out on the road. I mean, you know Mary-Catherine McIntosh, a great storyteller, you just heard. She's gone and has met some people. And we're going to hear some of her stories and some of her travels coming up in the days ahead. But in the meantime, you wanted to send a song out to those who helped you.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: I did. I asked Michael Lohnes what's his favourite Nova Scotia artist? He said, I don't know. My wife likes Anne Murray, but I don't. So I'm going to pick a song.

MG: There’s a story there too, but continue.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: So I was on my own. It's David Myles and it's One in a Million because Michael Lohnes is one in a million.

MG: Mary-Catherine, thank you very much and thanks for the warm welcome here.

MARY-CATHERINE MCINTOSH: It's great to have you.

MG: Mary-Catherine McIntosh, producer for The Current here in Nova Scotia. Canada Reads is up next on your CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway in Halifax. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Song: “One in a Million” by David Myles]

Wednesday March 29, 2023 Episode Transcript