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 2022

The Current Transcript for June 7, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

MALE SPEAKER: Canada Soccer is very disappointed with the men's national team players' decision to refuse to play today. We would like to firstly apologize to all of our Canada soccer fans and reaffirm our gratitude to you for your continued support.

MATT GALLOWAY: These should be the best of times for soccer in Canada. The women's team is Olympic champs. The men just qualified for the World Cup for the first time in a generation. But instead of preparing for this fall's tournament, the squad is embroiled in controversy, forced to cancel a game with Iran after protests, then refusing to take the field on the weekend in a fight over money. In 30 minutes, the squabbles that are overshadowing a golden moment and leaving fans with a bad taste. Also this morning, Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. Turkey says no. Coming up, why the standoff now has some questioning Turkey's place in the military alliance. Plus:

MALE SPEAKER: The vote in favour of having confidence in Boris Johnson's leader was 211 votes and a vote against was 148 votes. And therefore, I can announce that the parliamentary party does have confidence.

MG: Boris Johnson will remain as British prime minister, but only just having faced down yet another revolt from his own party. Later, why many say this win just delays the inevitable. We start, though, with former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour and whether culture change is actually possible within the Canadian Armed Forces. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Canada’s military can’t solve sexual misconduct problem alone, says Louise Arbour

Guest: Louise Arbour

ANITA ANAND: [SOUNDCLIP] If we do not take this moment for what it is and implement the recommendations that identify deep areas of need for change in the Canadian Armed Forces, we run the risk of not being a fully effective military domestically and internationally.

MG: That's Canada's Defence Minister, Anita Anand, reacting last week to a report on the Canadian Armed Forces amid a crisis of sexual misconduct. The investigation by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour makes 48 recommendations. Chief among them, that Canada's military no longer have jurisdiction over sexual misconduct cases. Madame Arbour joins me now. Good morning.

LOUISE ARBOUR: Good morning.

MG: It has been a week since this report came out and we'll get to the recommendations in a moment. But given the investigation that you have done and what you have learnt over the course of that investigation, what would you tell survivors who have been waiting so long to see change within the Canadian Armed Forces?

LA: I think I would tell them, unfortunately, you're going to have to be patient again. I can't imagine that any of the pretty substantial changes that I've recommended would happen overnight. I'm relatively confident that they will happen, but not overnight.

MG: Relatively confident. We'll get back to the relative confidence that you have in a moment. You heard Anita Anand there say that if the recommendations aren't implemented, Canada runs a risk of not being effective militarily. Beyond that, what's at stake here, do you think?

LA: I think this is part of the challenge. You know, effectiveness in the military operational performance. Operational effectiveness is the driving principle or the driving force. And I have to say, they have had more problems than other sectors of society in incorporating the ideals of diversity into their efficiency models. You know, they wear a uniform. Uniformity, homogeneity is very much part of the ease with which they feel they can deliver operationally. So to change that, to accommodate the expectations of a Canadian society in which women and other severely underrepresented groups in this very homogeneous environment will find their proper place is their big challenge. And that's why they have to open up to external actors. They cannot achieve that, grounded as they are in their ways of doing things.

MG: How would you describe the culture of the Canadian military?

LA: It's very interesting. You know, it's called... These are called total institutions similar to the church. And it's an environment that is very closed. Members join early in their career and stay the course. They groom and develop older leadership internally. So it's a culture very rooted in tradition with very, very high rhetoric. It's all about valour, honour, integrity, dignity, courage. But the reality is very different. You know, at the military colleges, all these great values are followed by "and don't get caught". So that captures, I think, very much the culture when it comes to the integration of different groups and sexual misconduct. Which I think is related to the unease they've had in integrating women in the armed forces. It was never their ideas. This was imposed basically because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was imposed by external actors. And there's been a lot of resistance.

MG: And so at the root of that, as you say, at the root of that is a culture that in past was not even interested in welcoming women to the force.

LA: Yeah. As I said, I think it's you know, it's very much based on, you know, efficiency, discipline and morale, which is the basic justification, for instance, for military justice, is a lot easier to accommodate when everybody's the same. But that kind of environment is not particularly conducive to opening up to people who live, work and think differently. So and I know it sounds very abstract, but I think that's very much at the root of all these kinds of problems. And so what is the answer? Well, the answer is you have to open up, let some external oxygen into your system so that you keep more in pace with how Canadian society has evolved.

MG: I want to ask you more about opening up in just a moment. The report contains, as I mentioned, 48 recommendations. The most pressing, perhaps for many, is this idea of moving cases of sexual misconduct from the purview of the Canadian Armed Forces to civilian courts. What impact would that have on survivors, do you think?

LA: Let me be very clear. I am not suggesting for a moment that the civilian criminal justice system has been particularly brilliant in handling cases of sexual assault, all types of criminal sexual offences. I'm not suggesting that this will be the miracle cure. What I'm suggesting, though, is that it's the only way to allow survivors not to feel trapped in having to report to the chain of command. I think it will free up women in particular and other victims of sexual misconduct from this lack of trust and this kind of insider process that is the chain of command.

MG: Well, that was the way that it was before. In 1998, the military was given oversight of cases of sexual misconduct, as you understand it. Why was that done? What was the point of that?

LA: It's been very difficult to find any rationale for that. The only rationale that we could find was... were statements by the then Minister of Defence who said this will be useful or necessary to improve efficiency, discipline and morale, which, as I said, is the justification for military justice at large. And that's true. Prior to 1998, they didn't have jurisdiction on these cases. They still don't have jurisdiction over murder and some child related, childhood abduction type offences. There's no big rationale that's been advanced that I could find as to why in 1998 it was felt that sexual assault would be better handled by the military system. And it has proven a wrong assumption. I think in reality, not only has it not improved efficiency, discipline and morale, but it has eroded it because it has eroded trust in the chain of command.

MG: Is part of this also defining what it is that we are talking about? Your report talks about the definition of sexual misconduct and says from the military perspective, if we're talking about the military, that definition is too broad. How should the armed forces define sexual misconduct?

LA: I think the aspect of sexual misconduct that is actually criminal, that is common to all Canadians, all people who are in Canada are subjected to the Canadian Criminal Code. To mix... to transform all that into a kind of discipline offence in line with other prohibitions. You have to understand that military members are subject to more restrictions in the area of sexual conduct than the average Canadian. For instance, they have a concept of fraternisation. They may be prohibited from engaging in even consensual sexual conduct with allies when they're deployed, certainly with civilians in the countries in which they're deployed. But to put all that in the same basket, as crime, I think maybe undermines the severity of what sexual assault is, for instance. And it's usually charged in the military system as... not as sexual assault, it's charged as a conduct prejudicial to the moral of the troops. I forget... there are different charging sections. So I think it's a mischaracterisation of the severe cases to treat them as discipline offences and it would be better handled as what it is for everybody else in the country as crime and subject to the same kind of treatment.

MG: You said that the definition of sexual assault should be limited to intentional non-consensual touching of a sexual nature and that the military should adopt the Canadian labour codes definition of sexual harassment. What would that do in terms of that culture within the military, do you think?

LA: Well, I hope that it would bring some clarity in an environment in which there's a huge amount of confusion, as I said, on this issue of fraternisation and what is currently called adverse personal relationship, this is all related to, which is very much at the heart of the problem as well, abuse of power. You know, this, the idea of consent in an environment in which obedience to your superior is expected in almost all circumstances, it tends to make the question of valid, free, informed consent a lot more complicated. The other part of the problem, I think, in the military context, which is related to this issue, is the duty to report. In civilian life you and I don't have a duty to report crime. You can walk by, see a crime being committed. You're under no obligation to do anything unless you actively or in some way become an accomplice by supporting it. In the military system, they have a duty to report all breaches of discipline, and that imposes a very unfair burden on survivors that may not be ready to disclose and certainly are very reluctant to disclose to their chain of command, fearing that either they'll do nothing and or that all the adverse consequences will be visited on them. You'll be ostracised by their colleagues. And so I've also recommended that they should abolish the duty to report. So bringing this entire field in line with Canadian civilian ways of operating.

MG: In your language, the changes that you're calling for would lead to a paradigm shift within the military. And the question I think many people are asking after this report, after the previous report, after the previous report, is whether that paradigm shift is actually likely to happen. The national chief of the Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre, had this to say about your report. Take a listen.

WAYNE EYRE: [SOUNDCLIP] In her opening comments, in the report, Madame Arbour talks about palpable change being in the air. I sense that as well. As I go around with the minister, as I have my own visits, as I talk to our own leaders at various levels. That desire for change is there. We owe it to our people to make the changes. We owe it to our people to have confidence in their leadership and their reporting systems. So change is absolutely necessary. We have to welcome an external view of our organization.

MG: There's a couple of things there. One, is that desire for change is a desire for change anywhere near enough?

LA: No, I don't think it is. I think it is true that certainly after the embarrassment, particularly the media exposure of the extent of sexual misconduct and the extent I should say, well-documented by my former colleague, Justice Marie Deschamps in her report from 6/7 years ago. This was not anecdotal. So I think that realization and particularly the accusations that have been brought forward against senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces have, I think, really demoralized a lot of people who are now expecting change. The thing, though, is the most important change, and I really hope that the military leadership understands and accepts that... The most important culture change is in them accepting that they need external input into their processes and external assistance. And that's why I say, use the civilian criminal justice system, use the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Don't think you can fix everything yourself, which is up to now how they viewed Culture Change, Operation Honour. They've launched all kinds of initiatives, again convinced that they need a change, but that they can do it. And my answer to that is, no, you cannot do that by yourself because you're even oblivious to some of the elements that make it so hard to change that culture.

MG: Well, you've said in the past that the military is allergic to external input. Is there any indication I mean, General Wiener says we have to welcome an external view of our organization, but is there any indication that they do welcome that?

LA: I really hope that their response, their real response to my recommendations will be the ultimate test of whether they're ready, willing and able to open up and change their ways. If my recommendations end up on that gigantic chart that they have of all hundreds of previous recommendations where my little box is already there, if that's the attitude, then it's not going to happen. What I've issued is not a court order. It's a series of recommendations. If they don't want to do it, they should say so. Up to now, they never say no. It just goes on the chart about further studies and external... turned to another external expert. And hire consultants and make another chart and another deck and it doesn't happen. Time and again, the auditor general, many have said it's not happening. Well, we'll see this time.

MG: Do you believe that it's possible to change the culture?

LA: I think Canadian culture has changed in… certainly in my lifetime very dramatically. If I look at the judiciary, which is another organization that is very closed rank, you know, nobody from the outside can tell us what to do. They don't understand how we work. But when I first joined them, they were either no or token women here and they're one, two, three. But there were many men judges in very senior positions who were persuaded that women couldn't do that job. They just didn't have the moral fibre or the intellectual toughness to own a decision. There was all kinds of rationales, all of which have been proven completely wrong. Pure stereotypes. Well in the military it's the same thing. There's still men in leadership position who believe women in the military cannot do their job, cannot do their work. This is the kind of culture change that we've seen happen in civilian life. It can happen there, but it won't happen if they lock the doors and try to fix it all by themselves.

MG: Do you believe the political will is there to force this change?

LA: I was told by the prime minister who said it publicly and by the Minister of Defence that they intend... they're very serious this time. They really intend to implement these recommendations. So what can I say? I think part of the problem is that this is an area in which public opinion is not easily mobilized at large. To encourage... let's put it this way, the kind of political will you need to move such a big institution in the right direction. You know, the last federal election, how much debate was there on defence policy? You know, it's not a big issue in public opinion.

MG: Well, we'll take it to move then. I mean, this goes back to you being relatively confident, which is what you said at the beginning. You've also told the Toronto Star that you're tired of blah, blah, blah about change of culture. So if you know public opinion isn't going to move this, what will and what will show you that this time is different than the time before and the time before?

LA: The military answer to the Canadian public through elected officials. That's how our system works. So first, it takes a lot of backbone on the civilian leadership, that's Minister of Defence. Ultimately the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Privy Council's Office, the Department of National Defence. And then it will take the Chief of the Defence Staff and the 140 of general officers and flag officers, the generals. It will take the vast majority of them being on board. And once again, starting with the fundamental premise that they can't fix it by themselves. If they don't accept that, it's not going to happen. They've been at it for, I don't know how long, studies, recommendations, charts, discussions, and they're just turning in a circle. I come out, I say abolish it. Well, either they'll do it or they won't do it. They need to move. Now.

MG: And you remain relatively confident that that will come to pass?

LA: I am. And God knows I'm not particularly naive, but I really think they understand now that... Is it going to take another Supreme Court judge five, six years down the road. First of all, this is an embarrassment and it's enough. And they don't have all the skills to do it. So if they accept that, I think we're good.

MG: Louise Arbour, I really appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much.

LA: It's my pleasure. Good to talk to you.

MG: Take care. Bye bye.

LA: Bye.

MG: Madame Louise Arbour is a former Supreme Court Justice of Canada and the former UN human rights commissioner and international war crimes prosecutor. Well, your CBC News is next. And then...

SOCCER FAN: It costs us money coming here from the ferry and the bus and, you know, it's a long trip. And now the game is cancelled again just a couple of hours before the match starts. So terrible. And there's 20,000 just, you know, disappointed people here.

ANOTHER FAN: It's unfortunate for the fans, but they have to get this resolved and whatever needs to happen for that to occur, that's the best choice. At the end of the day, it's bad luck. I mean, we just finally got to the World Cup and a match in Vancouver. We finally get to see some excitement for the beautiful game in our country. And this is what happens.

MG: Thousands of disappointed soccer fans caught in the middle of a dispute over money between players and Canada soccer brass this weekend after an abrupt cancellation of a friendly match ahead of the World Cup. Is Canada's historic run being overshadowed by internal drama? That story when we return in 6 minutes. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Pay disputes, pay equity and Canada’s national soccer teams

Guests: John Molinaro, Craig Forrest and Amy Walsh

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, Boris Johnson lives to lead another day. But is the clock still ticking on the battered British prime minister? But first, Canada's national men's soccer team's rough road to the World Cup.

[Music: Theme]

SOCCER FAN: You know, there's been a lot of planning going into that within our friend group. Getting people from, you know, from different towns coming here and this happens last minute. Unacceptable.

UPSET FAN: I came all the way from Edmonton to watch the game and as you can see, it is cancelled. This is not right. I think we should all get a very big refund.

ANOTHER FAN: Flew from Calgary. We're originally from Panama though, so. Yeah, sad, sad news. And with such short notice, not fair.

MG: Not everything is beautiful when it comes to the beautiful game. A labour dispute between players and Canada Soccer dashed the hopes of thousands of fans who came out to see a friendly between Canada's men's team in Panama in British Columbia this past weekend. After the last minute cancellation of the game Canada Soccer president Nick Bontis said he's ready to speak with his players.

NICK BONTIS: We are ready to sit down and take a proposal that's over here from one side and a proposal that we believe is fair, that is equitable with the women that is at 30% to the men in sharing World Cup prize money that we have benchmarked against nations around the world that we believe is fair. My job as president is a responsibility to the fiduciary and stable health of this organization, and I can't accept an offer that will put our organization in a financial position that is untenable.

MG: While talks are underway, the team resumed training yesterday despite the dispute. Somewhere at the heart of this issue lies $10 million that FIFA says will come to Canada Soccer thanks to the men's team qualifying for the World Cup this fall. And while this is bubbling over, there has been a simmering fight over pay between Canada Soccer and the women's national team. To shed some light on this situation, I'm joined by John Molinaro, Canada soccer reporter and the founder of TFC Republic.ca. John, good morning.

JOHN MOLINARO: Hey, Matt, how are you?

MG: Good. How do we get to this point where the men's national team, at the height of its success, seems to be fighting over money with the organizing group of soccer in this country?

JM: Yeah, I think this has kind of been brewing for a while. When you look at the men's... The letter that they released on Sunday, it's clear that there's been some pent up frustration over the years with Canada Soccer on a variety of issues in terms of, you know, how they deal with the players, the lack of transparency. And then, you know, with the pay issue, it really only started in March when they kind of sat down and negotiated over, you know, the FIFA payments and, you know, the fact that it took this long, it took only until Friday for the Canada Soccer Association to table them and offer, you know, around 48 hours before the game really showed a lack of foresight, I think, from both sides. I mean, they really should have been negotiating far sooner than March. And had settled by the time that, you know, Canada was on track to qualify for the World Cup. So the fact that it's been left this late, I think just speaks to, you know, poor organization overall.

MG: Just briefly explain what the players are asking for.

JM: Yes. So it's in essence an issue over prize money, although there are other issues as well. But you know, FIFA awards prize money for qualifying for the World Cup. And the further along you progressed in the tournament, the more prize money you get. And so that money goes to the confederation and then it's up to the Confederation to decide how they want to sort of pay that out to the players. You know, how big of a piece do they get? The players are asking essentially for 40%, which is kind of in line with what other nations around the world get. It's a little higher than some nations. But, you know, the men's team, having qualified for the first time in 36 years, you know, are in a great strength or a great position of strength and bargaining leverage, because, again, it's the first time that they've qualified for the World Cup in 36 years, and they want, you know, a substantial piece of the pie. So that's essentially what this is all over. It's a pay dispute.

MG: In the statement that the players put out on Sunday, they said they wanted an equitable pay structure for the men's team and the women's team. What exactly does that look like?

JM: Yeah. Well, it's interesting to know, Matt, that, you know, what they see as pay equity and what the women see as pay equity are two different things. So the men called for that. Both men and women should get the same appearance fees for international friendlies like the game in Panama that was cancelled. So that's fair enough. But they also said with regards to FIFA prize money, you know, if Canada... the men are getting 40% of the prize money from their World Cup, then they're arguing that the women should also get 40% of the prize money from the FIFA Women's World Cup. The problem with that is that the men's World Cup, FIFA pays... the prize money is more substantial on the women's side. So it's not really... the percentages might be the same, but it's not equal payments. So what the women want essentially is that the prize money from the men's World Cup and the Women's World Cup should be pooled into one sort of pot of money. And both the men and women get paid out of that same pot equally all the same. So that way everyone gets the same share.

MG: You heard at the beginning of our conversation Canada Soccer president Nick Bontis. I think it's fair to say he sounded fairly defensive in what he was saying at the podium there.

JM: Yeah, I don't think he did himself any favours with that sort of impassioned press conference on Sunday. You know, he talked about, you know, I'm not going to sort of negotiate in the media with the players, which was quite ironic considering he was speaking in front of a roomful of reporters. Yeah, I think his tone came across as really sort of defensive and I'm not sure it won a lot of style points with the players who... it has to be said, there's a lot of distrust with the CSA at this moment.

MG: Well, how much of this is about the Canadian Soccer Association, Canada Soccer? I mean, this should be the best of times. You have the men who are off to the World Cup. The women are Olympic champions. They're now fighting over money. There was this match with Iran that was booked and then cancelled after members of the Iranian community here in this country were, you know, saying that they were going to protest. How much of this has to do with Canada Soccer?

JM: Oh, a lot of it. I think the majority of it has to. I mean, there's genuine frustration on the men and the women's side about how their organization is run, that they want to have more transparency in terms of, you know, how decisions are made. It has to be said. I mean, the men's players, you know, spoke up about not wanting to play that game against Iran as well. I mean, they had genuine concerns as well. And so I think there's just a sense of... a real sense of distrust, a real sense of that the players have been disrespected because they're not necessarily included in some key decisions all the time. And they want to know how the sausage is made essentially in terms of, you know, the broadcast rights and the commercial rights, because I think there's a sense from the men's side and the women's side as well that Canada Soccer isn't sort of doing all it can to leverage the success of these two teams. And, you know, commercially, there's a lot of sort of factors that go into that. But I think there's genuine frustration that, you know, the CSA should be... In their minds, the CSA should be doing more, you know, in terms of commercial and broadcast possibilities.

MG: Do you think the men's team gets back on the field for Thursday? That's when the next match is scheduled.

JM: Yeah, I do, Matt. I mean, I think, you know, it's one thing to boycott an international friendly against Panama, but it's quite another to boycott, you know, a competitive game, a CONCACAF Nations League game against Curacao because then, you know, you're risking the wrath of CONCACAF, which is the governing body of soccer in all of North America. And you're risking fines and punishments and bans. And I think, you know, I think that the players made their statement with the Panama game. I think, you know, they clearly got Canada Soccer's attention. I think the fact that they were back on the training pitch yesterday in Vancouver, and training, even though that no deal is in place, certainly suggests to me that things are, you know, moving in a positive direction. Still a lot of work to do. But I… you know, I don't think it'll come to another strike on Thursday.

MG: John, thanks for this.

JM: Sure Matt, anytime.

MG: John Molinaro is the founder of TFC Republic.ca. This current dispute between players in Canada Soccer is arriving, as we said, at a golden moment for sport in this country. Some past national team members are looking at this fight with a bit of a sense of deja vu. Craig Forrest is a veteran goalkeeper for the men's national soccer team, now hosts Footy Prime The Podcast. Amy Walsh, former midfielder for the women's national soccer team, is now a sideline reporter for CF Montreal. They're both members of the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame. Craig and Amy, good morning to you.

CRAIG FORREST: Good morning, Matt.

AMY WALSH: Morning Matt.

MG: Craig, what do you make of the men deciding they weren't going to play this team friendly? Was it the right decision to essentially go on strike?

CRAIG FORREST: That's a tough call. I mean, I am not in the dressing room anymore. And they obviously made a decision as a group to get involved, to take it this far. I'm not sure I'd advise that myself personally, but it did happen. It got the attention of a lot more than just the Canadian Soccer Association. So from that standpoint, it worked. A lot of their grievances, I certainly agree with what the players are talking about. But I also think that some of their grievances, if there was a communication and trust between them and the association, that we wouldn't have got this far. Listening to John Molinaro there, a good friend of mine. He makes a very good point that this should have never got this far. It should have been negotiated. Percentage should have been done an awful long time ago. So that's on both parties, the CSA and the players for letting it get this far. So there's some blame to be put around, to be shared around. But the most disappointing thing is that this team has done so much as well as our women's team so much to build up a fan base that is still not massive, but it's large and we don't want to disappoint those fans and those supporters. And collectively, we've done that to the fans and and the supporters between the CSA and the players. So that's not a good look. It's a black eye on the sport. We can't afford that in Canada. We've got to take all the advantages and positives that we can get and there's a lot of them. And this is a big backward step for us, I believe.

MG: We'll come back to that in a moment. Amy, from your perspective, when you hear the boss of Canada Soccer, Nick Bontis, talk about how his responsibility is to the fiduciary well-being of the, you know, the organization and the teams in that organisation. What goes through your mind?

AMY WALSH: Well, they're a non-profit organisation, so I know they still have a bottom line, but I think that in their values as a non-profit, they need to uphold those values with integrity and honesty and have transparency about their communication. And you mentioned his combative and very defensive manner. And while I never directly negotiated with Nick Bontis, I negotiated with many a CSA representative who came at player representatives with that same energy. And I really understand... I agree with Craig that, you know, blame can be put on both sides in this matter and nobody wanted to see that game get cancelled. But I think the players saw this as an opportunity to leverage that friendly in order to kind of get what they needed. And you know, the first time that they've qualified in 36 years, you see the product that they're putting on the field, the women have podium three consecutive times. I think that they need something administratively and sort of in an agreement in the CBA that matches the performance on the field. And so I think they saw this as the moment to do it. And yes, you know, when they officially qualified on March 27, that was to nobody's surprise. Everybody should have seen that coming. So negotiations should have started long before. But the CSA is known for pushing negotiations is one of their tactics. But yeah, I think that in the end they do play the game on Thursday and hopefully though, you know, you're going to see the sort of the immediate repercussions of not playing on Sunday because the goodwill that they've sort of gleaned and gained in terms of the support of the fans might be lost and you might see it immediately in that stadium, not as full as they would have liked.

MG: Craig, how big of an issue was compensation at the time that you were playing with the national team?

CRAIG FORREST: Oh, it's always been an issue, Matt. You know, we've... you know, and when you look around at CBA agreements across all sports, there's been issues, lockouts, whether it's NHL, Major League Baseball, hockey. You know, we've had these issues in sports before. That's not the issue. I think it's just how it's handled and the lack of professionalism. But you know, again, about that game on Thursday, if they decide not to play, John touched on it, the sanctions would be massive. I mean, looking at precedents beforehand, the disciplinary committee of CONCACAF, the most recent one, one is Guatemala. They were kicked out of the nations league for a couple rounds. They were also kicked out of the Gold Cup for two rounds as well. So Canada's going to see that if that game is a game that they decide not to play, it's not something... To be fined by the association is something I would not advise the players whatsoever.

MG: You said earlier on in some ways that, you know, you support some of those grievances that the players have.

CRAIG FORREST: Yes, I do. But I also think that if they were communicated properly to them, that there would be a better understanding by the players that there is no gold in a TV contract. There is no licence to print money because you made the World Cup. This is still Canada. We have barriers. We have difficulties in many areas. And there's also because of this pay dispute between... And Amy I would ask you this. This is something that's going to come to a head with the men. There's going to be a decision by the men that has to be made that they agree to equal pay with the women. And if they decide not to do that, there is going to be a battle between the women and the men that we cannot afford in this country to be able to deal with.

MG: Amy, pick up on that because the women's team was quick to react to the statement that came out from the men's team in particular about the issue of compensation and the percentage equity from FIFA rather than pay equity. From your perspective as somebody who is on that team. Why does that difference matter?

AMY WALSH: Well, we heard John talk about it. So the disparity in prize money that exists in FIFA currently is $450 million in prize money upwards of that available to the men at Qatar and for the Women's World Cup, which is always a year after the men in 2023 in Australia and New Zealand it will be approximately 60 million. So if we're talking about equal percentages, there's no pay equity in that. There's no way that that is even close to being equal. But I would say and I don't know this, but for the men to include gender equity or percentages of prize money and then a development of a women's domestic pro league in their list of demands, I think is great. I think what could be better is if the men and the women were in lockstep and were presenting their demands jointly to the CSA, I think it would be a much more powerful stance and a much more effective way to communicate and leverage these demands. So I think that… I don't think the men tried to sort of legalise or like, use words where they were going to have loopholes later. I hope that it was just maybe a mistake in the language that they used. The women felt the need to clarify that, which is important because it's an important distinction to make. But I do think that if each leadership group came together and then was able to speak to the CSA. And Nick Bontis, I think that... I don't know if it would expedite the process, but I think it would be a much more effective battle to fight.

MG: I mean, the context here is the issue of pay equity when it comes to soccer players in the United States where men and women are now paid the same. And this was... We've talked about this here in Canada, whether something like that is coming to Canada, the disparity, despite the fact that the women in this country have been far more successful over the years than the men's team is vast. It was reported yesterday that the men's team often flies in business class and the women are flying economy. What does that tell you about how far there still is to go to make sure that true equity actually happens in sport in this country?

AMY WALSH: Well, I think it goes... You know, you take a look at what's on paper, maybe what people are willing to do in order to trumpet pay equity. But then what exactly is happening when you're travelling? You know, I think John Herdman has gone a long way as an advocate for the men.

MG: The men's coach.

AMY WALSH: Yes. Excuse me. Yes. John Herdman, the men's coach. And then before that was the women's coach and did so much for that programme as well. But you know, is there... I'm not saying that Bev Priestman isn't somebody, who was the women's coach, who was able to sort of talk to the CSA and demand certain things like business class for her players. So as women in this country playing for a national side, we don't have the luxury of those things just being provided to us. We have to fight and claw for everything. And so to see the men asking for the development of a women's domestic league. I think asking for gender equity in prize money and to pool that money, I think is a good first step. But I think there's still a long way to go before Canada is, you know, offering to its players what the U.S. Soccer Federation is doing for theirs.

MG: Craig, does it feel like a bit of a kick in the gut for you as somebody who's been involved in this game for a long, long time to see in this moment when the attention should be on success on the field, that there is this squabble over money.

CRAIG FORREST: Yes. It disappoints me to no end. I don't like to see it because we're coming off the back of really a golden generation of men and women that we should be celebrating. And it should be a… really for me kickstart and sort of inspiring a generation to come and future generations of women and young boys to be able to play professional soccer, get involved with the national programme. But it's disappointing and when we talk about pay equity and things like this, I do think that Amy is absolutely right. Collectively as a group, they're going to look like heroes between each other. They're going to work together collectively. It's going to be a powerful union between the men and the women. But unless the men clarify, because that's clear to me that they are willing to do some things for the women, but they're not willing to give that prize money up equally, are they? So until they do that, we're going to see the two groups start to clash and we can't have us clashing with the CSA Association Group executives differently, separately, as men and women, we need to do that together. And it's time that we do get this pay equity thing sorted out because we know what's coming. And then men got to realize, is coming and they might as well just cave into it because it's going to be better in the long run for both programmes and all in all for the players, both women and men. It's coming and I'm just wondering whether they're going to make a stand or whether they're going to agree to it, because I think if they agree to it, everybody is on board. If they don't, people are going to take corners, we cannot be taking corners, and it's going to be a really ugly situation.

MG: 30 seconds or so left. Craig, what about the fans? To fans, it might seem unseemly that players are fighting over money. What's the message to fans as this goes?

CRAIG FORREST: Well, I would hope that they can make it up to them somehow because they the fans deserve it. They've come out and supported this team. They built up that fan base. It disappointed an awful lot of people that made a lot of travel, a lot of cost, some big distances, travel to see them, they have to make sure that they think about them. And that's what I would have certainly put into the players, is that, listen, there's a downside to a decision that we're going to make, not playing Panama. Many downsides. And one is the fans and public opinion, which they have at the moment on their side, but they can lose that very quickly by a couple of bad decisions. And one of them would be not playing Thursday. Another one is not going to be able to... if they don't accept equal pay with the women. That's going to be another problem that's going to raise its head that we just can't afford. So there's a couple of things to think about.

MG: Thank you both for this this morning. Lots to think about.

BOTH: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Craig Forrest is a former goalkeeper for the men's national soccer team, now host of Footy Prime The Podcast. Amy Walsh, former midfielder for the Canadian National Women's Soccer Team, now a sideline reporter for CF Montreal. We did request an interview with Canada Soccer, but we did not hear back. This is The Current. My name is Matt Galloway. Want to take a moment to let you know about a story you'll hear in the coming days? And really, it is a story to hear. I will be speaking with two artists from Cairo. They're recording the sounds of their city in the hopes of preserving a changing culture.

[SOUNDCLIP]

YOUSSEF SHERIF: We're right near 26th of July Street. We're at an intersection between where the food vendors would be and the clothes vendors would be.

[SOUND: crowds of people talking loudly]

YOUSSEF SHERIF: So we'd hear an overlapping between the different types of street vendors, and you'd actually hear sort of the old school kind of vendors who use the calling out method as a method of marketing their product. But you'd hear the voice, the natural voice of the person calling out bread or ice. At the beginning of the recording.

[SOUND: man calling out selling bread and ice]

YOUSSEF SHERIF: And they usually use the more melodic one of their voice, as opposed to the newer generation or the tech savvy people who sort of have incorporated speakers into their calling out culture.

[SOUND: Man talking over loud speaker]

YOUSSEF SHERIF: So they do that to save up time and effort and they sacrifice the melody, though. They don't sing it. They don't make it out into a melody anymore. It's more systematic and right to the approach, they lay out the offer, buy slippers for this much, buy a T-shirt for this much.

[SOUND: Cobbler using a machine]

NEHAL EZZ: That's the sound of a machinery used by the cobbler. A cobbler is someone who repairs shoes or footwear of any kind.

[SOUND: Cobbler using a machine]

NEHAL EZZ: We found this shop actually in downtown Cairo. It's an older shop. The cobbler was using very, very old machinery. And we kind of classified that as a culturally significant sound just because the machinery was outdated and the cobbler's method is dying currently. So one wouldn't usually find that kind of shop or that machinery making that sound in more modernised urban areas in Cairo. We're very consumed by how things look. We have so many like books of visual culture of Egypt, but nothing actually tells us what it sounded like.

YOUSSEF SHERIF: So what I'm afraid of losing is for people to lose touch with where they came from as much as I did.

MG: It is such a cool project. Those are Youssef Sherif and Nehal Ezz in Cairo, they'll tell us about their project and we'll hear more about a global effort to record sounds from cities and why that group believes that sound is part of culture that is worth preserving. Works perfectly on the radio. You'll hear that coming up in the days ahead on The Current. Well, coming up after your regional update, Boris Johnson survived a confidence vote, but is he out of the woods? Plus, Turkey's efforts to keep Sweden and Finland out of NATO. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. We are back in 90 seconds. Stay with us.

Boris Johnson’s political future

Guest: Alan Rusbridger

MG: Hi. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[SOUNDCLIP: Crowd booing]

MG: Not exactly the greeting you'd want as Britain's prime minister. But while Boris Johnson was booed on his arrival for the Queen's Jubilee this weekend. Yesterday, Conservative MPs voted to keep him on as their leader.

MALE SPEAKER: I can report as returning officer that 359 ballots were cast, no spoilt ballots, that the vote in favour of having confidence in Boris Johnson's leader was 211 votes and the vote against was 148 votes. And therefore, I can announce that the parliamentary party does have confidence.

MG: Alan Rusbridger is editor of Prospect Magazine, former editor in chief of The Guardian newspaper. He's in London. Alan, good morning.

ALAN RUSBRIDGER: Good morning.

MG: Boris Johnson says it is a convincing result, a decisive result. Was this a win or was it a stay of execution?

AR: I don't know anybody who thinks it was convincing. I've read a lot of conservative columnists this morning, and I've yet to find one who thinks that he will still be there in a year's time. In a way, from the point of view of the conservatives, it was the worst of all worlds. It didn't settle it. It would have been cleaner for him to have gone or to have won so convincingly that you could put the issue to bed. But 148 was something like 41% of his own troops saying that they no longer have confidence in him. And I just haven't read even the most loyal conservative commentators. I haven't read one who thinks that he can survive this in the long run.

MG: Remind us how we got to this point. Just briefly, I mean, where Boris Johnson was facing again, because this isn't the first time a vote on his political future by members of his own party.

AR: Well, I think the most immediate cause was the report into so-called partygate, the series of parties that were happening in Number 10 Downing Street. While the rest of us were being told that we, you know we couldn't meet anybody, people weren't going to funerals, people weren't meeting their loved ones in hospitals as well, if seemingly there was a string of parties inside number 10 Downing Street. But I think this has crystallised a sense of unease amongst his own side, that this is a prime minister who makes up the rules whenever. And it's a parliament that hasn't really got a very exciting programme of action. He's being buffeted by the economy. He couldn't make a great show of COVID. And I think they realized that a man who was charismatic and enjoyed his sense of brio and fun has now become a vote loser. And there are two forthcoming by elections at the end of the month, which everyone expects the Conservatives to lose. And so if you're a Conservative MP eyeing up an election in the next two years, you'll begin to think, actually, is this guy going to win it for me or is he going to lose it for me?

MG: Who are the conservative MPs who are trying to bring him down?

AR: Well, the thing is, it's not... there have been genuine coups in the past of people from one ideology or another, and there have been organized coups in the past. But with this present rebellion it's people from all wings of the party that are Brexiteers, there are Remainers, there are sort of economic hardliners and economic wets. You can't say that this has been an organized plot. It's just a sense, I think, of MPs themselves, but also going back to their constituents who I think we're really offended by this sense of somebody who has one rule for them and one rule for others. And I think a lot of MPs have reached breaking point and realized that they just can't go on like this.

MG: Help me understand that, because in part, that was part of his charm. As you said, Boris Johnson was somebody who, as a journalist, as a politician, as mayor of London, seemed to be able to escape what normally would be career ending scandals for other people. When did people turn?

AR: Well, memorably, his predecessor, David Cameron, described him as a greased piglet. So you thought he was in trouble and you got hold of him. He would squeal and get free. And that has been his reputation so far. I mean, there were one or two dramatic miscalculations. One was there was a minister who was severely criticised by the standards committee for paid lobbying. And Johnson, instead of accepting his resignation, talked about changing the rules in order to let his friend off. And the MPs just wouldn't put up with that. There was a sense of, you know, Johnson bending the rules by wanting to suspend Parliament rather than have debates about Brexit. There's the sense of folly, really, that he, you know, he got Brexit through promising there would be no border in the Irish Sea in order to deal with the problem that Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland have got the rules. And he just said it wouldn't happen, whereas everyone knew it would happen. So there's a sense of a prime minister whose word you can't trust. And when he repeatedly came to the House of Commons and said that there had been no party in 10 Downing Street, and then it turned out he had been partying. And so his story then changed as well. There were parties, but I wasn't there, and then there was proof that he was there. And his story changed again to say, well, okay, there were parties, but I didn't realize they were parties. I thought they were work events and eventually I think what seemed like a sort of you could almost enjoy the lack of seriousness and you know he's a bloke you would enjoy to have a pint with has turned into actually he's just an incorrigible liar. You can't trust him on anything. And if we don't get rid of him, we're going to go down with him.

MG: And yet he survived this vote yesterday in the face of, as you mentioned, the outrage from people, the fact that they couldn't visit, you know, their dying relatives in hospital. That image of the Queen sitting by herself as she mourned her husband because of COVID protocols. At the same time that Boris Johnson was at a party that he said wasn't a party that he thought was a work event. How did he survive yesterday?

AR: Well, I think he only just survived is the truth. I mean, in any government, the prime minister has a huge advantage because there are so many MPs who are actually on what's known as the payroll, they're government ministers, junior ministers and principal private secretaries and so forth, so they're all sworn to loyalty. It doesn't mean they are all loyal when they get into the ballot box, but they're sworn to loyalty. So, I mean, there are about 180 of those, and he only got 211 in all. So, yes, if you just look at the maths, you could and you know, of course, the government ministers coming out today saying, well, you know, you only have to win by one vote, a win is a win. But I think in their heart of hearts, to be leading any organisation where 40% of your own people have said, well, we don't have confidence in you is really a devastating blow.

MG: And what about the British public? What is... I mean, there was a memo that was circulated from conservative lawmakers at the weekend saying Boris Johnson is no longer an electoral asset. You've hinted at this. Have members of the British public turned their back on him as well?

AR: Well, that's what the polling says. And, you know, of course, everyone's right to be slightly cautious how you treat polling. But I think there's this sense of not only the partying, but lying about the partying or denying the partying. And, you know, I'm sure it was the same with you, the sacrifices that people made during this extraordinary time of an unprecedented time in post-war history. And then to have repeated, raucous parties going on until 4:00 in the morning, people vomiting, people sending out for suitcases of wine, music playing at top volume and all this happening and contrasting with people's own lived experience on that. A very memorable picture of the Queen sitting on her own at her husband's funeral because she wanted to play by the rules. I think this has... it's difficult for any prime minister to survive this. And I think this Jubilee weekend, when the MPs went back to their constituents and were taken aback by the sheer anger of people, as I said, not just at the partying, but these transparent lies that Johnson has told about it since.

MG: And so just finally, history would show that even if he's won this, his future is not bright with the party. If we were to talk in a year's time, would he still be the British prime minister and the leader of the British Conservative Party?

AR: I would be very surprised. I mean, in a way it's in Labour's interests. Labour is being led by Keir Starmer, who is a very decent man. Nobody thinks he's corrupt. He's, you know, the worst thing that people can say about him is he's a bit dull and uninspiring. But I think their best hope is to have... You know, we've got the honest guy against the man, you know, as an incorrigible liar. So in a way it's in Labour's interest for him to stay. But I think the self-preservation instinct of the Tories will kick in. So I would be very surprised if he was there come September.

MG: Alan, good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

AR: Good to speak.

MG: Alan Rusbridger is the editor of Prospect Magazine and the former editor in chief of The Guardian newspaper.

[Music: upbeat techno]

Why Turkey is objecting to Sweden and Finland joining NATO

Guests: Steven Erlanger and Asli Aydintasbas

STEVEN ERLANGER: Hello.

ASLI AYDINTASBAS: Hi.

MG: Steven, what is Turkey saying about its objection to Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Why is it not interested in that expansion happening?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, I think it's interested, but it's interested in getting its own issues paid attention to. What seems to be driving Erdogan is an election that's coming next year. Strong nationalist feelings and the issue of Kurdish separatism. He believes that Sweden much more than Finland, but that Sweden is in too open to Kurdish separatists known as the PKK, which actually the US and the EU regard as a terrorist group and also its sister organization based in Syria. And he also feels they are harbouring people who follow a man called Gulen, whom he regards as responsible for the 2016 coup attempt against him. And then both countries have a kind of arms embargo on Turkey because of its cross-border military operations in Iraq and Syria dating from like 2019. So he wants those lifted. I mean, I don't think he objects to NATO's enlarging. I just think he wants Sweden in particular to pay attention to his concerns about terrorism and wants them to extradite some of the people he regards as criminal.

MG: Asli Aydintasbas, President Erdogan has called Sweden and Finland and again more of the focus perhaps on Sweden, guesthouses for terrorist organizations. How valid are Turkey's concerns about Kurdish militants in those countries?

ASLI AYDINTASBAS: Well, Sweden has long been sympathetic to the Kurdish cause. And you have a lot of Kurds of Turkish origin, meaning from Turkey who fled to Sweden over the past couple of decades. Some of them were political asylum seekers. And you also had Swedish governments in general focussing on human rights situation in Turkey, which obviously the Turkish government does not like. But what you had over the last few years is a very interesting situation in which the new coalition in Sweden, the Social Democrats, the social democratic government that is, needed one extra vote to get a vote of confidence to stay in power. And that came from a deputy of Kurdish origins Amineh Kakabaveh, she's an Iranian Kurd, but also sympathetic to the Kurdish movement in general. And she made it. She has actually gotten the government to agree in writing that they would be supportive of the Syrian Kurds, that Turkey is accusing of being linked to its own Kurdish movement, the insurgents that have been fighting against the government of Turkey. What you have is a very complicated situation of an alphabet soup of different Kurdish organisations that Turkey thinks are interlinked. The irony is that Turkey is accusing, while Turkey's accusing Sweden of supporting Syrian Kurds, and that's the case, it's in their government protocol. What it isn't saying is that it's also other NATO members, including the United States, that have been supporting Syrian Kurds. Now, NATO members make a distinction between Syrian Kurds, YPG, that's been fighting ISIS and PKK that's been fighting the government of Turkey. In reality, there are links definitely between these two organizations. And it's a very complicated situation in which Turkey's in part, I think, airing these long held grievances that it wants to scream at other NATO members, including Washington, but has now found the opportunity to single out Sweden. It's also, I have to say, Turkey's own definition of what is a terrorist and what's not a terrorist that is in many ways problematic because according to President Erdogan, many people also in this country can be considered terrorists. And, of course, Europeans have a broader definition. Of civil rights and liberties and NGOs and what constitutes civil society activity versus actual terrorism. So it is different worlds that are clashing in this one instance.

MG: Steven, you said, and this is in terms of how other NATO members will be responding to the objections of Turkey, that some NATO members have come to see the Turkish president as a stick up artist. Why did you use that phrase and what does that mean?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, first, let me say it's a pleasure to be on with Asli, you explained everything very, very well. And basically NATO works by consensus. I think in, you know, all 30 members have to agree on all kinds of policies. And so that means if one country has an objection, everything stops. So one of the reasons we've described Erdogan this way is that he always uses these very key moments when NATO's basically everyone else agrees and there's consensus minus him. To make his points, he did this in 2009 as well over the appointment of the then NATO's secretary general, Rasmussen, who was from Denmark. And then at the time he said he objected to that because of Danish publishing cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed. There are other issues, too, but negotiating it all out under pressure, Erdogan got some appointments that he actually wanted. So partly it's political leverage and he's very good at using that. I mean, people resent it, but in NATO Turkey, it should be said even on other issues as very good diplomats and they work the system very, very well. So it's a bit like the way people feel about Hungary now in the European Union. It also operates pretty much by consensus. I mean, Hungary objected to different kinds of sanctions against Russia holding up oil embargo, for instance. So it's a very similar use of consensus. So people resent it. Also, you know, there's a feeling of hypocrisy, I have to say, because much as Asli said, Erdogan is pretty repressive at home. And of course, he's arguing that countries that like Sweden and Finland that are very careful about human rights, and have criticised Turkey's for its domestic repression, are somehow supporting terrorism. And that strikes a number of NATO's allies as a bit over the top.

MG: Asli The context for this potential expansion of NATO's is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And you wrote in March that "a sense of strategic ambiguity seems to be at the heart of Turkey's balancing act with Russia". What is Turkey's strategy vis a vis Russia? And I mean, what is Turkey's involvement in this war that we're seeing play out right now?

ASLI AYDINTASBAS: So Turkey is by and large very happy that it's become a big geopolitical player again here sitting on the Bosphorus and having relations with both Ukraine and Russia. And it's been a balancing act. And there's this there's a big public admission and pride about the fact that Turkey gets to play this balancing act. You don't hear in this country Turkish officials talking about atrocities or war of aggression. Instead, it's more of a very cautious tone intended not to antagonize, just do enough, step up engagement with NATO and support Ukraine, but also not antagonise Russia. In many ways Turkey has kept its relationship with Moscow. Definitely flights and economic relations are still in place. And Turkey does buy much of its energy from Russia and has not gone with Western sanctions. But on the other hand, they're also supporting Ukraine, have restricted military navy boats sailing from the Bosphorus, Russian navy using the Bosphorus. So it's become once again quite an important player in this conflict. This almost provides Turkey with more leverage in putting some of its demands on the table.

MG: Steven, what do you see as Turkey's role in Russia's war on Ukraine? Turkey's been... There's a company in Turkey that's been shipping drones to Ukraine.

STEVEN ERLANGER: Oh, yes. I mean, Turkey has allowed weapons sales to Ukraine. Turkey has blocked the Bosphorus to new Russian navy ships entering the Bosphorus. Turkey is talking about trying to help Ukraine export grain. Turkey has also wanted to be a kind of mediator between Ukraine and Russia and has hosted early talks which haven't gone anywhere. But this is one more example where Turkey is trying to be an important balancer. I mean, in a way, it does this always between Europe and Asia. I mean, and geopolitically, it's just in a really important position. And it is key to NATO's own strategy in what's known as the southern flank, the Black Sea. So even when people get annoyed, they also understand Turkey matters. So it also has, I think, the second largest army in all of NATO. So, I mean, it's a serious player and it has a real arms industry. I mean, it's not a country one wants to be ignored. But it's also true that in Washington, certainly, Erdogan is wearing out his support. I mean, people are getting you know, there's a sense he's gotten stranger and stranger, more Islamist, more nationalist and less predictable. And this tends to annoy Congress quite a lot, let alone buying Russian S-400 anti-air missiles, which NATO's pretty horrified by.

MG: But in spite of that, NATO members believe that it's better to have Turkey inside than outside the alliance?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Totally. Totally.

MG: Asli, just finally, in the last couple of minutes that we have given everything that we've talked about, what are the chances that NATO's going to figure out a way to thread this needle. To make its way through this impasse so that Finland and Sweden can become members of the alliance?

ASLI AYDINTASBAS: Well, Steven probably knows the mood inside NATO better than me, but my sense is that this won't be easy. There have been talks between Turkish, between Turkey and Finland and Turkey and Sweden. And Turkey has given these countries lists of demands and extradition requests, including, you know, some people that could not be considered a terrorist by European standards, but some may be linked. I do not know the full extent of these lists, but my sense is that Erdogan is not going to let this one go until he has enough that he can turn around and tell the Turkish public... sell to the Turkish public as a huge concession. This is an election year in Turkey. Next year there are going to be elections that for the first time in 20 years, he's... the president is seeing his votes in a dramatic decline. He wants to rally people around the flag, use nationalism as also one of the themes in upcoming elections. I don't really know if we will have a resolution to this conflict by the NATO summit. Sometimes these things are resolved at the last minute during the summit, you know, sort of there's a mad rush to sort out various crises. This does happen a lot with Turkey. And but it's hard for me to predict what will happen because Turkey is feeling that its cards are strong with the Ukraine war. So it may drag on well after the NATO summit as well.

MG: This is complicated. I appreciate you both helping us unpack this story. Thank you very much.

BOTH: Thank you.

MG: Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe for The New York Times. Asli Aydintasbas is a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. She specialises in Turkish politics. We did request a statement from the Turkish embassy in Ottawa. We were told that the process has been transparent and the embassy has nothing to add to the story to what the Turkish president has already said. That is The Current for this Tuesday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. David Suzuki and his partner, Tara Cullis join Tom Power to talk about what you won't do for love. They've been driving across Canada in an electric car and will be onstage talking about their own love story and whether love can inspire us to take action for the planet. David Suzuki and Tara Cullis coming up on CBC Radio in just a moment. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a good day.

Tuesday June 7, 2022 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode