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 2024

The Current Transcript for April 23, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

SOUNDCLIP

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: First of all, I never took on the role of anything. I don't take roles. I am Sophie, who I am.

MATT GALLOWAY: Sophie Gregoire Trudeau is no stranger to the spotlight. She has been a television host in Quebec and advocate for those struggling with eating disorders. And for many years she was by the side of her husband, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Now on her own, she has released a memoir. It is not a break-up tell all. In 30 minutes, Sophie Gregoire Trudeau on what she calls emotional literacy, parenting in a time of polarization and a life in the public eye. Also this morning:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: He's like God for me. He's made women like us feel safe. He's a good speaker and he has built dreams and roads and villages and cities.

MG: Close to a billion people are heading to the polls in India. The stakes are high for that country and many others. In an hour, Hindu nationalism, the appeal of Narendra Modi and what the vote means here when relations between Canada and India are at their lowest in decades. But we begin with a high-profile acquittal and questions about trust in police. Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Lawyer alleges police perjury in Umar Zameer murder trial

Guests: Nader Hasan

SOUNDCLIP

UMAR ZAMEER: I never meant any of this to happen. I am sorry for what had happened. I thought I and Aaida made a wrong decision when we thought we should go to Canada. But I think today I see that Canada didn't let injustice to happen.

MG: That's Umar Zameer after a jury found him not guilty in the death of Toronto police Const. Jeffrey Northrup. In July of 2021, Umar Zameer and his family were in their car in an underground parking lot when plainclothes police officers approached them. At the time, police were looking for a stabbing suspect. Zameer believed his family was being ambushed. Police officers argued they identified themselves as police. In the end, Const. Northrup was hit by Zameer's car and died. This case has captured national attention and sparked a conversation about policing. Nader Hasan is Umar Zameer's lawyer and a partner at Storkwoods Barristers and he's with me in our studio. Good morning.

NADER HASAN: Good morning.

MG: How's your client, Umar Zameer, doing after this verdict?

NADER HASAN: Well, he feels relieved. There's a weight that's been lifted off his shoulders. You know, his second and third child, children, he hasn't been able to hug them as a free man before until Sunday, so he's feeling a wave of relief. But he continues to feel awful for the Northrup family. He always has. From the very beginning, that has been his preoccupation. How they're doing, how they're feeling. He's never wallowed in self-pity. The man you heard on that clip, that's who he is.

MG: How confident were you that the verdict would go your way?

NADER HASAN: We were confident that truth and justice were on our side. But you can never take anything for granted in a criminal case, particularly when the victim is a police officer.

MG: I want to come back to that in a moment. We heard a little bit of what happened in 2021. Just briefly walk us through the events that led to your client's arrest.

NADER HASAN: So, Umar, his wife Aaida, who was eight months pregnant at the time, and their little boy who was two, they were out in downtown Toronto celebrating Canada Day. It was July 1st. They came down because they thought there might be fireworks. They were walking around. When it was just past midnight, they decided it was time to leave. They had parked at Nathan Phillips Square, the underground parking lot. It was nearly vacant by the time they left. They were loading up their car. They were about to drive away, and two individuals dressed in plainclothes, they had no idea they were police, they rushed up to the vehicle and demanded that the vehicle stop. They got scared. They didn't know who these people were. And Mr. Zameer's path ahead of him was clear. So, he tried to drive straight away into the laneway. Just as he did that a unmarked dark grey van, also a police van, but they didn't know that, drove in front of them, cut them off, and blocked their path. So, they were now effectively boxed in. And that's when the melee ensued and Mr. Zameer, he reversed backwards to escape. And in so doing, he clipped the poor officer who then fell to the ground. And when my client drove forward, he had no idea, no idea that the officer was on the ground when he drove forward. And that's not just his word that's corroborated by the expert testimony in this trial.

MG: What was the explanation given by police as to why your client was targeted? Why your client, they were coming to knock on the window of your client's car?

NADER HASAN: Yeah, there's really no good explanation. And I think even if you ask them, you won't get a good explanation. And even at the trial, there were different explanations from the three eyewitness police officers who gave testimony. They were looking for a stabbing suspect, but they had a description of the stabbing suspect. And my client didn't meet that description other than the fact that he was brown.

MG: Your client, in the wake of this, is arrested and taken into custody. And he's given bail. [NADER: Yeah.] This is a controversial decision. At the time, the premier, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, then mayor of Toronto, John Tory, were outraged publicly about this. Doug Ford called it beyond comprehension. [NADER: Yeah.] What do you make of the responses to that? We now know why the, what the reasoning was behind releasing your client on bail. What do you make of the comments by elected officials at the time about that decision?

NADER HASAN: Yeah, the premier called it beyond comprehension. I call his comments beyond ignorant. An elected official should never denigrate the bail system. They should never denigrate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is what makes us all free and safe in a democratic society. They had no idea what the facts underlying the case were. The bail judge did. Justice Copeland did. We had almost a mini trial, which was the bail hearing. And during the course of that hearing, it emerged that the case for murder, particularly first-degree murder, was extremely weak, even at that early stage, before we had most of the disclosure.

MG: Despite the fact that the then chief of police had said publicly that he believed there was evidence to show that this was premeditated.

NADER HASAN: He believed--he said at the time that this was deliberate and intentional.

MG: Deliberate and intentional.

NADER HASAN: And that was extremely troubling. I think the politicians who sounded off, they spoke from a place of dark ignorance, knowing nothing about the case, and they spouted off what they did. The police of the--the chief of police, he ought to have known better. He ought to have had the facts. Certainly, his officers had the facts at the time that this was not some kind of deliberate, intentional act. And in fact, it was the opposite.

MG: How much of that has to do with the fact that it was, in this tragedy a police officer that was killed?

NADER HASAN: [Sighs] One would assume a whole lot. I don't think a murder charge would have been laid, but for it being a police officer who was the victim. And I'm not sure if any criminal charge would have been laid, but for the fact that it was a police officer.

MG: Tell me more about that. Because the Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy, the trial judge, was very critical of the Crown in this case, questioning whether the prosecution had the evidence to support a first-degree murder charge. What do you make of why this went forward? Why did the Crown pursue this case, do you think?

NADER HASAN: I think you have to ask them that question.

MG: What do you understand about that? Why do you think? Because there were a number of discussions that were held.

NADER HASAN: Yeah. The police laid this charge as a first-degree murder charge. And I know that there's tremendous pressure on the Crown Attorney's office from the police when there's a police victim to proceed with the charges as laid. I know that that pressure exists. I know it exists in other cases as well. However, the crown is supposed to be independent. They're supposed to be above the fray. They're supposed to act as ministers of justice when they bring a case to trial. And there may have been a point where they could make a good faith argument that, there was a basis for the murder charge. But that basis, to the extent any ever existed, evaporated once their own expert report emerged. And their own expert report contradicted the eyewitness officer testimony, as did the video evidence. And that's really what was key here. Their own three eyewitnesses were completely contradicted by the objective evidence.

MG: What do you make of the fact that three police witnesses testified in court with identical stories about what they say happened that were not-- those stories were not backed up by physical or forensic evidence?

NADER HASAN: I think the honourable judge put it best when she pointed out it is entirely possible that one officer could be totally mistaken about where officer Northrup was standing and how he was standing when he was hit. But for three officers to describe that incident in exactly the same way and all be exactly wrong in exactly the same way, that's something for you to consider as to whether or not they were colluding together.

MG: Do you believe it was collusion?

NADER HASAN: Absolutely I do. I said that during...

MG: Do you believe they perjured themselves?

NADER HASAN: I absolutely believe they perjured themselves. I think I've been very clear about that from the beginning. I was clear to the jury, and I've been clear to the press when I've been speaking about this.

MG: After the verdict of not guilty, after your client was acquitted, the chief of police, the current chief of police in the city of Toronto, Myron Demkiw, said-- and these are his words--"While we respect the judicial process and appreciate the work of the 12 citizens who sat on a very difficult case, I share the feelings of our members who were hoping for a different outcome." What do you think that different outcome was that the Chief of Police was looking for?

NADER HASAN: It made it sound like he was not looking for a just outcome. He was looking for a vengeful outcome. And that's troubling because he's chief of police to all of us. Not just the, those within his ranks who are out for blood. And so, that was a disappointing comment. I was heartened to see that he seemed to walk those comments back in his press release yesterday, where he announced that there'd be this independent review led by the OPP. He seemed to walk back those comments. But when we heard those, they were extremely distressing because it suggests that the chief of police doesn't accept the outcome after a very thorough, lengthy process in which a jury of 12 Canadians from different walks of life decided the outcome of this case.

MG: Const. Northrup's widow, Margaret Northrup, spoke after the verdict. Have a listen to what she said:

SOUNDCLIP

MARGARET NORTHRUP: I am very disappointed in today's outcome. From day one, all I have wanted is accountability.

MG: What does accountability look like in this case? For your client, but also for the death of Const. Northrup?

NADER HASAN: Well, firstly I am tremendously sympathetic to Mrs. Northrup. She's a victim in all of this. And I don't blame her at all for feeling frustrated with this process. But I do feel like she has been misled by those who ought to have had her and her family's best interests at heart. They were told that this was something that it was not. They were told that this was a murder. And they've been proceeding on the, over the last three years, grieving their lost husband, their lost father, listening to those within the police saying that this was a deliberate, intentional act. And now they've been told that it wasn't. And I don't blame them for being upset. Upset at us, upset at the system. I don't know who else they're upset at. And I understand those emotions entirely. But it wouldn't have done anyone a lick of good to send an innocent man to jail for one of the most serious crimes on our books.

MG: You've said that you hope this case becomes a teachable moment for police across the country. What should police forces learn from what happened?

NADER HASAN: No matter what your emotional investment in the case, in the investigation, your primary duty above all else is to uphold the rule of law. And that means even when it's one of your own who are the victim of a terrible tragedy, you need to behave honourably when you investigate, and you need to behave honourably when you give testimony in court. Don't lie in court. That's rule number one that needs to be taken away from this.

MG: Has the chief contacted your client?

NADER HASAN: No.

MG: Do you expect him to? Would you like him to?

NADER HASAN: I think it's the right thing for him to do. But I'm not holding my breath and my client's not holding his breath. He wants to move on. He's a gracious person. I think if the chief did call him, he would accept his apology.

MG: Will your client pursue legal action?

NADER HASAN: We don't know that yet, Matt. I wanted to give my client a few days just to recover from all of this. It has been a harrowing three days for him and his entire family.

MG: What happens for him now? I mean, he was branded a cop killer. [NADER: Yeah.] He lost his job. [NADER: Yeah.] He missed the birth of his daughter. [NADER: Yeah.] What happens to him now?

NADER HASAN: Yeah. He wasn't just branded a cop killer. He was branded a terrorist in some darker parts of the Canadian media and internet. And it was very troubling.

MG: He wondered whether he should stay in this country.

NADER HASAN: Yeah, but these are these are optimistic, resilient people who actually do have faith in this country after all they've been through. And they have faith in our system, and they want to try to make a go of it here. And they want to, they still believe that Canada is a good place to raise their kids. And they have confidence. They've seen a lot of, they've seen the dark side of our justice system, but they've also seen the good in a lot of Canadians. And they've been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support that we've been getting over the last several weeks from Canadians all across the country, coast to coast to coast, who have been saying, I feel for you. You know, I would have done the same thing if I were in your situation. I would have, I would have fled to try to protect my family.

MG: Nader Hassan, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

NADER HASAN: Thanks for having me, Matt.

MG: Nader Hassan is Umar Zameer's lawyer and a partner at Stockwood Barristers. Kent Roach is a law professor at the University of Toronto and the author of Canadian Policing: Why and How it Must Change. Kent, good morning to you.

KENT ROACH: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What went through your mind when you heard this verdict?

KENT ROACH: Well, I think we saw it coming. Certainly, Justice Malloy and Justice Copeland on the bail had signaled that this was a very weak and troubling case. I was happy because, you know, I've written about wrongful convictions. And we saw in the Charles Smith cases in Ontario that when people are charged with murder, first degree murder, which has a mandatory life imprisonment, 25 years without parole, which was what Mr. Zameer was looking at, sometimes they take the path of rational and least resistance, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge, even if they're not guilty. So, I think we avoided a wrongful conviction. And I'm happy. But I think there's a lot of questions about why this first-degree murder prosecution was pursued and the jury rejected not only first-degree murder, second degree murder, but also manslaughter.

MG: Why do you think the Crown went ahead with first degree murder charges in this case?

KENT ROACH: Well, I mean, I think you have to look. You've got to start at the top. Premier Ford has created an atmosphere where a bail decision is seen as unacceptable and unfathomable. He and his attorney general have also indicated that they are going to appoint people to the bench who are like-minded. So, I think that, you know, even if there is no direct political interference, this creates an atmosphere where prosecutors are not doing their independent job of screening charges. The way the system works in Ontario is the police lay the charge, but the prosecutor is supposed to be an independent person that says, Look, you might want this to be first-degree murder, but it only looks like manslaughter or there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. And I, you know, I do worry because, you know, both police and prosecutors are protected from political interference. And there's been no evidence of direct political interference in this case. But I also think we can't ignore the atmosphere where both the premier and the attorney general are saying, you know, it's like-minded people. People that think like us are going to be appointed to the bench who are going to advance in our criminal justice system.

MG: What did you make of those comments? We are only, we only have a few minutes left. What did you make of those comments by the Chief of Police, Myron Demkiw, that he respected the process, but he wished for another outcome.

KENT ROACH: Coming from a chief of police this is extremely concerning. I would understand, or at least have more understanding if it was Const. Northup's widow or partner, even, police partner making those comments. But the chief of police deserves better.

MG: There's an editorial in the Globe and Mail this morning saying that these comments disqualify him from the job because he's essentially, was essentially calling for a wrongful conviction, according to the editorial in the paper.

KENT ROACH: Yeah. And but this brings us to a problem is, we allow the police to govern themselves. It's the Toronto Police Service Board that hired Chief Demkiw, and it's the Toronto Police Service Board that can fire Chief Demkiw. But of course, we know that former Mayor Tory was one of the people who criticized the bail decision. Now, I think Mr. Tory, to his credit, has gone public and said he's learned some lessons from here. But we've not heard that from Premier Ford and we've not heard that from the attorney general.

MG: We requested a statement from the Toronto Police Service. They sent us a media release saying that the chief had requested that the Ontario Provincial Police conduct an internal review of the service. How valuably do you think it is to have an outside force investigate the Toronto Police Service?

KENT ROACH: It's better than nothing. But I think that the province should amend the Special Investigations Unit Act to allow the SIU act to do a more independent investigation. At the end, this is the police investigating the police. We know that the Ontario OPP commissioner, perhaps responding to the same tough on crime environment, has been a vocal critic of our bail laws. So, I think that it's not going to happen, but I think the SIU act should be amended so that issues of possible perjury are investigated independently. I'd rather see the SIU doing that than investigating traffic accidents involving the police that result in serious injury. So, I think we could learn a lot from this moment and change the SIU act. I think the Toronto Police Service Board needs to look, what are the policies for undercover police officers so there are no policies about undercover policing, at least public policies on their website. And of course, the Toronto Police Service Board has been held by countless inquiries to be asleep at the switch. And the fact that Mayor Tory was at the head at the time this tragedy happened, I think just compounds some of these issues in terms of democratic policing. The police are supposed to work for us. They're not supposed to be a thin blue wall that governs themselves.

MG: Kent Roach, thank you very much. Kent Roach is a law professor at the University of Toronto and the author of Canadian Policing: How and Why It Must Change. Your CBC News is coming up next. And then:

SOUNDCLIP

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: I've met enough humans in my life to know that, yes, some will be trying to sniff out the gossip or the whatever. There's not much to sniff out, to be honest. I feel that this space of calm inside me, most people sense it. And the ones who don't, well, it's okay, I can't control that.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau is a mom, a yoga teacher, former broadcaster, and of course, she was married to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. She has now written her first book, Closer Together. In part, it's a memoir. In part, it's a self-help book. We'll talk to her about a life in the public eye, her personal life, but also life in polarized times in this country. That's coming up in six minutes. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio. Stay with us.

[Music fades up]

What Sophie Grégoire Trudeau did next

Guests: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. When Justin Trudeau swept to power in 2015, his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, was front and centre at the victory speech.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Merci, Sophie. [French speech]

MG: And as her then husband thanked her for her strength and profound generosity, she became one of Canada's most high-profile political spouses since her mother-in-law Margaret, decades earlier. Before Sophie Grégoire Trudeau ever became the wife of, though, she was well known as a TV personality in Quebec who advocated for women's issues and mental health. She taught yoga. Now, after a split with her husband, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau is returning to some of those themes in a new book. It's called Closer Together. One of her goals, she says, is to help Canadians become more emotionally literate. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau joins us from our Ottawa studio. Good morning.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Matt, you want to make me cry from the beginning of this interview?

MG: What's it like hearing those people chant your name?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Oh, it's not about the people chanting my name at all. It's about the energy that I remember. It's about serving each other. It's about the fact that, what, you know what Justin said in there, we could still tell each other. I think that we have so much to learn when it comes to relationships and how, you know, we don't have to slay a relationship in order to restructure it. And we can still have, be bound by love and respect and having each other's backs and hearts. I think that's what family is by and large.

MG: When you talk about slaying a relationship, I mean, that sounds like you're quoting Esther Perel.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: I am. I quote her often.

MG: She's... For people who don't know, she's a psychotherapist, but she's also a podcaster. And she says that most of us would rather kill a relationship than question or change its structure.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Did you read my book, Matt?

MG: I certainly did. Well, when you think of that, I mean, she's somebody that a lot of people turn to for relationship advice. How much of that applies in your own case?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: What do you mean, exactly?

MG: Well, I mean, when she talks about... many of us would rather kill the relationship, rather than question it or change its structure. How much of that applies in your own case?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Well, yeah, it absolutely applies because we are still bound by respect and love, and we have each other's backs and minds and and hearts. That's what family is. I think that, you know, romantic love is rooted in deep friendship. And sometimes when the relationship restructures itself, it doesn't mean that you have to create that much distance that you don't have that friendship anymore. But it's not easy because not everybody kind of evolves at the same rhythm emotionally. And we have to respect each other's boundaries. And it's a learning process. And sometimes it gets messy, like, you know, in all, in all family life. And it should be because it kind of makes us appreciate the better times.

MG: How are you doing in the wake of all of this? You've gone through a lot over the last few months, and it's been very public too.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: So, you know, when I think of my life, how I live in my daily life, it is not what people see in the media. And at 49, I have another understanding of, you know, having the world's gaze on your relationship or your partner's work. What I see out there doesn't correspond to what I live in my [unclear], you know. In my household. And when I'm running errands, when I'm giving speeches, when I'm meeting people. The love, the support, that understanding that we're all interconnected, that we are all suffering in some way or another. And we have to be very careful to not compare each other's suffering, because really, we're all one trauma away from each other. It takes one traumatic life event to change your mind, the way you perceive yourself and other people, or a series of chronic, you know, smaller traumas to affect in the same way. So, I raise my kids. I live not thinking that people who have titles and important position, and I've met so many of them throughout the planet, are more important. I've never believed that. I've never sensed that. The more I grow on the mental health, you know, path, the more I realise that we are so much more the same than we think.

MG: You know, people are going to pick up this book and they're going to be looking for some sort of story about...

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Gossip?

MG: Well, yeah, about the end of the relationship. And I know, I mean, you've said that you wrote the book and turned it in before all of this happened, but did you, given that, were you tempted to go back and add anything?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: You know, at some point you have to let go. And I put so much love and teamwork with all the experts that I interviewed in this book, that when the work is done, there is nothing more you can control.

MG: But, you know, what people, I just... the last point on that is that, you know, that people will be, will be reading the tea leaves. Kind of reading in between lines looking for something.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: So, I don't, I don't agree with you, Matt. I've met enough humans in my life to know that, yes, some will be trying to sniff out the gossip or the whatever. There's not much to sniff out, to be honest. You know, I'm in a family and I'm raising my kids, and I've had, you know, a partner where sincerity, open conversations, difficult conversations are at the core of who we are as a family. So, even if people dug and dug, there's not much to be honest. And I feel that this space of calm inside me, most people sense it. And the ones who don't, well, it's okay, I can't control that.

MG: I mentioned in the introduction that before you became known in that role, as somebody who was a politician's partner, that you had your own career. You had your own life. How much of that, of your own identity do you feel you had to give up when you took on the role of Prime Minister's wife?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: First of all, I never took on the role of anything. I don't take roles. I am Sophie, who I am, and I think that my friends throughout this whole journey have always seen the same Sophie evolving. I hope, becoming a better person. I hope. As I grow in age, and I hope a little bit of more wisdom and life experience. But I've never even seen, you know, my partner in the title or the job that he occupies. I don't define human beings according to what their work is. I accept and sense them and live with them according to how they treat people.

MG: Maybe outside of the work, I mean, just living a very public life where whatever you say, whatever you do, is going to be captured. You, I mean, in the book, one of the people that you speak with is Gabor Maté. And he was quoted elsewhere saying that you wanted to be free and not constrained. I just wonder whether you felt constrained in that.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: So, a couple of things here. First of all, freedom comes from within. And the more you grow in age, I think the more you sense this. And because I never defined myself as, you know, the wife of somebody or somebody in a role, you know, doing some type of function, I've never perceived myself that way. And I will always remember, Matt, at the beginning, people were asking me, How is it to be the wife of a Prime Minister? And I was like, what are you talking about? Like, I'm just Sophie G in the house. I'm staying the same person. I don't change personality to adapt to, you know, different situations. I adapt to life. Yes. And I tried to remain open, but I don't define myself as a human being and as a woman in that way. So, when you tell me public life, it's a part of my life. But those couple of events where people see me in high heels because there's protocol and a nice dress, that's not my life. That's just a little percentage where I'm doing, you know, and I'm, and I respect the protocol that's being put forward. But other than that, that's not what my life looks like.

MG: Early on in your time in that role such as it is, there was, you'll remember this, there was public outcry when people found out that the government was paying the bill for two nannies to help look after your kids. Your kids were very young at the time, and there were a lot of different things going on in your life. How do you, when you look back on that now, what goes through your mind?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: That there's always a period of adaptation when you step into the political life, especially with young kids. And it's not planned, you know, pre-planned. It's not, there's not a book to follow. So, you're just kind of like, juggling all the balls and trying to figure out how to keep everybody safe, especially during travels. And I look back and I just think it is, it was what it was in that moment. And that didn't last for very long.

MG: What did you make of the controversy of it? The fact that people seemed to be outraged that the government, that taxpayers, were paying for help.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Well, that everything is of passage and that that would pass as well, and that we are good people and we're here to serve. But that in some way, you know, you, somebody told me not too long ago, you know, did you develop a thicker skin? I don't think that's me. I don't think my skin is thicker. I think I've been sensing with all of my heart and my, and thinking with my mind, but I haven't been taking in kind of the negativity that can come with it, because all of it doesn't belong to me. And so, it is important in our own lives-- and I talk about this in the book-- that when we're surrounded by negativity, choose to bring your attention to nourishment. Choose to put in your body nourishing things and food. Choose to look after yourself when it comes to sleep and what you bring your attention to. Because what you, where you bring your attention to, energy flows. So, I think you have to develop discernment in your own life. And this is what I talk about in this book. That when we live in a society where, you know, self betrayal is rewarded, when ageing is an insult, when we have to change ourselves physically and mentally in order to fit in, that is the opposite of authenticity. And as Dr. Gabor Maté says, We come into this world with the two most basic needs. All humans have these two needs: attachment, so to be taken care of. In the gaze, touch, presence, playfulness, validation of another. How you were kind of cared for by your parents from zero to three. And then you bring that wiring in your brain into your teenage years and your adult relationships, and that child is active your whole life emotionally. And then finally, authenticity. What does it mean to be authentic? It means that you can express your unique character, which is every human being on this planet, without having to adapt or change your behaviour in order to please or get love. But Matt, we all do it. We all do it because our inherent need is to feel loved, validated and seen for who we are. So, when you look at the state of the world right now, how many people are overwhelmed, tired, trying to make, you know, ends meet, who are losing sleep and having insomnia, who feel depleted and feel that they can't really, they're not empowered themselves to make change in their own family or community or society. As a mental health curious student for 20 years now, I am very concerned. And I've been talking about this for years. And unfortunately, it took a pandemic sometimes for, you know, for people to wake up and now look where we're at. Mental health issues are the number one cause of absenteeism. That's a hard work to say for me.

MG: Absenteeism.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Thank you. Good work.

MG: I mean, you trace this back to your own childhood. How would you describe the relationship with your parents when you were growing up?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: You know, in my early years, it's difficult sometimes to go back in our early years. If we would ask listeners right now, what are the, you know, sensory memories that you have? Smell, taste, hearing, sight, touch. You know, what do you remember from your childhood? I remember nature because I grew up in nature from like zero to four or five. I remember going on outings with my father. I remember laughter in my household. I remember being held, being loved. And I also, as I grew up, I also remember feeling like, as an only child, I was at the centre of my own parents dynamics and tensions in their own relationship. And trying to internalize that and save everybody. You know?

MG: You say you wanted to be perfect so that your parents didn't have to worry about you.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Yeah. I think every child kind of has that kind of struggle for, you know, on some level. And because I was an only child, I internalised it even more. And not to say that people who have brothers and sisters don't live it at that level. Not at all. But that was my case. Yes. Yeah.

MG: When did you, you've spoken about this extensively. When did you start to struggle with an eating disorder?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: You know what? It's such a tough question because when you are in the vicious cycle and in the addiction process, you don't, you're not starting to count, Oh, when did this start? You know? It was in my late teens, that I remember. And, you know, eating disorders are the tip of the iceberg. They're like any other kind of addiction compulsion. Whether it's sex, whether it's TV watching, whether it's yo-yo dieting, whether it's, you know, going from one relationship to the other. Somehow mental health is not just about the absence of mental illness. It's, we're all somewhere on that big circle of mental well-being. So, with eating disorders, it stems from a deep emotional longing that is not, that is not taking place. And so, when we think about trauma, it's not just what was bad that happened to you, and it's also what was good that didn't take place.

MG: Can you just go back to your own experience. There's a story in the book of what happened when you went to Paris with your family. Can you tell us that?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Yeah, so I remember kind of witnessing my own self in a situation where I was going through a purging episode, and I remember being, feeling so ashamed and feeling like, Oh, this is the last time. And feeling like if my parents saw me, Oh my God. What would they think? And I kind of, like, twisted my body around so that my feet would still be facing the front of the stool so that they wouldn't. Well, I'm not going to say the whole thing, because you have to read the book to understand the context, and I don't want that to be taken out of context. But it was a moment where I witnessed myself in a moment of suffering and, you know, kind of felt sorry for myself in a way, from the fact that I was suffering from eating disorders. And I wanted it to end. But as with any other compulsion, in my late teens, I was kind of stuck in that mode.

MG: When you started to speak out about that, what were you concerned about? About speaking publicly about going through something like that?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: That I'd never be hired again.

MG: That's what you were worried about?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Well, I mean, I was in television, right? And, you know, young television, a newcomer on the scene. And I was thinking, Okay, this, I know that it was the right thing to do. I knew that, but I was thinking there might be a price to pay for being that vulnerable and that honest. But I was ready to go for it. So, I did it, and it changed the direction of my life path and also my inner compass, in a way.

MG: How so?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Because it gave me the reassurance and the bond of trust with other people, that when you share your story, when you're being truthful, when you look at people in the eye with sincerity and integrity, people feel it. And it allows them to do the same. You know, Rose-Marie Charest, the great Quebec psychologist in my book, says that the most unhappy humans that she's met in her life are the ones who cannot trust in others. With Closer Together, in this book, I want to expand this circle of trust. Because people are becoming more and more untrustworthy of each other, and that is not our human nature.

MG: I'd said in the introduction that you were an advocate for emotional literacy. What does that mean to you?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: You know, emotional literacy is emotional leadership. It means being aware of why we feel the way we do, how we can intervene on our own emotions, and how we can cope better with stress and anxiety, insecurity and the uncertainty of life.

MG: So, if we were as as Canadians, more emotionally literate, what would that look like, do you think?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: When we become more of a leader of our own inner world, we move from the alert mode in our body and in our nervous system into a more secure mode. So, when I talked with the expert David Livingstone Smith on dehumanisation, he said that hate, you know, fear, dehumanising the other, and there are so many polarizing forces throughout this world and in our country as well. We cannot be naive. We have to look at them head on. If we go from that alert fear mode into a more relaxed state, we don't, we are not as threatened by the difference of the other. And look at our country. The diversity we have here is absolutely fantastic and everybody makes this country better with their own stories. But we have to continue to share our stories. We have to cherish the diversity of stories instead of being or feeling threatened by the other.

MG: There's also a lot of anger in the country right now.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Yes. And I, and it's understandable. Look at the state of the world. How can people feel that they have a sense of agency when we're facing humanity's greatest crises? You know, from climate change to polarisation in society to, you know, the depth of the abyss between the rich and the poor. And a lot of good people, I tell you this, and I meet them every day, are doing what, all that they can, sacrifices in their own family, devotion to service, to helping each other to create more justice in this world. And it doesn't have to be through politics. It can be through all other levels of life. And I think that when we start doing, you know, when we start having more peace within our homes, within our own bodies and minds, then it reverberates and it has a ripple effect outwards.

MG: How do you model that as a parent of teenagers?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Hmhm. Good question. You know, if parents are listening right now, I think that whatever you say to your kids are words. How you act towards your own self, how much compassion, patience, empathy, discernment you have over your own life is what they catch on. You know, they really latch to that energetically and they see it. They sense it. It's not perfect, right? We all mess up. And I think we should also admit our messing up to our kids. That we're not perfect beings. And parenting, and I talk about it in a whole chapter in the book with Dr. Shefali, is a relationship. It's not a role. And if we don't take care of our own egos and our own trauma as parents, well, then we leave an emotional, a very heavy emotional luggage to our own kids.

MG: You write in the book about, and we were talking about anger earlier, about seeing some of the anger. And it's not just online. Seeing it face to face. That the kids would see signs in car windows saying 'F Trudeau.' What did you say to them about that?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: It makes me sad. It makes me sad that there is so much confusion. It makes me sad to see that people, you know, have so much anger and fear. And that we have been taught in many ways to direct that anger and that fear at one person. And that there are forces out there that are really triggering on that message and really pushing that message.

MG: I mean, what do you make of the fact that it's really personal? He was here. The Prime Minister was here just a few weeks ago. And I asked him about this. I said, Why don't you think people like you?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: It's not personal, Matt. This is a, there are greater movements in our society that explain the human behaviour right now. And it would be irresponsible to analyse this as a constant personal attack, constantly and incessantly. Because as a mental health advocate, I now understand that, you know, people who feel insecure, people who need help, people who become angry, we have to support the feelings of insecurity that are the basis of that. And if we make people feel more secure because, by the way, on Abraham Maslow's pyramid, at the basis, you know, if you have a food on your table and a roof over your head, obviously, you know, it's so important to have those basic needs met. But if safety isn't there, it's game over. And safety is not just the absence of threat, it is the presence of connection.

MG: At a time when people are really angry, do you worry--there's a phrase toxic positivity-- that we ask people to find common ground and compassion for each other. But that's really difficult when, for very basic reasons, people are unhappy with each other. People are struggling. People are really frustrated. They're anxious. Do you worry about that sort of toxic positivity?

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: I am aware of it, as I've read upon it and made myself more educated on the matter. I think that, you know, when I look at life in general and from what I have learned on my own path, is that we don't come into life as human beings with our first inhale and our last exhale to be rosy, happy all the time. No. We come here to be conscious. We come here to become responsible of our own individualisation process. And to become the creative person we're meant to be. So, I understand the suffering. I get it. And I want to help as much as I can. And it's only by coming closer together, which is no fluke that I chose that for the title of my book, that we will succeed at not being threatened by what we're facing as a humanity and by others' differences.

MG: At a time when people are divided, I mean, there's an election that's coming up, and I know, I just wonder, what do you think your role might be in helping to put forth what you're talking about? To help try to bring the country together in a really divisive time? In past you've been by the side of the Prime Minister and now you have a very different life.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: You know, I think that my focus, I'm not a politician, obviously. My focus will be on my work and how I can contribute. And it's always been clear to me that whether I was doing it, you know, on a volunteer basis through the co-political years or differently, my work stays the same and my movement from a place of integrity stays the same. So, I can't wait to meet people on the path. And I know it's not easy, but I hope that this book and the message in it, and the fact that people will feel safe enough to not only navigate its pages but find tools to feel better. That's what I want to do.

MG: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, it's a great pleasure to talk to you. Thank you very much.

SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU: Thank you, Matt. You're welcome.

MG: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's new book is called Closer Together. It is out today. Well, coming up after your regional update:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: For me, I think the biggest issue is probably job creation and employment job opportunities. As a young adult, I'm very aware of the need to find stable employment.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: More than 18 million young people in India are casting votes for the very first time in this year's election. They are taking part in a massive democratic endeavour. It will take 47 days for everyone to cast their ballot. And by everyone, I mean almost a billion people. We will talk about the logistics at play in getting a billion people out to vote, but also the issues that are front and centre in this campaign and what the election will mean for relations between Canada and India. That's coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway, this is The Current. Stay with us.

[Music fades up]

What’s at stake in India’s election?

Guests: Karishma Mehrotra

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. India is in full on election mode. Almost one billion people are registered to vote, a process that will take six weeks at a million different polling stations. The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is seeking his third term:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: We need Modi because, to change India, like developer India, Modi's needed.

SPEAKER: He is selfless, selfless. He works only for the people.

MG: Karishma Mehrotra is the South Asia correspondent for the Washington Post. She is in eastern India today. Karishma, hello.

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Hi. Thank you so much for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. A billion people, a million polling stations. What are the logistics that it takes to run an election of this scale?

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yeah, I mean, India's election commission, which puts on these elections, is calling it the world's largest election mobilization exercise of man and material. So, you have about 15 million officials and security personnel who are spreading across this country with some of the most climactic zones in the world. So, they're climbing mountains, they're going across rivers, in many different climates. They're also getting votes from people in relief camps. They're going by helicopter. So, this is by far one of the most ambitious elections in the world that we've ever seen.

MG: And that process explains why the vote will take six weeks, right? To get to all of those people and all those various remote areas.

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yes. But it is one of the longest elections that India has seen. About 47 days. So, almost seven weeks. And yes, that is why it's going to take place over such a long period of time. And sometimes one state is going into elections at various moments within those seven weeks so that they can deploy enough people throughout the large country.

MG: Aside from the scale, how significant is this election for India?

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yeah, well, on one hand, on the opposition's side, they are creating a narrative about this election being important to save democracy and to save India's constitution. Because if Narendra Modi were to come back for a third term, it would cement a lot of the agenda of the BJP even further. And so, their narrative and their claim is to try and protect and save India's democracy and the idea of India that the opposition has. On the ruling party's side, for them, a victory would allow them to almost complete a lot of the agenda that they had set out roughly ten years ago. And so, it's important in the sense that if they were to win again, it would be quite unprecedented. There's only been two other moments in India's history where you've had a party this confident about winning, where you've had three terms, even a possibility. And the amount of popularity that he is seeing is pretty unprecedented in India's history.

MG: What is that agenda of the BJP and of Narendra Modi? What has played out thus far in his two terms, and what does he want to push forward in a third?

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yeah, to simplify it, there's pretty much two large verticals that the BJP discusses. One is Hindu nationalism known as Hindutva, and the other is a development agenda. So, on the first, they've had many promises that they've tried to fulfil. One of those was something called the Ram Mandir or the Ram Temple, which is in the largest state, U.P, where the BJP has made sure that a temple can be constructed on the site of a controversial and disputed mosque that was destroyed by a Hindu mob in the 1990s. So, that was one very important promise that the BJP had made that they have fulfilled. There have been promises of changing the Indian law so that there's not different laws for different religion, which has not been fulfilled yet, but what they would like to do. There was a promise to change a part of the constitution so that the semiautonomous categorisation of Kashmir would be changed so that it would become a territory, which happened as well. And so, on the Hindutva side, they've accomplished some. They'd like to accomplish more. On the development side, a lot of focus has been on welfare schemes, has been on using tech for development. And there's also been about presenting India's image across the world and presenting India as a stronger and more global superpower across the world. And so, on that, especially the marketing in the narrative about that development has been extremely successful. And they have definitely created new voting blocks around the sort of welfare schemes and the government programs that they've tried to market across the country. So, on these two large planks, they've accomplished and are continuing to drive that narrative throughout this election.

MG: At a rally on Sunday, Narendra Modi accused Muslims of being infiltrators in the country. He said that if Congress, which is one of the opposition parties, if Congress were to return to power, that they would steal the nation's wealth and distribute it among the infiltrators. He was accused of hate speech for that. What sort of resonance do those kinds of comments and how are they received within the broader Indian public? I mean, who is he speaking to when he says things like that?

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yeah. So, I mean, very specifically speaking in Uttar Pradesh, where these types of comments have much more resonance than a lot of other places in this country. So, for example, you would probably never hear him say such a thing in southern India or in northeast India or in West Bengal. So, there are many states where it actually has no resonance and would probably backfire for him to say such things. However, he did say it in U.P. It is surprising that while he has said similar statements before in the past, he continues to say those. The Election Commission has not responded to comment on those statements. And it's an interesting trend that continues into this election that it's something that was a plank for his, in these areas in the country before. And it continues to be one. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it resonates with everyone across the country. I mean, let's keep in mind that the BJP's vote share in the last election was below 40 per cent. So, while their seat share translated to much more than half, its vote share actually doesn't include the majority of this country. And the country is so diverse in its thoughts and its priorities and its agendas and its narratives. And elections, especially this one, are very localised in the issues and the narratives that matter at a very local level. So, it is no coincidence that he spoke about this in U.P., where a Hindu-Muslim narrative has always had more traction than in other states, even near nearby it. So, that's definitely important to keep in mind.

MG: You wrote about how women and young people in particular could put Modi over the top. What is his appeal to them?

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yeah. I think for women, if we talk about, there's three main things. One is the welfare schemes or the government programs that I mentioned earlier, which have increasingly targeted women in particular ways. Whether it's a gas cylinder, whether it's food ration, whether it's bank accounts, these things have directly been given in the name of the women. The second is perceptions about law and order, especially in the state that I mentioned earlier, U.P., where the narrative has been that women's safety and domestic violence and rape have come under control because of a stricter government. But the third, which I think is less talked about, but important to note, is that women are more religious, and that religious functions and events are more easily able to get women out of the home from the private to the public sphere. Whether you're talking about temple cleanings or blood donations, different types of community service, which are sort of strung around a religious flagpole, have an easier time drawing women out of the home. And that's something that the BJP has been able to do. On youth, one of the biggest things with youth is India's image on the global stage. The fact that, you know, Prime Minister Modi is able to speak eye to eye with the president of the United States. The idea that companies and countries seem to be, almost, you know, begging for attention from India. That's the narrative that the ruling party is spreading amongst the youth. So, it's a lot about the ambition, the aspiration, and the sort of euphoric feeling of what India stands for today. Which is, we'll have to see how this goes in this election. But from what we've seen in the past, that's almost out shown the fact that youth are dealing with strong employment issues. They are dealing with a skill mismatch in that very highly skilled young people do not have jobs available to them that match their skills. And so, nonetheless, the sort of euphoric feeling has drawn the youth in. Although the BJP has targeted them in very specific ways, whether it's, you know, through social media, different videos, even using AI in different ways, the songs they choose, the atmosphere that they create at rallies, also draws in the youth in a very particular way. So, we have seen in the past that women and youth have been leaning towards the BJP, women in specific parts of the country. And we'll have to see if that trend continues in this election.

MG: Just finally, what's at stake here? I mean, you mentioned concerns around democracy. One of the opposition leaders, Rahul Gandhi, has said the idea that India is the world's largest democracy is a complete lie. What's at stake, do you think, for the country here?

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yeah. I mean, definitely from what the opposition is seeing and facing, you have two chief ministers, serving chief ministers, who are actually in jail as this election is going on. Just yesterday, you had a seat in Gujarat where the opposing candidates' signatures were deemed invalid and all of the candidates against the ruling party candidate backed out of the election. And he's already won when we're not even done with the election. And so, it's interesting that in the past, a lot of conversation about India's democracy, especially from abroad, has been about, okay, the elections have been okay. But, you know, the rest of India, the media freedom, the hate speech, the minorities, those types of things were the things that were talked about. And it was seen as, okay, an electoral democracy, but nonetheless perhaps an illiberal democracy, according to many academics across the world. But it's curious to now see, throughout this election and after, how will we start to reflect on India's democracy within its electoral vantage point as well? You have a lot of discussion about the electronic voting machines, which are used to elect your candidates. There's a lot of sort of discussion of whether or not those are as safe and secure as they have been considered to be in the past. And so, I do think the narratives around India's democracy will continue to be tested, discussed and deliberated much, much more after this election. And the stakes of how that democracy is seen across the world is not to be, you know, looked at lightly.

MG: The results are expected when? In early June?

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Yes. June 4th.

MG: Perhaps we will talk between now and then. There's a lot to happen in this election. In the meantime, Karishma, thank you very much.

KARISHMA MEHROTRA: Thank you so much for having me.

MG: Karishma Mehrotra is the South Asia correspondent for the Washington Post. Sanjay Ruparelia is the Jaroslovsky democracy chair and an associate professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University. Sanjay, hello to you.

SANJAY RUPARELIA: Hello, Matt.

MG: How has Narendra Modi shaped India in the decade that he has been in office?

SANJAY RUPARELIA: Well, the most important is political. The BJP and the Prime Minister now dominate Indian politics in a way that we haven't seen since the 1970s and 80s, when Indira Gandhi. The Congress prime minister did and before her, her father, India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. So, it's unprecedented in several decades. We've also seen what political scientists call as Hindu mobilisation. Previously, the highest vote showed that the BJP Hindu Nationalist party won was around 25 per cent. Under Modi, it has climbed from 31 to 37 per cent in 2019. So, we're looking at that. Opposition parties can still win in the States, especially the South, as Karishma was just mentioning. But we haven't seen a dominant party like this for a long time. The BJP is the only party besides the Congress that have won re-election since, well, besides the Congress. And it's the first party since 1980 to win two in a row, and it's going for a hat trick. As we know, hat tricks are pretty hard to come by in life.

MG: Do you see a difference between how Modi presents himself and the way that he is seen outside of India, versus how he is seen inside of India?

SANJAY RUPARELIA: Well, it's interesting, you know. They're connected in a way that they hadn't been before. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, was a great international statesman. One of the leaders of the non-aligned movement. And in some ways, even though he's a sort of arch rival for this Prime Minister, that's the closest comparison. But Mr. Modi has tried to, well, he for many Indian voters, he personifies the rise of India. He comes from a very humble background compared to the dynasty of the Congress. He's seen as totally committed to politics. He's a bachelor. And his dominance of India, he has, as Karishma was saying, you know, through marketing and branding, sort of tried to take credit for India's sort of rise on the world stage. And so, there's a connection there between domestic politics and foreign policy that we haven't seen before. Which is unusual.

MG: I just wonder whether a Prime Minister who is seen in India, I mean, again, this is last week, but has made these comments before in targeting the Muslim community in India, calling them infiltrators. Whether that is different than the image that he projects when he is in the White House, for example, with Joe Biden.

SANJAY RUPARELIA: Yes. You know, that's a really important point. And good question. So, you know, when he first came to power in 2014, in fact, the Hindu nationalist messaging was downplayed by him when he was the Prime Minister candidate. He really focused on good governance, tackling corruption, modernising the Indian economy. And in many ways there have been some important achievements. The economy has expanded in size and per capita income. Public infrastructure, particularly on the digital side, has really expanded. As Karishma was saying, there's been a more effective delivery of social entitlements, particularly to women in the use of cash transfers. So, when he is abroad, it's very much the modernising Prime Minister who's trying to do good and right by his country. Within India, the messaging changes. And again, as Karishma was saying, there's a North-South divide which is fairly pronounced. In the north, the so-called Hindi heartland, Hindu nationalism is the main message. And it has to do with cow protection laws, campaigns to discourage inter-religious relationships or religious conversion, particularly [unclear] and Adivasis who are in the lower the structure to Christianity, for instance. And so, what you see is, as I mean, as many skilful master politicians do, they speak in different voices to different parts of the electorate. And he's a very skilful politician. But it's been concerning. And the elect, and the speech that you mentioned has raised concerns because there's a moral code of conduct in Indian elections that you can't use religious or communal or cast, you know, identity in any way, or casting aspersions or what is seen as aspersions at a community in order to mobilise the vote, what we call dog whistle politics, in North America. And that's what we're beginning to see now. And she was saying, there's been growing liberalism in India, like in many other democracies in the world over the last decade. But it's been quite pronounced in India. And now we're beginning to have concerns about whether this election will be entirely free and fair. And that goes to the heart of, you know, the [unclear] conception of democracy. Without that, you know, everything everything's off the table.

MG: In the last couple of minutes that we have, what do you think these elections could mean for relations between India and Canada? They are at a very low point right now. Could they get lower? What happens in the wake of these elections, do you think?

SANJAY RUPARELIA: Yeah, it's a very fraught moment. These are the worst diplomatic relations between Ottawa and New Delhi since the late 1990s. And there's a lot at stake. The Indian diaspora is, contributes to many segments of public life in Canada, as we know. It's the largest growing segment of new Canadians. The largest segment of foreign students in this country. So, that's important. And we have to kind of see where the RCMP investigation leads. And now, of course, even the whole commission into foreign interference, India has become a subject of attention. And so, I think these relations are going to remain sensitive and delicate. We'll have to see how this election plays out. If the BJP were to come back for a third term, and this plays very well at home. I think it's important to see that, you know, it's raised, of course, deep concerns in Canada. In India, amongst many sections of the electorate, but not all, but, it's seen as an assertive, it's seen as a sign of a more assertive India pursuing its perceived national interests abroad. And that is something that Mr. Modi has done very effectively. India has risen in international order. It's more multipolar. Countries are counting on India vis a vis of their conflicts with China. And the governments have been able to exploit that situation very well. But it's raised concerns certainly in Canada and in other places as well.

MG: I'm really glad for your insights on this. It is a fascinating story. We'll talk more about it as the election unfolds. Sanjay, thank you very much.

SANJAY RUPARELIA: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Sanjay Ruparelia is the Jaroslovsky democracy chair and an associate professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: This is The Current on CBC radio. My name is Matt Galloway. Last week on this program, we talked about the importance of language when speaking with kids about weight and their body. We heard about new research showing the lifelong impacts some of those comments can have. That conversation touched a nerve with many of you. Here with some of your mail is The Current senior producer Karin Marley. Karin, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning, Matt. So, this first letter is from Robin Mason in Toronto. She writes: "The story resonated deeply with me. I'm almost 49 years old and to this day still suffer from body image issues as a result of one of my parents telling me as a child that when I was older I would be so fat I'd have to turn sideways to get through a door. This, despite the fact that I was a skinny child. I run marathons, regularly do CrossFit, eat mostly healthy. Yet when I look in the mirror, I don't see the body that others see. And to top it all off, my parent doesn't remember saying this."

MG: This next letter is from Marilyn Hobbs in Ottawa, who writes: "I'm almost 64 and still struggling with body image. I was the fat one in my family and in school and in my circle of friends. At 13, I vividly remember my first pair of jeans: a men's brand, husky fit, 38 waist 30 inseam. It was then that my mom took me to Weight Watchers. I was four foot 11 inches tall and weighed, at that point, 178 and three quarter pounds. I did okay, lost 50 pounds. But a week after turning 17, headed off to university where everything went sideways again. Then at 25, I became obsessed with not ever being the fat one again. I spent the past four decades running and later walking daily, and recently started strength training. For as long as I can remember, I have been obsessed with what is on my plate and whether or not it's going to make me fatter. I'll be 64 in August. I have only become okay with my body over the past couple of years. Arriving at this point of acceptance is merely the result of a more mature mindset, and the realisation of just how damn lucky I am to have a body that works."

KARIN MARLEY: Julie Coleman writes: "I'm 48. For as long as I can remember, losing weight and looking my physical best has been a daily quest. Eating disorders as a teenager morphed into trying out any and all fad diets as an adult. When I had my kids, particularly my daughter, I promised myself that my hang ups would not burden her. There was no talk of being fat or thin in our family, just of being healthy and happy. I felt like I was winning and breaking the generational cycle with my daughter, only to have another close female family member destroy it in an instant. My daughter asked to have a toasted English muffin for a snack. This relative gasped and said, Oh no, an English muffin is a meal, not a snack. And then offered her advice on how to keep her slim eight year old figure. Despite trying to shelter my daughter from these ideals that only serve to crush your soul, her reality changed that day. My daughter is 17 now and for the most part has a healthy relationship with food. But there are times when I catch a glimpse of her sucking in her belly in front of the mirror, and I wonder if she, too, will face a future of never being satisfied in her own skin."

MG: Kate Weatherill writes: "As someone who developed an eating disorder at a very young age, I was concerned about listening to your conversations on weight and size. I thought it might be triggering. However, it proved to be empowering and strengthening. Hearing that there are others in the world working at reversing the damage and embracing our own selves individuality and worth. A healthy body and mind does not necessarily come in a thin body. Learn to pay attention to human beings inner health, physical and mental, both. Words sting and in some cases kill."

KARIN MARLEY: And this final letter is from Victoria J Roscoe-Roumanis. She writes: "People do not realise the emotional and hurtful effects of their comments regarding a person's size. I have the other end of extreme size. I'm five feet tall and have never been much heavier than 100 pounds. Many people never think twice about commenting on my size even when I first meet them. Comments such as, Oh, you're so small or tiny or little. These comments have had an impact on my self-confidence over the years. Yes, I would like to be taller and perhaps a little more rounded, but like everyone else on this earth, we are what we are. Sometimes I think people do not consider the impact of their disturbing comments on smaller, thinner people. I would never say, you're so fat, to a larger person, this would be very rude. We are all trying to do the best we can on this earth with what we have."

MG: Karin, thank you very much.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MG: And thanks to everybody who wrote in. Karin Marley, senior producer here on The Current. If you hear anything on this program that you want to comment on, do get in touch. You can email us. We read all of your emails and then some of them, as we say, end up here on the radio. You can also send us a voice memo. Do whatever you like. Get in touch: thecurrent@cbc.ca. That is The Current for this Tuesday the 23rd of April. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. You might have heard that the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame has announced its latest inductees: Cher, Mary J. Blige, Ozzy Osborne. How's Ozzy Osborne not in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame already? A question, perhaps for another day. Foreigner also on the 2024 list of inductees. A lot of highlights for a lot of different tastes for those of us of a certain vintage. It's not really rock n roll, but it's some of the best music ever created. A Tribe Called Quest, also going into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. We'll leave you with Tribe, 'Can I Kick It?' Yes, you can. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll see you tomorrow.

[Music: 'Can I Kick It?' by A Tribe Called Quest]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Tuesday April 23, 2024 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This