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 April 8, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

MICHELLE REMPEL GARNER: This marks the first time crypto assets will be debated in the House. This discussion is long overdue. Change isn't coming. It's already here, and the federal government has a convening role to play.

MATT GALLOWAY: The federal budget was tabled yesterday, laying out how your money will be spent. Meanwhile, some conservatives would like to change the kind of money that you spend. In 30 minutes, the new appeal of cryptocurrency in Canada. And what's behind the calls to decentralize our money. Also this morning.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: As long as there's been immigration or exile, there's been return. It is sort of baked into the very movement of people across continents.

MG: Millions of people are on the move. Most recently, more than four million refugees out of Ukraine in the space of just weeks. In an hour, we revisit my conversation with the author and journalist Kamal Al-Solaylee about redefining what home means to those who have left it. We begin, though, with our national affairs panel on the federal budget in the midst of an affordability crisis and a new offshore oil development in the middle of the climate emergency. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

Music: Theme

National affairs panel weighs up the federal budget

Guests: Libby Davies, Lisa Raitt and Wayne Easter

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: SOUNDCLIP: [Housing is the most pressing economic and social issue in Canada today, and that's why it is the centrepiece of this budget. What is new is an understanding that what we need to do as a country is find ways to tear down the barriers to building more homes.]

MG: That's Federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland presenting her second budget, the key issues as expected housing, health care, the military and the environment. Here to break it all down for you, our national affairs panel. Libby Davies served as MP for Vancouver East for 18 years, and she was NDP House leader from 2003 through 2011. Lisa Raitt is the former conservative member for Melton and Halton. She held several cabinet positions under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And Wayne Easter, former Solicitor General of Canada served nine terms as Liberal member for Malbec, Prince Edward Island. Good morning, everyone.

ALL THREE: Good morning.

MG: So I want to start with a short answer to a big question, which is I want to go around the radio table and ask each of you to give me your assessment of the budget in just two or three words. We'll get into the specifics in a moment. But if you were to boil this down, Wayne Easter, we'll start with you. How good was this budget for you? In just a few words.

WAYNE EASTER: In about a couple of words. I think it was strategically prudent the way it was handled.

MG: Strategically prudent. Well done. Lisa Raitt, your assessment in just a few words.

LISA RAITT: Short term view.

MG: Everybody's playing along, this is exciting politicians and former politicians speaking to time. Libby Davies, from your perspective, in three words or fewer. How would you remember this budget?

LIBBY DAVIES: Well, I'll have a go at that, historic but also deeply disappointing.

MG: Not bad. Let's talk about the specifics here. The NDP has pushed for a commitment to housing, especially for lower income Canadians. Historic is one thing. Deeply disappointing is another. What disappoints you? And does that include the housing sector?

LIBBY DAVIES: No. I think the housing aspects of the budget are significant and certainly the liberal NDP agreement that focussed on housing. There are a number of items in the budget that really deliver better on the affordability questions, and I don't think they would have been there without that agreement. So I think that's a definite plus. I say deeply disappointing Matt, because, you know, on the climate emergency, my god, there's so many contradictions. You know, we have a government that states that it recognizes the seriousness of a climate emergency. And yet they keep coming out with climate policies that don't curtail fossil fuels at the source that still are handing out subsidies, you know, the two point six billion in subsidies for carbon capture. The announcement about Bay du Nord, just I think it was a day before the budget. So it's all over the place. And I think it really shows that the Liberals are still very deeply on the side of Big Oil and gas and that we don't yet have the real commitments to change the economy, to transition away from fossil fuels that we've got to see happen. And there was also nothing really on a just transition, which has been a very important matter in terms of workers and employment and the labour market.

MG: Let's come back to the Bay du Nord thing in a few moments. Wayne Easter when it comes to housing... On this program, yesterday we talked to people who are... someone who is living in a school bus because they can't afford to find a place to live. People who are worried about being evicted in the space of weeks, people moving across the country and then evicting other people because they can't find affordable housing in the community where they want to live. Do you think when it comes to a housing commitment, this budget will actually help?

WAYNE EASTER: Yes, I do. I do think it was one of the major planks in the budget, but it goes beyond just the funding that was provided in the budget. You know, what's forcing up the cost of housing? I do think putting... going after foreign buyers that are not using the house as a home, getting after putting a tax on house flippers. And I think another area that's really important is going after the... Putting in place an assessable beneficial ownership report that you can... Who is the real owner of these houses and also others areas in the budget where they're basically looking at the money laundering that happens in housing. And those are recommendations that actually came out of the Finance Committee in 2017 or 2018. It's time to be getting to them because that is one of the reasons that there's so much pressure, upward pressure on housing prices.

MG: Do you think that those moves will make it easier for the people that we heard from yesterday who are struggling to figure out whether they're going to have a roof over their heads? Will those moves specifically make it easier for them to afford housing?

WAYNE EASTER: Well, I think it will over time. The co-op housing initiatives and those types of programs would probably benefit those people more and more quickly.

MG: Lisa Raitt, what about for you? Supply, supply, supply seem to be the call when it came to creating more housing. This came from the Conservatives saying that there's not nearly enough supply on the table right now, and there are too many obstacles in terms of creating that supply. Does what you see in the budget address that affordability crisis when it comes to housing?

LISA RAITT: Well, I think what they are being... You know, Wayne is correct in saying that it's a smart budget in the sense that if there's one item that's going to remove you from government, it's not dealing with a crisis to the voting public. And for the voting public, this housing issue is a crisis. So $8 billion was put aside to help municipalities and prevent provinces... I assume to speed up the time that is needed in order to get that new stock out onto the market. And let's see whether or not that's going to work and how that works its way through the system. I mean, it's one thing to say I'm going to give you a bucket of money for you to fix your problem, but. I don't know how much coordination there is between the municipalities in the province in order to figure out how to get that money, what needs to change. There's a lot of bureaucracy that seems to be involved in this in order to keep it going. So what is needed is a concerted effort. And the minister who is going to be in charge of this, whichever minister has this mandate is going to have to be on this on a daily basis and literally working with their counterparts across the country down to the municipal level to move this along. Because that is... That's the linchpin. It is about getting more supply in the market. And now they're... The feds are turning to the province and saying, Well, this is really your problem, and we're going to give you a pile of money to fix it. But you know, if you don't fix it, we've tried. So it is a very difficult situation, but we have got to work together.

MG: Do you think those in government truly understand the urgency of this crisis? People who are elected officials probably are fairly comfortably housed. They are not experiencing the real anxiety, which I think it's fair to say that we heard from listeners yesterday.

LISA RAITT: I don't. And you know why I don't. I don't because there's one line in the minister's speech yesterday where she's talking about all the right things. About people looking for houses and housing, and it's a basic human need. But then at one point, she says, but you know, there's no silver bullet here, and we can't make sure that you're going to live in the community that you want to live in. I mean, look, I've heard stories about people who live in Windsor, commute to Toronto to work and sleep in their car during the week because that's where their job is and they can't afford to work. They can't afford to have a place in Toronto. They have to live as far away as Windsor. That is not about wanting to be in the neighbourhood where you grew up as a child, it's far different than that. So that's where I kind of thought. Are they really getting it? And this is where, as Wayne and Libby know, the power of your constituents to call up the MP on the phone and let them know what's what.

MG: Libby, the NDP taking great credit for a commitment to dental care in this budget. No pharmacare, though, did the budget go far enough when it comes to health, do you think for the NDP?

LIBBY DAVIES: No, it didn't go far enough. I mean, I think that dental care is now part of our public health care system is a historic moment to see it as part of an overall health care, something that you know, we've talked about for years. There's been no movement on. And again, I think it took that agreement to force it to bring it about. So I think that's a positive. In terms of health care funding overall, you know, it's still a far cry from the investments that we actually need to see both in the short term and the longer term. And again, this is not a new problem, I think. And I remember when I was a health care critic, you know, we were raising the flag and the red flag about the sustainability of needed health care resources and how the system was being depleted. So I still think that needs attention. There was nothing on long term care, nothing on mental health. In terms of pharmacare, now I did hear Mr. Singh say yesterday that what he's thinking is that as part of the agreement, there was a commitment to bring in the pharmacare by 2023, so it wasn't slated for this year. So I think he is anticipating that that's going to happen next year. So I think again, it's going to be very important for the NDP to hold the Liberal government to account on that commitment on pharmacare because it's absolutely desperately needed. So, you know, it needs to be done. And so it's got to be done next year. I think that's going to be the key question.

MG: Wayne Easter is there enough when it comes to... We're coming out of... Not coming out of we're still in, but sort of heading toward, he said optimistically, a finish line in this global pandemic. A lot of people and to Lisa's point, constituents would be calling on their members to increase funding for health care. Is there enough in this budget to deal with the fissures that were really exposed in health care over the course of this pandemic?

WAYNE EASTER: Yes, I think there is. That's why I said it was strategically prudent. Look, there's the kind of the phase in, in terms of the dental care package. And I think that's a really good thing. And the government didn't go hog wild in terms of spending to try and do everything right now, it's a kind of a phased in approach. I firmly come from the belief that the problem in health care is not just money, the problem is the system and how it functions. Much like the federal bureaucracy, it's over bureaucracized. And not getting to productivity, if I could put it that way in terms of getting the actions done to make sure the health care system functions efficiently. So it just isn't a money problem. Throwing money at it is not going to solve the issue. On the mental health care that Libby mentioned. That is an extremely important area. But that is something that there was considerable money expended on over the last couple of budgets and the government really put into the health accords with the provinces where they had to spend a certain amount of money on mental health. So I think progress is being made there as well.

MG: Libby, you raised the issue of Bay du Nord and disagreement between the Liberal and the NDP. There is this agreement that should take the parties together to 2025, but already Jagmeet Singh saying that Justin Trudeau is only really, you know, showing up for the business folks in Big Oil and this Bay du Nord expansion is part of that. How can the NDP support the Liberals when there is so much disagreement, particularly on this issue of oil and gas in the midst of a climate crisis?

LIBBY DAVIES: Well, you know, we're in a political environment. I think it's partly about stability. You know, the election was six months ago... Let's not forget that nobody wanted to have what Mr. Trudeau wanted. So I think that agreement, you know, the agreement is as far as it goes in terms of where they found commonality between the two platforms. So that's a positive. It doesn't mean that there aren't going to be contradictions or tensions. And I think for the NDP, it means that they have to still be a very assertive, bold opposition party in the House, holding the Liberals to account, particularly on things like the climate emergency or, for example, a fairer tax system, which they made a little, a few steps on in this budget. You know, the excess profits, for example, but it didn't go nearly far enough. So, you know, no one expected that this would somehow be 100 percent of what say, the NDP wanted or anybody wanted. There's still going to be tension and disagreement, and I think that's par for the course. So that's part of the political dynamic in Ottawa. And I expect to see the NDP play a very strong and robust role in pushing the Liberal government on its climate policies and exposing the contradictions that they're displaying, for example, on the Bay du Nord that was announced, what, just the day before. I mean, these are serious contradictions that you know, that I think are very unacceptable if we're to move forward on this file.

MG: Lisa Raitt There's been a lot of tension and disagreement on the issue of military spending, particularly the war in Ukraine has exacerbated debate over what Canada should be spending on its military. Have the Liberals done enough to boost military support in this budget?

LISA RAITT: I think the judgement on that is going to be for our allies and partners around the world. It seems as if that this move for spending is twofold. It's one to ensure security and to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the right tools and have the right abilities to do their job. But the second part of it is, is the world is moving from not just being aligned with each other militarily, but having the intent in the back of your mind as well. That where we are friends geopolitically, where we are friends militarily, we're also going to be friends on supply chain and we're also going to be friends on ensuring that we're working together for economic purposes and for the first time ever in the budget. I saw the use of the term allied nations as part of an economic plan. So for me, it is very important for this government and for the country to show that they're putting an effort into military spending in order to ensure that they're going to be part of the bigger game of the, I guess, the reorienting of supply chains in the world that's going to happen as a result of the Russia/Ukraine conflict. So is it enough? I think the Minister of Global Affairs, Melanie Joly, is going to have to tell us what her counterparts from the other G7 nations have said about the move and military spending and whether or not it's enough for them. Look at Germany. They doubled their military spending overnight, and the United States, of course, continues to make sure that other countries are putting up what they said they were going to put up. So we'll see whether or not that's enough for us to ensure that we're part of the allies in the world.

MG: You said right off the top that this is short term gain and short term vision. So I'll give you a few more words. Why would you apply that overall to this budget and how money is being spent, but also how much money is being spent?

LISA RAITT: There's a lot of money being spent on issues that are really important today, and they have to be addressed and they have to be dealt with, but there's not a lot of cohesive discussion about the other crisis that we are facing, which is we need to make sure that we have long term growth to pay for all of the programming that we're adding to make people's lives better. And that's just fundamental. And when I take a look at the budget and I listen to what the minister said yesterday, it's mentioned in passing that it's important to have economic growth, but it's not the most important piece for this government. It comes in that pillar number three or it's the six item that's listed. And I think businesses both big and small and charities not for profits, they all need to see a signal from this government that there's a plan. Yes, there's going to be an address to the affordability of housing. Yes, there's going to be an address to a clean transition. Yes, there's going to be an address to what's happening in a security world. But overall, here's what our vision is going forward for the long term economy, and this is how we're going to weather all of these things that come up along the way. And we're missing that through line. We're missing that piece that I think is really important to guide us for the next 20 years.

MG: Libby Davies, briefly, do you see that through line? Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, said this is more of a conservative than a liberal budget in some ways.

LIBBY DAVIES: Haha, well, I think that's a very interesting observation, and I think they may have, you know, sort of downplayed what they were going to do. But in terms of Lisa's point and long term growth. I mean, it is about choices, and I could easily argue. In fact, I would argue that spending $8 billion on militarisation over five years, I mean, that, you know, that could also be an investment in things like pharmacare in services for people. So I worry very much about sort of the, you know, the growth of militarisation as somehow that's a strategy. I don't think it is. It's, you know, the two percent of GDP set by NATO is a completely arbitrary amount. I think it's easy in today's world to say, Well, you know, the answer to these tensions, these geopolitical tensions and certainly what's going on in Ukraine is absolutely devastating. But to say that the military is going to solve this question, I think, is a false premise, and I think we've got to move beyond that. So that very much worries me. And so for me, long term growth is it, for example, housing that is long term growth. That's investing in people and a real economy for people that benefit society overall.

MG: Wayne Easter last minute to you. Do you see a long term plan here when it comes to dealing with deficits, but also dealing with the long term growth of an economy in the midst of a really difficult time?

WAYNE EASTER: Uh, yes, I think we're seeing the start of it. I do want to make one point on oil and gas, so it's easy to attack the oil and gas industry. And I really think the Bay du Nord is a really, really good investment. But Canadians have to ask themselves, why is this budget able to provide the programming in it for housing, for dental care, for other measures that we probably didn't see six or eight months ago? And it's because of the boom in oil and gas at the moment. That's one of the reasons why we're able to do that expenditure. So you can't throw out the oil and gas industry. They are making investments in improving in terms of greenhouse gases. And yes, they have to do more. But in terms of going ahead as a country, one of the big areas that they mentioned in the budget is productivity and access to capital. And Chrystia said in the budget itself, rather, the stakes are high. Most Canadian businesses not investment at the same rate as their U.S. counterparts in being competitive and productive.

MG: We'll see where that leads us to the long term growth that so many people are looking for. We will have to leave it there, but we will reconvene this panel to talk more about the specifics in the budget. It's great to speak with you all. Thank you very much. Libby Davies, Lisa Raitt's Wayne Easter our national affairs panel. Talking about the budget, The Current continues in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway. Stay with us.

The appeal of cryptocurrency in Canada

Guests: Stephen Poloz, Jelena Djuric and Jacob Goldstein

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

Music: Theme

MG: Still to come, the writer, Kamal Al-Solaylee, has lived in five countries and spent a lifetime thinking about what it means to be home. In just under 30 minutes, we'll revisit my conversation with him on immigration, return and belonging. But first, cryptocurrency goes mainstream.

Music: Theme

SOUNDCLIP: Pierre Poilievre buying shawarma with cryptocurrency.

MG: That's conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre, as you heard buying a shawarma with bitcoin. Pierre Poilievre is making cryptocurrency a key part of his campaign to be the leader of that party, and that is finding growing traction in the federal Conservative Party more broadly. Yesterday, I spoke with Stephen Poloz. He's the former governor of the Bank of Canada, and at the end of our interview, we talked about cryptocurrency in Canada. Here is some of that conversation.

MG: Pierre Poilievre accused the Bank of Canada of ruining the Canadian dollar by creating, quote $400 billion in cash out of thin air to help deal with the pandemic. And he says that because of that, Canadians should have the option to use bitcoin as an alternative currency. There's a lot in that, but what do you make of that idea of Canadians having the option to use an alternative currency?

STEPHEN POLOZ: Well, you know, I mean, I don't think there's anything to prevent people from using different currencies if they wish. That's not really the point here. I mean, monetary policy built around the Canadian dollar has been designed to give us a more stable, more clarity around business decisions, stable environment. And we know that inflation targeting that's been practised by many central banks around the world and for 30 years now has brought more macroeconomic stability, lower lower fluctuations in unemployment, you know, better environment for decision making, and that's been proven. So crypto using that instead will not deliver those kinds of things.

MG: A few years ago, you called Bitcoin Trading gambling. Do you still see crypto through that lens?

STEPHEN POLOZ: I do. I see crypto. As you know, it's becoming more and more legitimate as a place to have some exposure in your portfolio. I mean, let's face it, Matt, the world is changing and some forms of these assets, I'll call them assets a bit loosely because they have zero intrinsic value. There's no value, you know, even you can't melt it or use it for something the way it could use gold. And, you know, price, possibly I'm wrong about its future and it's going to skyrocket at the time and the craze. We had students, you know, with their second half of their tuition payments, putting it in bitcoin for a couple of months, hoping it would go up and then, of course, losing a lot of money. It's the volatility that it brings to the table, which of course, is dangerous.

MG: Are there conditions under which you think that crypto could be considered a legitimate alternative to a government issued currency?

STEPHEN POLOZ: Well, use crypto in its general sense, you know, crypto is, you know, a mechanism for making something impregnable so that, of course, is a technology term. And so, but there are digital monies that are based on what we call stablecoins, which means that digital money that's based on another currency that already exists, that makes a U.S. dollar stablecoin or a blended stablecoin. So what these things are based on actual money is that we know and that we recognize in the prices in the economy are denominated in. So that becomes a legitimate transaction vehicle. And I expect central banks one of these days and not that long in the future will be issuing digital versions of their money,

MG: Including the Bank of Canada?

STEPHEN POLOZ: I have reason to expect that, yes, I mean, they've been preparing for that for some time, and it will be a question of when do... When the bank again has a responsibility to provide you with what it is you wish to use for transactions. And if it has a population where you begin to really say, well, we want to go digital on everything. I don't think paper money or plastic money, whatever you want to call it, is going to just disappear. But it could have a declining role and more digital payments will be made. And I think that the central banks at that time, when the tipping point comes, all central banks will fulfil their obligations to provide what they do today. But in a digital form, I think that.... but it will be the same as the cash in your pocket. There's nothing dangerous or exotic.

MG: What do you think the appeal of this really is? People have... I mean, it's a currency. People see it also as a philosophy. They see it as a platform. What do you think in 2022, the real appeal of this is?

STEPHEN POLOZ: It mostly seems to appeal to folks that believe that regular money, if I can call that, the money that we all use today is not really based on anything that constrains it. It's called fiat money. You know, it's valuable because the government says it is valuable. There's always been a temptation for a government that owns the printing press to print some more money and spend it right. And that's. Free money, if you own a printing press. And this is why we invented central banks to separate the money. The ability to print money from the government process. So this is... People who worry about that scenario. I think it's a legitimate worry, especially given all the debt that we've incurred over the last couple of years. It makes sense for this to be a topic. And yet I think if we look back over the more recent history, say, 30 to 40 years, central banks have proved that they can do two things. They can, first of all, offer money, which has stability, but also one that delivers macroeconomic stability at the same time. That's a big fringe benefit. If I can call that. That we would never have on any of these other kinds of propositions. So there's a trade off there, a legitimate thinking. I think we should continue to research and explore these things. But as I said today, I don't see it as replacing our monetary system anytime.

MG: Stephen Poloz, great to speak with you. Thank you very much.

STEPHEN POLOZ: It's my pleasure, Matt.

MG: Stephen Poloz is a former governor of the Bank of Canada and the author of a new book, The Next Age of Uncertainty: How the World Can Adapt to a Riskier Future. Well, Pierre Poilievre is not the only Conservative Party member turning his attention to cryptocurrency.

MICHELLE REMPEL GARNER: Today, my private member's bill regarding the creation of a framework to address the crypto asset sector is being read in the House of Commons. This marks the first time crypto assets will be debated in the House. This discussion is long overdue. Change isn't coming. It's already here, and the federal government has a convening role to play.

MG: Michelle Rempel Garner's Bill C-249 would compel the government to develop a regulatory framework aimed at boosting innovation around cryptocurrencies in Canada. Jelena Djuric is a co-founder of the Canadian Web3 Council. That's a cryptocurrency advocacy group. She's also a product manager at Informal Systems, a tech company based in Toronto. Jelena, Good morning!

JELENA DJURIC: Good morning, Matt, thank you for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. You heard the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, say that he looks at cryptocurrency through the lens of gambling. What do you make of that?

JELENA DJURIC: Yeah, I mean, I think Steven makes some astute points. I think something that isn't really at the forefront of the minds of Canadians, which I'm excited for the Canadian Web3 Council to take a lead on, is really the fact that this is more than just, you know, buying cryptocurrencies. This is a new digital economy, really an extension of what we have with the internet and also the new digital economy that's actually worth [inaudible] and growing. So, you know, although there are, you know, negative headlines on speculation, on people losing money, which I think we should be discussing and keeping Canadians safe and doing education to prevent those things from happening. We look at this more as really a new technology like the internet or, you know, earlier forms of the internet, really an extension of what we see happening online, but with money at the center of it.

MG: What does that mean, a new digital economy?

JELENA DJURIC: Absolutely. And so what we're seeing Web3 is different, you know, platforms, different applications of cryptocurrencies, of blockchains really taking form. So everyone, you know, most of us are familiar with the internet. We're from your social media, networking sites, we're familiar with, you know, other types of communications platforms. And really with Web3 that's turning it on its head. What Web2 was, you know, an ecosystem of content and ecosystem, you know, disrupting obviously media and entertainment. And what Web3 is, is really an ecosystem around money. So ecosystem around value and ecosystem around new ways of transacting with one another. Just like, you know, in Web2 where, you know, we may not know each other, but will trust the platform to mediate communications, Web3 platforms are designed to really empower decentralized economic kind of participation across time and space. And again, the two trillion dollar figure, I think, is a little bit mind blowing, but it really just goes to show you that in a very short period of time, really, since you know, the Satoshi Nakamoto bitcoin whitepaper came out. Up until now, you know, we have this desire. We have desire for people to, you know, yes, speculate, but also participate. And, you know, figure out new ways of building out, you know, these applications built around digital money.

MG: And so practically, what do you see as the rule for crypto in Canada? I mean, do you see it as an alternative to the dollar as someone like Pierre Poilievre is suggesting?

JELENA DJURIC: I think it's really... And I think Stephen, touched on this in his segment, I think it's really up to individuals to really make those decisions for themselves that are informed. I don't think, you know, most people in crypto would say, you know, overnight, you know, that we would want to just displace the dollar or, you know, disrupt the economy in such an overt way. It's more about educating, you know, Canadians around the nuances and the differences. And I think it's actually quite exciting that these conversations are coming to the forefront where they have been, let's say, relegated to, you know, discussions maybe with bankers or people that aren't directly touching kind of the creation of money. And so, you know, I do think that Canadians should have an understanding of money is created, how money is formed and what money means to them in their personal lives. I mean, really, it's the basis of our kind of existence in the modern kind of world. So I don't think, you know, anyone is really here to say this will... You know, crypto is here to overtake the dollar tomorrow. It's more to say, Hey, there's these alternative economic kind of networks that are digital native, that are global and that, you know, people are invested in for one reason or another. And let's look at those reasons and see if it really aligns with, you know, your personal values or philosophies or interests or, you know, things like that. Ultimately, it's about education.

MG: The issue of crypto was raised yesterday in the federal budget, particularly around oversight. Bitcoin, we know, is one of the ways that funds were raised for the so-called Ottawa Truckers convoy. People have called for greater oversight and regulation. Do you think that government regulation could help funds being used for nefarious purposes?

JELENA DJURIC: Yeah, I mean, the budget yesterday had some kind of good language around, you know, security, oversight and ensuring that, you know, current sort of a kind of, you know, policies around AML, KYC kind of are respected and applied, I guess in a way that makes sense. I think when it comes to the idea of, you know, more political, let's say, kind of motivated policies like, you know, preventing or not preventing donations to something like the truck or convoy. I think I would just look again, kind of, you know, so much what Stephen says, what is the role of cash in our society, right? Do we prevent people using cash to donate to, you know, let's say, some political movements? You know, I mean, so far, this is why this is obviously a very big discussion topic. It was quite unprecedented. And so really looking at how we do use cash in our daily lives should be in a way similar to kind of how we look at crypto, right? It is something that should be anonymous and, you know, preserving ones right to transact, obviously in ways that are compliant, in ways that are safe. But it really is kind of looking at, you know, what we already know with our money and our cash and kind of transporting that in a digital way while still preserving those elements of kind of privacy and freedom to transact.

MG: We're just about out of time. Do you see Canada as playing a leading role in the crypto space if governments can take steps to figure out those issues of oversight and regulation?

JELENA DJURIC: You know, we already have been playing a major, major role. I mean, people I think are not, well, kind of. It's not well known that theorium is actually a Canadian project. There are other core developers, core innovators, creators of a world changing blockchain projects in Canada, including Cosmos as well, including NBA Top Shot. Really, so many projects that over the past 10 years have found their footing in Canada have found their kind of community here. And so, yeah, I'm excited to see that continue to evolve, continue to grow and really for the public and for policymakers to be more kind of aware of the incredible potential that Canada has already played and will continue to play in this new Web3 economy. So absolutely, yeah.

MG: Jelena, good to speak with you about this. I appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much.

JELENA DJURIC: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Jelena Djuric is a co-founder of the Canadian Web3 Council, product marketing manager at Informal Systems. It's a tech company based in Toronto. She was in Los Angeles. Jacob Goldstein is the author of Money: The True Story of a Made Up Thing. He's also the host of the Technology podcast, What's Your Problem? As entrepreneurs and engineers talking about the future that they're trying to build a future that includes cryptocurrency. Jacob, good morning to you.

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Hi, good morning.

MG: Give me a crypto 101 for people who have no idea what we're talking about in the briefest and simplest possible way. What is cryptocurrency?

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: So the dream of cryptocurrency is to build a kind of digital money that has the anonymity of cash that can be transacted over the computer and over the internet, and that doesn't require any kind of central intermediary like a government or a bank. And I should say, you know, that's the sort of original dream that goes back to the 1990s was the, you know, was the idea behind bitcoin, which came out in 2008/2009. But I feel like... And you know, when you hear Mr. Poilievre, you know, going to the shawarma store that's still that dream, right? But I should say, like I went for work. I'm a journalist. I cover economics. I bought a falafel in 2011 with bitcoin and did it for a show like, Hey, look, I'm buying falafel with bitcoin. And I feel like the crypto world, like the guest you just had, has really moved beyond that, right? People who are really into it any more. Don't even talk so much about, hey, it's money that can replace, save the dollar. Right now, it's more. Well, it's this digital network that can do all kinds of money related things. And often you'll note people don't even say cryptocurrency, right? They say crypto. And so I think this idea of replacing money. Clearly, it still has some political kind of energy behind it, right? Witness politicians doing the stunts that we were all doing 10 years ago. But I think the technical people have kind of moved beyond that.

MG: So what is it now, then? I mean, if it's not a currency, I ask this to Stephen Poloz. Is it a platform? Is it an ideology? Is it something in between?

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, that's an interesting question. I mean, you know, I think the... I think platform is the closest word or a set of platforms people are trying to build. I mean, on a certain level, one of the really surprising, really interesting things about crypto is how much money has flowed into it without having like a killer app, right? When I was first covering it 10 plus years ago, I would have thought, like, either this will work and it'll be this kind of big world historical thing or it will go away. And I would have guessed like, OK, probably go away. Maybe it'll work. But weirdly, it has neither worked nor gone away and like trillions of dollars have flowed into it, which is to me, the like really interesting puzzle about crypto. Will we see the sort of killer app? I don't know.

MG: What's the appeal of it now? If you watched the Super Bowl, you saw a series of ads for crypto, most of them kind of incomprehensible in terms of what was going on. But you saw, people were spending a lot of money on Super Bowl ads. What is the appeal of it now in 2022?

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Well, the Super Bowl ads are selling basically get rich quick, right? I mean, they are selling a speculative opportunity. They're saying, give us some money now, money and the old fashioned sense, dollars. And, you know, buy some whatever bitcoin, aether and you will be able to sell it for more dollars later. Like that is absolutely what those crypto exchanges are selling. You could call it an investment opportunity. It sounds better than speculation. I do think... like that in a way is less interesting, right? Like, there's lots of speculative investments. There is another universe of people who are not buying Super Bowl ads, who are technical people who are really smart, who are trying to build useful things with, you know, with crypto basically on the blockchain say, which is the sort of core technology behind a cryptocurrency.

MG: What do you make of the fact that the crypto has been embraced by many people on the conservative side of the ledger? What's the attraction there?

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Well, you know, the original Bitcoin dream was fundamentally a libertarian dream, and there was this sort of cadre of really radical libertarian programers essentially working for like 20 years to build a digital currency that didn't require governments, right? And, you know, money today is fundamentally controlled by the government. And if you believe the government should have less power, figuring out a way to do money without the government is an exciting idea. And that's a, you know, a conservative idea.

MG: Do you understand the appeal of that? I mean, our economy is increasingly digital. The financial crisis of 2008 cost a lot of people their life savings, and they felt as though those who were implicated in that crisis walked away scot free. They did not face any serious repercussions. Do you understand the appeal of looking for a financial alternative that isn't supported by government?

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Sure. And when you bring up the 2008 crisis, one thing I should say is, you know, another promise of the sort of original bitcoin dream. And I'm not saying this will come true or is even plausible, but is not just money without governments, but money without banks, right? And the bitcoin white paper, which was this sort of, you know, zero moment, is the real moment of the creation of cryptocurrency came out in the fall of 2008, right in the teeth of the financial crisis and the sort of first block of bitcoin ever, ever mined, ever created, had in the code a sort of headline from a British paper about the bailout of banks. Right. So you know, you were talking about a conservative appeal in the libertarian side, but the sort of hey, the banks are ripping us all off and getting away with it. It transcends left and right, right. It's a fundamentally... That was a popular idea, certainly in 2008/2009, and still has some resonance.

MG: So in the face of that, could you ever imagine bitcoin replacing something like the dollar or the pound?

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: I mean, I have to say that seems unlikely to me and in some ways, maybe more unlikely. I mean, there's the technological side where one challenge and this, I suppose, is ultimately surmountable. But on the technological side, it is hard to scale, right? Decentralisation, this basic idea of having a money that doesn't require any bank or government in the middle is very clever and it works, but it's very slow. It's hard to process a lot of transactions. And, you know, people are very clever. They might solve that technological problem, but it's a really hard problem. The other side is the political side, which seems harder to surmount, right? Governments really like having control of money. And I think most people don't care that much, right? Clearly, there's a small universe of people who care a lot and who really are sort of ideologically motivated. I think most people, even people who own bitcoin or Aether, don't care that much. They're just, you know, trying to invest or speculate. And the idea that governments would allow another kind of money to arise seems implausible. I think governments would fight really hard to keep control of money.

MG: What about for citizens just in the last minute or so that we have? The last time we talked and we talked about your book... I mean, one of the reasons why people believe in money is because they have to have a belief system in it. Money exists because people invest something in it. They invest the belief in it. If people don't trust bitcoin yet, can it be considered a legitimate currency or can you build that belief? Can you build that sense of trust through something like regulation, for example?

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. I don't think bitcoin is money now, right? Just because you can't go use it to buy stuff. But things change over time. I mean, when you look at the history of money, you know the idea that fiat currency, which we have now, that money not backed by gold would be money would have seemed wild to people even just 100 years ago. So certainly in the long run, things could change in ways that seem unlikely to us now.

MG: Why is it that people are buying sandwiches with bitcoin? You went and bought... You bought a falafel. Pierre Poilievre buying a shawarma. A sandwich seems to be the vehicle for spending bitcoin.

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, it's an easy stunt. I pulled it as a stunt. Mr. Poilievre pulled it as a stunt. You know, it's something you can do that seems tangible, but it's not really where the action is, right? It's simple and easy to understand, but it's not really what's happening in crypto in a meaningful way.

MG: Jacob Goldstein, great to speak with you again. Thank you very much.

JACOB GOLDSTEIN: Thanks for having me back.

MG: Jacob Goldstein is the host of the technology podcast What's Your Problem? The author of a great book called Money: The True Story of a Made Up Thing. He was in New York City. Coming up after your regional update.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: It is the most organic, the most natural human desire. It is a tale as old as time, and I feel like it's an evolutionary narrative, and I'm just following this controls.

MG: That's the writer Kamal Al-Solaylee talking about the timeless feeling of being pulled back home. My conversation with him about home and what that means when you are forced to flee your home. Coming up in 90 seconds, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One.

Music: Theme

Kamal Al-Solaylee on the idea of home, and the desire to return

Guest: Kamal Al-Solaylee

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. The United Nations estimates that more than 10 million Ukrainians have had to flee their homes because of war. Just under half that number have left the country. The rest are internally displaced. Those people are joining the ranks of the 82 million people the United Nations believes have been forcibly displaced worldwide. It is an almost unimaginable number of people, and that is why next week we will focus on the global refugee crisis. We'll talk about departure, home, resettlement programs and hope. Those stories that we're working on share a theme with a conversation I had last fall with the journalist and author Kamal Al-Solaylee. His family fled Yemen when he was young. He's an immigrant in this country. His latest book is about The Meaning of Home and Why We Return to Home. This is my conversation with Kamal Al-Solaylee.

SOUNDCLIP

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: Yemen is where I was born, in the port city of Aden and where most of my siblings and extended family still live in the capital, Sanaa, cholera, famine, water and electricity shortages, floods and more than a year of covid-19 have left Yemenis reeling as the world watched helplessly, indifferently.

MG: In his new book, Kamal Al-Solaylee reflects on what it is that pulls people to return to their homeland. That book is called Return Why We Go Back to Where We Come From.

SOUNDCLIP

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: The biggest connection, however, remains our shared homeland. Soil sees streets, structures, mountains, trees, smells and sounds, even if I've been away from the country for decades.

MG: We're surprised by how much you miss Yemen even after decades of being away.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I was really taken aback by this sort of inexplicable connection I have particularly I mean, I should say probably not all of Yemen, but in the city where I was born, in a city that I left at the age of three and only returned to briefly in my 20s, but a city that sort of lives in the family law and our family history and and and yet I see, you know, so much of my life in the last few years have been motivated by a desire to revisit the spend time that

MG: I want to talk about that desire, because that runs through the book in various ways. The book starts with this question that not a lot of us, I think, to be honest, are grappling with before we have to. The question is, where do you want to be buried? Why do you want... Why did you want to start this book there?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I wanted to say that because it is, I think, the ultimate expression of where you belong. And it is where do you want to, you know, search for your body to have that final resting place. And I couldn't think of anything that says this is home, this is the soil. This is the land that I belong to. And where you choose if you have a choice, some people obviously don't have that choice. If you choose to be buried in your homeland, it seems to me to connect this inexplicable desire with literally with the land that you are connected to. And it was also as I mentioned in the book, it was a question that took me by surprise because it was my question at the time who asked me that question as we were walking down in Toronto, a pleasant cemetery in midtown Toronto. And that sort of is interesting. The question that is almost 90 years old now and has lingered ever since.

MG: Why do you think that is?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I think the question lingers because I do believe all writers write the same book, but in different ways, this is something that I, you know, have been written about books and having written about books. And I think for me, the one question that sort of underwrites all of my books and my writing is this idea of where do I belong? Where is home? And the question has lingered because it forced me to confront that. Yes, I guess I'd love to try and try and get some of the kind. And I've had and I'm still having a wonderful life. I'm very grateful for this country in many ways. It's also my homeland. But there's a part of me that doesn't feel completely connected to it. And as a part of me that still thinks that the land of my ancestors is where I should, which is where I should spend probably the end of my life and where I should probably be buried.

MG: Again, this idea that you say something is broken in your sense of belonging, what's broken?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: And I would say a number of things. I feel that I am much more confronted by racism in ways that I had not realized earlier on in my immigration history. When I first moved to Florida in 1996, it was a completely different city. I'm sure that there was racism and other workplaces or on street level, but I never really felt it. And it felt to me in many ways, it felt like paradise having to come here from a small town in England. And I would say probably and I said that in the book, probably since the start of Donald Trump's presidency and even in the lead up to it, I started to feel less and less secure on the streets of Toronto. I mean, something I've always done is, especially when I had a dog, is to go for long night walks and explore different parts of the city. I feel less comfortable doing that then than I was even maybe six years ago. And I think that's the insecurity of standing out a little bit, even in a multicultural city like Toronto, a feeling that people would look at you differently and then experiencing it, in my opinion, experiencing racism at work or micro aggressions or racial tensions and resentments have all added up to a sense that, you know, why am I here? Like, why am I continuing this charade of, you know, trying to convince myself that this is this is this is where I belong.

MG: This is your story in many ways, but it's the story of many other people around the world who are also grappling with those same emotions and those same tugs, if I can put it that way, from a homeland. When you spoke with people broadly, I mean, what did you learn about why it is that people want to go back to where they came from?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: You know, if I were to sort of like if I were to put it down to one to one observation, I would say that as long as there's been immigration or exile there, there's been return. It is sort of baked into the very movement of people across continents and countries. And it is in many, many of the people I spoke to have had their formative experiences in their homelands they returned to, but many others didn't. They returned to their ancestral homeland or the homeland of their parents or long, long, long, like great grandparents, etc.. And I think for every immigrant story has returned as part of it. The only reason we don't talk about it, the only reason that may not be talked about enough is that for sometimes the return is very hard to quantify or to analyse because countries don't necessarily keep data about returned to their homelands and return itself can be multidirectional. People go to their homeland and then can come back to their adopted country and then go back. So it's returned as a phenomenon is much harder to study, to analyse than, say, immigration, which was countries tend to keep records.

MG: Tell me more about that. Why is it that, as you say in the book, liberals in particular think of immigration as unidirectional? Why? Why don't we talk when we speak about migration, why don't we talk about return?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I think there is perhaps a misconception that return implies defeat or at least that the host country. Has failed in its duty of care towards newcomers. I think there's an impression that particularly Western countries, Western liberal democracies and I'm thinking particularly of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the countries that have so large numbers of immigrants have always cast themselves as the kind of a safe haven for migrants and refugees and exiles. And when some of these people decide that, you know what, this is not working, I'm going back to where I come from, even though what I don't know what awaits me there or would be probably a much harder life, in my opinion. Some of the people who are talking about immigration or planning, immigration policies tend to see that as a kind of a slap in the face or an insult to the host country when it shouldn't be. It is the most organic, the most natural human desire. And some people will emigrate, will have great success, will always have a piece of, say, Canada as part of their lives. But it's still also choose to go back to their country of origin.

MG: You travel the world to gather these stories. You go to Ghana, to Northern Ireland, to Jamaica, Israel, to the Basque region in Spain. Northern Ireland is really interesting. I mean, with an Irish diaspora that extends around the world, why did you go to Northern Ireland and not the Republic?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I wanted to focus on countries where the idea of homeland is contested, where there are several people, at least two groups of people who are fighting to combat that, their homelands. I mean, you mentioned I went to Israel. So, for example, the Israelis and the Palestinians. But in Northern Ireland, it was you know, I was fascinated with the idea of homecoming for the Irish diaspora, which is, you know, as you mentioned, is in the millions around the world. But I had to go to the republic, would have been slightly would have just not given me that context I was looking for, which is the conflict that's still ongoing between Catholics and Protestants and that sort of still underwrites so much of the story of Northern Ireland.

MG: What did you learn about why it is that people are drawn to go back to Northern Ireland?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I mean, this is a chapter that has a lot of men in it. And it's the same with Taiwan. And in both cases, I think there's a certain element. The two things in Northern Ireland in particular, there is this almost folkloric attachment to the homeland, to Irish culture, to the topography of Ireland. But there is also some kind of transactional element in the sense that it was an economy at the time. And this epidemic is an economy that is very open to innovation and in the work of technique of entrepreneurs. And it's a world of possibilities that combined that can be combined with a better standard of living, cheaper housing than, say, in New York or London or Toronto and a kind of very traditional way of life where many of the characters I spoke to talk about buying a home outright and being able to raise their, you know, to put their children in schools, that it's like a five minute drive away. So there is almost a kind of a return to a simpler, simpler life. And I thought that was fascinating because that is unfolding against an ongoing conflict. And as John talked to one of the people I talked to in the book mentions that it is, it may be a violent society, but it's not a conflict one just yet.

MG: How is that different than the return to a country like Jamaica be? Initially, you were speaking about the idea of failure and the idea that return can be seen as a kind of failure and that runs through a part of Jamaican society. But there is also an element where people want to go back, they want to go home to something that they have in their own minds.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I would say that Jamaica was the place that I find most surprising and in many ways touched me and affected me the most, because that connection to that the Jamaican migrants who are all American or British or Canadian citizens has persisted over 50 years or more, has persisted. Over several declines in the standard of living in Jamaica or rising levels of violence, and yet everyone I spoke to dreams or has made his dream come true of having a piece of the art, a piece of land they call home, it to me, it was on one level, you know, inexplicable on the other. The most natural thing I could think of you.

MG: You interview a woman named Angela, tell me her story and her own experience, because it in many ways captures exactly what you're saying.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: Yes, I think in a in what was already a remarkable visit, Angela stood out because she she someone was married five times and two of her husband, the first one, Christopher, the second one, Richard, were actually murdered and the first one during a home invasion, the second one in a kind of hold-up at a restaurant. And, you know, to lose one husband to to murder is one thing. To lose two consecutively is completely another. And my you know, I kind of expected her to say, oh, my God, I never want to live in this country again. Or I took my stuff and left. And yet aside from sort of brief stints in the US and with her family in other parts of the Caribbean, she always wanted to live and to return to Jamaica, to Kingston, particularly there. She kept talking about something in her DNA and she cannot imagine living anywhere else. You know, like honestly, I don't know if I like my gut feeling would be to flee the island if I had two of my partners were killed. But that was her response, however, was to return several times and to make it a home, because there's something about the air, about the people, about the culture, about the level of comfort. And I have to agree with that. And even when I went back to visit Cairo, there was a certain kind of comfort in looking like everyone else and understanding the language perfectly and knowing the customs and not worrying about someone telling me to go back to where you come from. They were there. It is home. And it's something that immigrants really, really sort of relate to.

MG: Identity runs through this book as well. And I as a member of the LGBTQ community, you say you had to flee home to be able to find your identity. You write that leaving and returning is, in your words, a part of our story, a chapter we tell a lot. What do you mean by that?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I think there is a section coming out narrative for a lot of members of the LGBTQ community is that you if you particularly if you live in an in a- if you grew up in in a culture that was homophobic or did not allow an expression of sexuality, is that you go to the big city, you move to the you move to to the west. And if you're in the West already, you move from a small town to the city and thinking that the city will be your salvation. And many of us have come to the city, myself included. I mean, I remember when I first arrived in Toronto and how much Church street [unintelligible] the gay village meant to me right now I rarely ever go. And to me, the city is not exactly the safe haven for LGBTQ people that it was. And on a very personal level, I think the the serial killer was MacArthur and the and the and the murder of a number of operationalised. And indigenous gay men or men who have sex with men has really left me sort of reeling and made me, every time I go to the gay village now, if I do, I just keep thinking of them and thinking about how could this haven has turned into a playground for a murder.

MG: You also talk about language in your own story, and I mean, this is connected with that idea of identity and your relationship with the language that you grew up speaking and where that relationship is now. Tell me about how language has shaped and complicated in some ways. Your thoughts on return?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I think if I were to pick a kind of the spark for the book, it has been my inability to communicate in Arabic with my family at times of great stress for that particular to refer to the war in Yemen. And Arabic is my native tongue, it's you know, I call it my birthright. But and in an attempt to reinvent myself as a gay man, as a westernised gay man, as someone who loved the English, wanted to learn English, studied English literature to the level of each day, the only way I could achieve all of that was to suppress Arabic and not to let it contaminate my message of understanding and my work in English. And that lasted three decades or more to the point where it's actually the language atrophied. I barely know how to write in it. I struggle to read it. I understand most of it, but not all of it. And that has added a level of complication when it comes to return, because how do I go back to a country that is what I look like everyone else, what is actually my birthplace. But I do not understand what people are saying. And I discovered that this is not a unique experience. And I particularly felt that in places like Taiwan, where a generation of Canadian and American, second generation, of Taiwanese young men and women had travelled and made a life for themselves, even though they don't speak Mandarin.

MG: How do you reconcile now, 30 years later, your desire to return? I mean, you call it an obsession at the end of the book with your sexuality and how that would be viewed back home.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: That remains an unanswered question in the book, I mean, the book offers a lot of questions, some answers and some remain unanswered. And I honestly, I don't know what the answer to that would be. And I know that it is not going to be, I'm not going to be welcomed as a gay man. And I also don't wish to go back into the closet and suppress my feelings, my sexuality and how I feel. I but I can't. I can't let that stand in the way of me connecting with particularly with my family and connecting with the land I come from. I have to figure a way around it. But I have not. Even by the time the book went to press, I could not and I did not find an answer to that.

MG: It's not easy.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: It's not an easy answer. It's not. It's not. It’s a difficult question. There's no easy answer

MG: At the end of this book, as I mentioned, you say that you're longing to return, the desire to return is an obsession. Have you figured out this is a grim question to ask, but have you figured out where you want to be buried?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I would like to be buried in Aden, and to be perfectly honest, I'd like to be buried very close to my grandparents. I'd like to end my days in Aden. And I don't know how and if that will happen. But if I were to have a choice right now, you know, if you put a gun to my head or I would probably say I want to be buried in Aden, I don't think that has changed.

MG: And that's where you believe you belong.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I think belonging is very complex, but if I have to choose, I would choose to go back to my roots. Yes, I think that's an answer that would probably not go down very well with many, many listeners. Doesn't even sit well with my friends when I mention it.

MG: Why do you think this wouldn't go down, well, as you say, with listeners or your friends?

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: I think I go back to that point where the arc of an immigrant success story has some predictable elements to it. And one of them is sort of loyalty and love for my adopted homeland, which I do have. I just want to make sure that comes out loud and clear and any duality in that belonging is seen as less than gratefulness for the host country. I'm always amazed at how many of my friends referred to me or other people in my circle as successful as this kind of you know, I'm so proud of Canada for giving you a home. And I'm so grateful to Canada for all of that. But I also want to propose that I could have that and also have a piece of me and at least my you know, don't begrudge me not you personally. I mean, just for everyone who's listening. Don't begrudge me the right to also want you to go back and to go back to the roots, to go back to the motherland. It is all this time. And I'm just simply I feel like it's a dilutionary narrative and I'm just following this conference.

MG: It's a really powerful book and I'm grateful to have the chance to talk to you as always. Come on. Thank you very much.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: Thank you so much. What a pleasure to talk to you again.

MG: Take care.

KAMAL AL-SOLAYLEE: You too.

MG: Kamal Al-Solaylee is an author and the director of the University of British Columbia School of Journalism, writing and media. His latest book is Return: Why We Go Back to Where We Come From. I spoke with him in September. As I said earlier next week on the program, we'll look at the situation of refugees around the world. The ideas of home and return are things we'll be talking about with some of the guests in that program. We met 14 year old Dennis and his mother, Irina, when we were at the Polish Ukrainian border last month.

DENNIS: We spent [inaudible] days to move here, then we left our car in Ukraine with our father and by our legs moved to the border.

IRINA: [Irina speaking in Ukrainian]

DENNIS: In peaceful. Yes. But then we have travelled a lot and then I visited other countries and now we also can go travelling. But it's not exactly that way of travelling that we want to have. In general, it's difficult to leave your country in the sense that you left all your big part of your things, your house, your left, all your friends and your father. And he couldn't move from country. But because of war, we have laws that are man's from 18 to 60 years old can't leave the country. And because this he stayed in Ukraine to help in the war. It was very difficult. And uh, we hope that we will see each other. I can just say that it's very difficult.

MG: For Ukrainians being displaced is still very fresh. Others have been in exile for decades. We'll also hear from some of the people who've been living in the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya. That camp has been there for 30 years.

FEMALE VOICE: Home is a place whereby you have peace, you have security, you have protection, you have freedom, you have rights. For the people who have not been a refugee. If you don't have experience, you don't have experience. People used to lie to us, I understand how you feel. No, you don't understand how I feel because a refugees, is someone who has passed through terrible incident, horrible times. So in most cases, you cannot say, I understand how we feel. The only person now who can understand it is Ukraine and Russia. I am very sorry for the persons who have been through that.

MALE VOICE: It's not a good status being a refugee because I have passed true. I have experienced for a long, long time period since I was young. So I don't wish. I don't wish for anyone to be a refugee. It's not a good status. It's not something to be.

ANOTHER FEMALE VOICE: It is teaching you new experience, teaching you to live with people, different people like me, my neighbour's Somali, my neighbour's Sudanese, my neighbour's Ethiopian, all community live together. Now, if we are not in Kakuma. Me, I will not even know how people from Sudan live, how people from Somalia live. I'll not know the different food. I will not have friends from different places. But now that I live in Kakuma. I learn to live with them, we use the same water tap, use the same market. We share our pain together. That's how we heal slowly by slowly because everybody has their pain. Everybody has their story. But now we live together as a community. We heal one, one another.

MG: You can hear more from the Kakuma refugee camp on the program next week. Our coverage of those who have been displaced, those who are on the move, those who are seeking refuge begins Wednesday on The Current. That is The Current for this Friday and for this week. Coming up next on CBC Radio One, it's Q. Talia Schlanger in for Tom Power. And a little heads up about this weekend, coming up Sunday on CBC Radio One on the Sunday Magazine, looking forward to hearing Pia Chattopadhyay speak with Emily St. John Mandel. She is a Canadian author. Her novel Station Eleven, was a huge hit and has been adapted into what I think is maybe my favourite television of recent time. It's amazing she has a brand new novel out called Sea of Tranquillity. You hear all about that when she speaks with Pia Chattopadhyay on this Sunday Magazine. Sunday morning, right here on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend. I'll see you on Monday.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Friday April 8, 2022 Full Text Transcript

More Stories Like This