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 June 14, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm hoping that we have a peaceful election, a clear election, and one that both sides accept. I'm not terribly optimistic right now.

MATT GALLOWAY: George Stephanopoulos says he isn't being alarmist, just realistic. The ABC news broadcaster and former Clinton staffer knows what a White House in turmoil looks like. His new book is set in the Situation Room, the basement bunker where presidents manage the United States most pressing crises. In 30 minutes, George Stephanopoulos talks about the room's role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, how staffers there tried to prevent Ronald Reagan from saying the phrase that helped end the Cold War, and why he thinks interviewing Donald Trump live on television is journalistic malpractice. Also this morning, the Olympics begin next month, and if you're looking for Malindi Elmore, she's probably out running.

SOUNDCLIP

MALINDI ELMORE: Setting big goals and going after them wholeheartedly and putting everything into it on race day and being able to finish a race thinking, I could not have done any better.

MATT GALLOWAY: The 44-year-old marathoner has had an unusual path to the games. In an hour, Malindi Elmore on how she lost her passion for racing, got it back, what a busy family life gives her and why she is getting better with age. We begin, though, in Ukraine with support for an ongoing war and strategies for peace. Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Talks swirl as peace in Ukraine remains elusive

Guests: Olena Halushka, Alexander Lanoszka

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Volodymyr, it's always such a pleasure to see you.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: Pleasure. Thank you for your support and of course, all the Canadians-- thanks your people that you supported our people.

MG: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met one on o ne with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky yesterday. They are in Italy for the G7 summit, and that ongoing war was one of the top agenda items at that meeting. Canada has agreed to pitch in five billion dollars as part of a 50-billion-dollar deal to help Ukraine in its fight against Russia. U.S. President Joe Biden also signed a bilateral deal on security with Ukraine yesterday. This is all part of a whirlwind of conferences focusing on Ukraine this week. Berlin hosted the Ukraine Recovery Conference, focused on drumming up financial support. This weekend, 90 countries will gather in Switzerland for the Ukrainian Peace Summit. Olena Halushka is the co-founder of the International Centre for Ukrainian Victory. Also, a board member of the Ukrainian NGO Anti-Corruption Action Centre. She's in Helsinki for yet another summit. This is dealing with the Nordic countries and their relationship with Ukraine. Olena, hello.

OLENA HALUSHKA: Good morning.

MG: Let's start-- there are a lot of meetings with the G7. The U.S. signed the security deal with Ukraine. As you understand it, what does this deal involve?

OLENA HALUSHKA: Well, this deal is a very sustainable document about the cooperation between Ukraine and the U.S. within the next ten years, with a very big focus, of course, on the defence cooperation. And what we really miss, we as Ukrainians, in those security defence deals and agreements is the real security guarantees. That's why for us it's very important to convey and explain that despite the fact that those deals are very good and very timely, but they cannot substitute Ukraine's membership in NATO. That's why we truly hope that if not at the Washington D.C. summit, in the next NATO summit, at least the topic of the invitation of Ukraine to NATO will continue to be on the table.

MG: One of the reasons why perhaps it isn't on the table is because people worry that this would draw the rest of the world into a third world war, members of NATO into a third world war. A war with Russia. You have said that opening the talks for NATO would actually prevent a war with Russia. How so?

OLENA HALUSHKA: If you take a look at the accession process, it's very long and complicated. It starts with the invitation of the country. And let's say for Finland, the timeline between the invitation and the actual accession was around a year. For Sweden, it was almost two years. And article five meaning that, you know, an attack of it's one member means an attack on the entire alliance, it can be triggered only when there is the full membership. So, our point is that invitation is not membership, but invitation would send a very clear signal to Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation that their war is senseless. Because their war is imperialistic war to keep Ukraine as Russia's colony, to keep Ukraine in the Russia sphere of influence.

MG: Is an invitation not going to be provocative, though? Is it not going to further provoke Russia?

OLENA HALUSHKA: Well, Russia is provoked by the weakness and Russia is provoked by the limited aid which is provided to Ukraine. Every time when the actions of Russia are met with the strength, you know, they are backing down because they are acting like a bully. That's why, from our perspective, an invitation, on the contrary, will send the signal that Ukraine belongs to the West, to the Euro-Atlantic community, because that was the choice of the Ukrainian people.

MG: The other news that came out of the G7 so far is this deal that would use frozen Russian assets to help fund not just the Ukrainian war effort, but also the rebuilding in the wake of the war. As you understand it, how would something like this work?

OLENA HALUSHKA: Well, I think that on one hand this is an incredibly good step. But this is just the first step because we think that entire principle of the frozen Russian assets, $30 0 billion, should be confiscated and sent to Ukraine. And you're absolutely right that part of this money, part of this loan on $50 billion, will be used for Ukraine's defence, because that's primary. But part should be used for the recovery, because unfortunately, over the three months of the spring 2024, Russia managed to inflict its Ukrainian energy system incredibly big damages. Let's say in Kiev right now, it's June. It's very far away from the winter, but we already have 12 hours per day power outages. You know, if this critical infrastructure is not restored and reconstructed as soon as possible, if the electricity generating capacities are not either reconstructed or some alternatives provided, then the winter would be very complicated. And Russia may even, you know, throw Ukraine into the full blackout.

MG: One of the things that has been hanging over this whole idea-- it came up during the recovery conference as well--is the resignation of the head of the country's agency for Infrastructure and Redevelopment. There are concerns around corruption. This is a longstanding concern, but there have been concerns around corruption and whether those funds, the billions and billions of dollars that are pouring into Ukraine are going where they need to go. How big of an impediment is this, do you think?

OLENA HALUSHKA: If you speak about Ukraine's fight against corruption, you have to definitely assess it in the historic context, because back in 2014, when Ukrainian people went at the revolution of dignity, fight against corruption was one of our top priorities. And ever since Ukrainians continue calling fight against corruption as the priority. And we in Ukraine have very strong civil society, investigative journalists who are watchdoging Ukrainian government, even during the full-scale war. And all those news articles about the corruption scandal, they themselves are the indications that the system is trying to clean itself, that anti-corruption bodies and institutions continue performing their anti-corruption tasks even during the full-scale war. So, on the one hand, of course, we consider the resignation of the top reconstruction official as not a very good sign. But on the other hand, it's very important to monitor who will be the new people appointed and whether the institutions will continue applying all those transparency and accountability principles than the previous leadership managed to install.

MG: I guess the concern, though, is that when somebody like that in that position steps away that it just highlights the concern. I mean, you're suggesting, you know, the issue of corruption is being addressed. But when somebody of at that level resigns the suggestion--again, he's not being accused of corruption, he's trying to highlight the issue that it hasn't been dealt with in a meaningful way, particularly at a time when, as I say, enormous sums of money are flowing into the country for reconstruction.

OLENA HALUSHKA: That's true, that it raises concerns. I agree with you, but I'm still, you know, highlighting that it's very important not to focus on personalities, but rather on the institutions and principles that are in place. And we, as the civil society, will try to make sure that the system, the reconstruction and recovery and sector continues working with the best principles on board.

MG: How concerned are you? I mean, the world, many parts of it feel like they're on fire right now. And there are wars that are unfolding. There is a lot for people to think about. How concerned are you that the attention of Ukraine's allies may not be as focused on this war as perhaps it was a year or two years ago?

OLENA HALUSHKA: Well, of course we are concerned about that. But we still try to explain to our partners that it's important to realize that basically there is a very clear connection that links between the source. Because if you, for example, take a look at the Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014, this has been just Russia against Ukraine. Right now, it's Russia with the support of Iran, North Korea, Belarus. And, you know, more and more reports are coming that China is aiding Russia as well, which means that helping Ukraine to win this war would basically convey the signal to all of the tyrannies and dictatorship that, you know, the rules-based order will be restored and it will be protected. So, we think that the only way to avoid the chaos globally is help to start to stop the alliance of dictatorships in Ukraine.

MG: There was a poll that was conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, a Ukrainian polling organization released earlier this week, it suggested that half of those in Ukraine who are polled said that the war is a stalemate. How was morale in Ukraine this far into the war, do you think?

OLENA HALUSHKA: The morale significantly improved after the U.S. Congress has adopted the new package of the eight, which stalled for nine months, I guess. And within [unclear] packages of the European Union with the new loan, backed on the profits and frozen Russian assets. Of course, all those things, they significantly contribute to the morale because Ukrainian people want to understand that, you know, they are ready to fight. We are ready to fight. This is an existential war. We have no other choice. It is not that, you know, we can stop fighting and there will be peace. If we stop fighting, there will be occupation. And occupation is the concentration camp with the torture chambers, with the mass graves and the kidnapped kids, people. And that would be horrible.

MG: That's what you believe will happen if this war continues?

OLENA HALUSHKA: Well, that's what we are seeing. You know, at all of the occupied territories, the pattern of Russian occupation is absolutely the same, be it, you know, the east of Ukraine, the south of Ukraine, or the Kyiv region which was liberated at the very beginning of the full scale war. If Ukrainians stop fighting, defending ourselves, liberating our territories, and if Russians push forward and occupy more territories, they will bring more of the death to Ukraine.

MG: Olena Halushka, we'll leave it there. I'm glad to talk to you. Thank you very much.

OLENA HALUSHKA: Thank you for having me.

MG: Olena Halushka is cofounder of the International Centre for Ukrainian Victory, a board member of the Ukrainian NGO the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. She was in Helsinki. Alexander Lanoszka is an associate professor of political science at the University of Waterloo, also the author of Military Alliances in the Twenty-First Century. Alexander, hello to you.

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: Thank you for having me back on the program.

MG: Good to have you back. How strong do you think the support is for Ukraine right now? As I mentioned, there are a series of meetings that are happening throughout Europe, including one that we'll get to that is trying to figure out a way out of this war. But when you take a look at what's happening at the recovery conference, the G7, how strong is that support?

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: I would argue that the support remains very strong, particularly given that the full-scale invasion had begun over two years ago. And even before the full-scale invasion had begun, many Western analysts would say that Ukraine would not persevere against Russia and that NATO support would be very limited, as it had been prior to January 2022. We are still seeing a number of NATO countries deliver military assistance, making new pledges, as well as finding new sources of cash or loans, in the case of the G7, to help Ukraine support itself as it continues fighting. So, all things considered, the support remains very strong, even if it has meant deliveries being delayed or in some cases unfulfilled. Nevertheless, the political will still seems to be fairly robust.

MG: Canada pledged a number of weapons, decommissioned rocket motors, ammunition, remote weapons systems used on armoured vehicles. How much of a difference at this point in the war do you think that will make?

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: The Canadian case is interesting because Canada did give quite a bit of military assistance. But the problem is that Canada has not really been spending much on its own defence for many, many years. And so, hasn't really had the strategic preparedness to support Ukraine in a very high intensity conventional conflict such as this one. And as such, Canada has been tapped out, as it were. It's not to say that Canada cannot do more or or has not been doing anything since 2022. Has recently provided the first tranche of armoured vehicles, for example. But the fact of the matter is that Canada has hamstrung its own ability to provide assistance precisely because of many years of defence neglect.

MG: At the G7, many of the leaders who are participating are either deeply unpopular at home or in the midst of election campaigns that aren't going particularly well. When you factor that in, in addition to the results that came out of the EU elections, which saw a rise in the far right, and as we talked about on this program, a fatigue from many people when it comes to the support of the war, people are focused on on issues of economic well-being and the cost of living. How does that shape the discussions around support for Ukraine, do you think?

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: Well, certainly there is cause for concern, especially with respect to the parliamentary elections that took everyone and by surprise in France. If Le Pen's party were to win the parliament, then that could certainly complicate France's ability to provide assistance or certainly the European Union's ability to provide assistance so long as it meets the support of the French National Assembly. I don't have to talk about the prospects of Trump winning. So, people are not blind to these sorts of risks. But again, considering that NATO itself is a 32-member alliance with variation as to how particular countries care about Ukraine, I would still argue that even though we're in the third year of the full scale invasion, even though, many, many conflicts are taking up greater shares of news programming, the attention still afforded to Ukraine remains pretty significant, all things considered.

MG: There's also, I mean, in addition to these conferences around military support and recovery, there's a peace conference that's happening in Switzerland this weekend. It's happening without Russia or China. What do you think might come of this?

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: I think the peace conference serves Ukraine in terms of getting its own message out there as to what it hopes to achieve in resisting Russia's aggression. Ukraine has put forward a peace formula in the late of 2022, basically outlining the need for there to be energy security, and a full withdrawal of Russian military forces, the prosecution of war crimes committed by Russia, as well as the assessment of ecological damage. Of course, Russia has said that it's not interested in this peace plan. Putin himself has put forward this very day, his own conditions for a peace talks to be held. But those conditions include the surrender of Kherson City, which in fact, Ukraine liberated in the late of 2022, as well as the surrender of Zaporizhia, which Russia had never taken as a city since this war began in 2022 or even 2014, for that matter. So, in other words, Russia has no interest in going about a peace plan of any sort of value. Its demands remain very maximalist, notwithstanding the actual situation on the battlefield.

MG: So, how does that end? Because you could imagine people in Russia would say that Ukraine's demands are maximalist as well. There are also reports for months of secret negotiations that have been happening to try to create some sort of push for peace. There are peace plans that come from China, from Turkey, from parts of Africa as well. So, what is the-- if you have a peace summit, but you don't have people in some ways, not even speaking the same language, but talking about the same goals-- how do you start to think about a way out of this war?

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: The only real way out of this war, as far as I'm concerned, is for Russia to cease its military activities. And I don't see that necessarily happening so long as Putin is alive, quite frankly. He has started this war in 2014. He has escalated it in 2022. He has always talked about peace negotiations since this war began. But again, the conditions attached have been very maximalist. You can argue that Ukraine's demands are maximalist, but only insofar as they negate Russia's. Russia's the one that is in Ukrainian territory, it's not the other way round, after all.

MG: And in the meantime, Ukrainians, I mean, according to their polling, suggests that many of them believe that this war is at a stalemate right now.

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: I wouldn't call it a stalemate. And I think the word stalemate is a bit misleading. The word remains very positional. And what we have seen the last two months it is Russia attempting an offensive in a Kakhovka blast. It hasn't really panned out. They only gained about 200 square kilometres, if I recall correctly. You can argue that was a diversion to force Ukraine military units away from Donetsk. But even in Donetsk, Russia has made very, very modest gains. And those gains were made at very high cost. What is really interesting and why I think this conflict, ultimately, in a positional way, not one of stalemate, is that we have seen the steady attrition of very valuable air defence assets around, Crimea in particular, but also, missile sites in Russian held territory, even Russian territory, for that matter. Which could put pressure on Russian units operating within Ukraine territory. But that's not to say that there'll be some sort of liberation at scale of Ukraine territory, but it would certainly put pressure on Russia to maintain its presence. And whether it succeeds and withstand that pressure remains open to be seen.

MG: We'll talk again, I'm sure. Alexander, thank you very much.

ALEXANDER LANOSZKA: Thank you for having me.

MG: Alexander Lanoszka is a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo and author of Military Alliances in the Twenty-First Century.

[Music: Theme

Your CBC News is next. And then a conversation with George Stephanopoulos. We will talk about the White House in crisis in past and perhaps in future. That's coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

[Music: Fades up]

Inside the Situation Room, where history and crisis collide

Guests: George Stephanopoulos

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

SOUNDCLIP

WALTER CRONKITE: From Dallas, Texas, the flash apparently official President Kennedy died at 1 p.m. Central Standard Time.

JIMMY CARTER: Late yesterday, I cancelled a carefully planned operation which was underway in Iran to position our rescue team for a later withdrawal of American hostages.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.

BARACK OBAMA: Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda.

MG: Those are a few of the defining moments in American history from the past 60 years. And while they are all different, there is one room that connects them all. Might look like a series of nondescript conference rooms tucked away in the White House basement, but for decades it has been where presidents have dealt with the most pressing crises for the United States. It is simply called the Situation Room. George Stephanopoulos held various roles in the Clinton administration. You'll also know him as the co-host of Good Morning America and the host of This Week on ABC television, and his new book is The Situation Room: The Inside Story of Presidents in Crisis. George, hello.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Matt! Good to be with you. How are you today?

MG: Thanks for being here, I appreciate it. For a lot of people, I think the only-- and you mentioned this in the book--the only idea that they might have of the Situation Room is from, Dr. Strangelove and the war room, which apparently you can't fight in. What exactly is the Situation Room?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The Situation Room is the nerve centre of the White House. It's actually now a complex of rooms in the basement of the White House, right next to the White House mess, where you have a series of duty officers who track everything going on in the world 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so they can communicate any updates to the president and his top staff. They also are the people who, facilitate the president's communications with the rest of the world. But even more than that, the Situation Room, the main conference room in the Situation Room, it's now called the John F Kennedy Conference Room, is the place where the president and his top advisers deliberate on the most consequential national security decisions and reach those decisions.

MG: This is a relatively new thing. What were the events that led to the creation of the Situation Room?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Wasn't created until 1961. You know, other presidents, other American presidents had managed wars out of various rooms in the White House. Famously, Franklin Roosevelt in the map room on the first floor of the residents. Of course. Abraham Lincoln went to the telegraph office to get his updates on the war, but there was never a permanent watch centre, or nerve centre in the White House until John F Kennedy became president. And he actually created the room right after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1969. He was just livid. He was angry at the CIA. He was angry at the Joint Chiefs. He thought they had misled him and given him bad information about the invasion plan, and he was determined to have his own information flow coming into the White House, because he believed that information rightfully, was power. So, right after the Bay of Pigs, he set it up. It was built very quickly, $30,000 in two weeks. And for the first couple of years, there was just a single watch officer who would work a 24-hour shift and then take two days off, be replaced by another one. That's all changed in recent years, but that was the genesis. Interestingly, Kennedy actually had a paper on his desk recommending creation of the Situation Room from a larger-than-life figure named Godfrey McHugh, who was his military two weeks before the Bay of Pigs. And Godfrey McHugh is one of these people who you almost can't believe his story when you hear it. He was an Air Force general. He actually spoke American English with a French accent because he grew up in Paris. He dined with Winston Churchill and FDR as a teenager in the White House. He went on Harry Truman's yacht. He even dated Jackie Kennedy before John F Kennedy married her. And he was a very close aide to John F Kennedy. We think he was the first person ever to use the term 'situation room.' He formulated that paper to Kennedy, two weeks before the Bay of Pigs. Immediately after the failed mission, Kennedy implemented it.

MG: We played at the beginning of our conversation some moments in history where that room has played a part. Give us an example of to you, one that stands out in illustrates how this room works at its very best.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I think the room worked at its very best on... in the run up to President Obama's decision to take out Osama bin Laden. For months, a very small group would meet in the confines of the Situation Room with no phones, no communications to the outside world. They couldn't even take notes on the possible mission, and they were able to keep it secret for over six months of planning in that room. And over that period of time, the top decision makers also reached a high level of trust in each other, which you had to have for a mission like this. I think the other thing that marks that entire mission is that everyone in it, from especially Admiral William McRaven, who was the leader of the Navy Seal mission, to people like Robert Gates, who was the president's secretary of defence at the time, and several of his other top advisors, had all gone to school on the failed Iran rescue mission under President Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis in 1980. And they had learned so much from that disaster in the desert. And they put those lessons to work in the successful mission to take out a Osama bin Laden. They also stress tested every possible idea and every possible mission as they led up to the final decision. But even then, you know, this was a very close call. In the end, there was only about a 40 to 60 per cent certainty that this gentleman that had been identified in the Abbottabad complex, they called him 'the pacer,' was indeed Osama bin Laden. They had to make a call based on imperfect information. President Obama basically said this is a 50/50 call. Had they been wrong, had it not been Osama bin Laden, it would have been a great embarrassment. And one of the reasons in the end they insisted on doing a takeout mission rather than levelling the place with a bomb or a drone is they wanted to have that DNA evidence so they could convince the world they had indeed got Osama bin Laden. And in fact, they did.

MG: Pete Souza, who was the White House photographer, took that photo, 'The Situation Room.' Can you just describe-- because in some ways, that was the first glimpse that people got into everything that you just described, but also into that room itself. And it's just a room full of people, like, crammed into this tiny space.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, that's actually the ante room just off the situation room. It's not the main conference room. It was there because they had set up the initial communication link with Admiral McRaven's team in that anteroom, which is literally just off the actual White House Situation Room conference room. But when the senior officials started to clock that someone could actually see what was going on in the other room, they all drifted into the ante room, including President Obama himself. The man who had set up the communications, Gary Bresnahan, actually was asked by Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Hey, why don't we move this all into the real room? And he told, what he said was the only white lie he told in his time of government service. He told Tom Donilon, I just can't do it. He probably could have done it, but he was so afraid if they made any kind of a tweak, they might lose the communications line. So, he said it just wasn't worth the risk, which is a good thing, because we did get what is now the most iconic photo ever taken in a Situation Room complex. And it was a good thing for Gary Bresnahan as well, because he was situated just outside the door. So, he got the first fist bump from President Obama after the successful mission.

MG: What do you see in that photo?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm trying to figure out the exact moment. Pete Souza isn't entirely sure. He thinks it's towards the end of the mission. In my mind, I imagined a different moment, which I now know it isn't. It, to me, it looks like it could have been the moment when, at the beginning of the mission, one of the helicopters did indeed go down.

MG: Because everybody in the photo looks incredibly stressed.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Everybody looks... well, they are stressed. And that's why I like to imagine that moment. Because if you imagine the moment where you have the hard landing of the helicopter, everybody in that room is thinking, Oh my gosh, is this happening again? Is this Jimmy Carter's failed mission that's going to cripple Obama's presidency again? Indeed it wasn't. But, the actual moment was probably slightly less dramatic. It...Pete Souza's fairly sure, but not positive that it's just in the final moments when the crew is trying to evacuate from the complex, and they're just holding on for those last few seconds to see if the crew gets out.

MG: I want to play you something from a moment where perhaps the Situation Room didn't provide perhaps the best advice to the president. Have a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

RONALD REAGAN: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

[Sounds: Cheering].

MG: What role did the Situation Room play in that moment from Ronald Reagan?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: They were the naysayers. Top to bottom.

MG: So, it's true that that line that--what became a defining line toward the end of the existence of the Berlin Wall in this war?...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: [Unclear] most famous line, yeah...

MG: He almost didn't say it?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he was going to say it, but boy, they didn't want him to. Secretary of State George Shultz didn't want him to. Colin Powell did not want him to. The ambassador to Germany did not want him to. His Russia experts did not want him to. They thought he was going to put Gorbachev into a corner. There was no way, it turns out, that Ronald Reagan was not going to say it. But every single time--and I had a great interview with the speechwriter Peter Robinson-- single time Peter Robinson went into the Oval Office, Reagan said he loved the line. Every single time he left the Oval Office, the other advisors-- and this happened up until the day of the speech itself-- they were doing everything they could to get that line out of the speech. So, this is one of those, this is one of those instances where the gut instincts of Ronald Reagan developed over decades of public speaking and communicating to the world overrode the collected wisdom and the collected experience inside that situation room.

MG: One of the things that you mentioned is, I mean, people are there 24/7. If something happens overnight, how do you decide when to wake the president up?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That is their call. And it's not an easy one. And we have a whole sidebar in the book where they all talk about, when you do it, when you don't. And every president's a little bit different. You know, some presidents and some of their top advisers only want to be woken up if the information is verified and it's 1,000 per cent sure that you have to wake them up in the middle of the night. Others, like President Clinton, would be more angry if they weren't called, even if it did turn out to be a false alarm. But it's one of the first things that the duty officers have to learn to deal with. And it actually creates a fair amount of stress for them, but they get pretty good at it.

MG: What is parapsychology? And how did that make its way into the Situation Room?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Strangest story I came upon. Parapsychology is kind of what psych... It's ESP the study of ESP, the study of remote viewing. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, there actually was a program in the U.S. government called Operation Girl Flame, where they were spending tens of millions of dollars a year on psychics. On having people who would go into dark rooms close their eyes and imagine events happening all over the world. On May 8th, 1980, Jimmy Carter called in his naval aide, Jake Stewart, to give him a briefing on Operation Girl Girl Flame. Interestingly, the first lady, Rosalynn Carter, was there as well. This is one of the only meetings we could find, if not the only one where a first lady participated in a policy meeting in the Situation Room, because she was a great believer in the paranormal and parapsychology. She was a devotee of Uri Geller. Remember the guy who used to say... [MG: Spoon bender.] Yes. By the way, he also made a fortune getting hired by mining companies, who said they used his extrasensory perception to help determine where mineral deposits were. Take that for what it's worth. Anyway, President Carter calls in Jake Stewart, listens for 45 minutes to a briefing on the successes-- he, Stewart said-- of this operation 'Girl Flame.' Doesn't say a word. At the end of 45 minutes, he simply takes out a White House notepad, writes one word on a piece of paper, 'hostages.' He was desperate. This was two weeks after the failed mission in the desert. He was desperate for any information that would help him locate the hostages who had been dispersed. Eventually, according to Stewart, they were able to help locate one of the hostages, a man named Richard Queen, who was suffering from multiple sclerosis. And they were able to extract him before the end of the Carter presidency. But of course, all of the other hostages were not released until after Ronald Reagan became president of the United States.

MG: That's an amazing story. Why did--the book is filled with stories like that-- why did you want to write it now?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For me, it was a way to tell the story of these duty officers who have served. They come from every single part of the government, right? DoD, State Department, CIA, DIA, every military branch. And they are the best of the best. And they are rigorously apolitical. They are there to serve the presidency, not the president. And it for me, was also a great opportunity to tell their story. And part of the reason, and I can't say this was my intention going in, but it was what I learned as I was doing the reporting, it became a real tonic and a real inspiration for me because it was a way for me to tell the story of people who are often derided, had been derided in the last several years as part of the deep state. And, you know, the big thing I learned as I was researching and writing this book, is that America's deep state is packed with patriots who are doing their best to serve their country every single day, to serve the presidency to the best of their ability. And to have the chance to tell their stories and share their stories, was one of the great blessings of doing this book.

MG: You say the book is a look at crisis management in the modern presidency — and during the Trump administration, the president was the crisis to be managed. What happened in the Situation Room on January 6th?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Most horrifying story in the book, to me. I found the White House duty officer who was serving in the Situation Room duty officer who was serving on January 6th, a man named Mike Stiegler. He was not eager to speak with me at first, but after months of communication, he finally decided to tell his story. And it's a chilling one. We know the outlines of what happened on January 6th today, the riots and... But Mike Stiegler on that day was the man who was the point person between the White House Situation Room and the Secret Service on Capitol Hill, trying to protect the vice president of the United States from these rioters. And one of the things that Mike Stiegler told me is that no one understands how close we came to losing the vice president. In those moments, the people in the White House Situation Room, including Stiegler, had to implement what is called the continuity of government policies for the United States. These were the series of policies set up by Dwight Eisenhower at the height of the Cold War, designed to make sure the United States government survived a nuclear attack. Separate chains of command, dealing with the evacuation of high-level officials so they could function outside of the White House. On that day, they were starting to implement those procedures. Can you imagine what it felt like to be inside the Situation Room on that day? This is the room where they have dealt with the assassination of a president, the attempted assassination of another president, the horrors of 9/11, where they've managed the longest war in American history. Obviously, the takedown of Osama bin Laden. They dealt with all kinds of crises and national natural disasters. Never before had they been called upon to deal with an insurrection against the United States government, inspired by the president of the United States himself. Who was sitting upstairs just off the Oval Office, watching the proceedings on TV, sipping Diet Coke, and never called down once to the White House Situation Room, which is, to me, one of the most chilling stories you can possibly imagine.

MG: This book arrives, of course, in the advance months before another match-up, presumably, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. As you look at at this election, given what you've just said, what do you think is at stake?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: American democracy. We've had a 250-year experiment, it's worked. The fundamental, the bedrock of why it has worked is because we have believed in the peaceful transfer of power. That was rejected in 2020. It continues to be rejected today. Donald Trump continues to lie about the last election. Every single time he speaks, he calls those who rioted on January 6th hostages and warriors — and promises to pardon them. He refuses to say that he will accept the results of the next election. The stakes could not be higher in this election, because it is not a normal American election. It is one where our democracy itself is on the ballot.

MG: Let me just ask you a couple of questions about your day job and how you cover something like this. You said that airing a live interview or doing a live interview with Donald Trump, in your words, is journalistic malpractice. Why do you say that?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Because, I mean, this is documented. And, you know, and I know that when I speak like this, it risks looking partisan, but it's not partisan. It's simply defending facts and truth in civil debate. So much of what he says — and that's part of his technique — are lies. And then he sort of blustered through them. And in a live interview, no matter how skilled or well-prepared a moderator is, there is no way they can prevent those lies from going out into the ether and infecting the body politic. We've seen it happen. What, 70 per cent of the Republican Party now believes the 2020 election was stolen. It couldn't be further from the truth.

MG: So, how do you cover him then? How do you go about telling the story of somebody who still has a huge constituency of voters who will support him and could very well be the next president of the United States?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I mean, so that means you have to cover him. It means always keeping the most important issues in perspective. For example, the former president had a big rally in Las Vegas over the weekend, where he said for the first time, he called the January 6th rioters warriors. That was the first thing he said. He suggested they were set up by the police. To me, that should be the headline of covering what the president said that day, because it's the most important issue we're facing. So many of our journalistic outlets, I mean they all covered in a slightly different way, but so many instead said, you know, lead with, 'the president comes out against taxing the tips of service workers.' Now, in any other world, when a president does that, a former president does that and goes to Las Vegas, in a normal debate between, policy debate between two parties, I could understand that. But not against the backdrop of one of the candidates being someone who is refusing to accept the last election. That's the most fundamental fact of this election. And we can't treat it like it's just another debate over tax policy or economic policy or environmental policy.

MG: How should we talk about age, do you think? Joe Biden's 81, Donald Trump's in his late 70s, and there's been a firestorm of criticism from people who say that the media should not focus on...that this is not an issue. And you'll talk to people, Americans, and you'll talk to pollsters who are speaking with Americans, and they'll say that age is a huge issue.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Of course it is. And it is an issue. I don't think we should shy away from covering it. We should cover it in an even handed a way. We should say, what it should be about is how age affects judgement and stability. And I think we should make sure that we are, we, like I said, do it in an evenhanded way. No question, in part because you know, in a way to appear being evenhanded whenever Joe Biden stumbles, we in the media tend to make a relatively big deal about it. Again, going back to this weekend where former President Trump was doing a rally where his teleprompter went down and delivered 45 to 50 minutes of what appeared to be incoherent rambling.

MG: About sharks, and...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: About sharks and electric boats and batteries and had, I mean. The question I have for people is, when a speech like that is given, and that was given very scant attention until two or three days afterwards, is what would we do with that speech if President Biden gave it? We should just hold the candidates to the same standard on that question. I don't think it's an illegitimate issue by any means. People are concerned about it. They have a right to ask questions about it. We have the responsibility to report on it, but we must do it in a fair way.

MG: Let me just ask you a couple of quick things before I let you go. One is, what do you make of the rise in popularity, such as it is, for RFK Jr? Post-pandemic? And this is about third party candidates, but it's also just about him in particular. What do you think of that?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I think it's a few different things. One, it's the name. Right there, Robert F Kennedy Jr., number one. Number two, people are unhappy with the choice. He's not that much younger, but he certainly is younger. Number three -- and the Canadian writer Naomi Klein wrote a great book about this this year on conspiracy theories in the modern world. It was about her doppelganger, Naomi. But it turned out to be about a lot more than that. But I do think he touches on something that she wrote about in places in her book, where the conspiracy theories where right and left kind of come together, particularly around things like COVID, I think he embodies that as well. So, it can draw from both sides.

MG: You recently said that the first question you hope is asked in the upcoming presidential debate is, who won the last election? If you go back to what you write about in the book and, you know, the crises that presidents face, how worried are you come January 2025, that history might repeat itself?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Quite worried. I'm hoping not. We'll see what happens. I'm hoping that we have a peaceful election, a clear election, and one that both sides accept. I'm not terribly optimistic right now.

MG: That's a really sobering thing to say.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It's what I believe. It's going to be a long six months.

MG: It sure is. I'm really glad to talk to you. This is a fascinating look, but also the perspective you have on what's happening right now is really interesting, as well. Thanks again.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I appreciate it. Take care.

MG: George Stephanopoulos is co-host of Good Morning America on ABC. His new book is The Situation Room: The Inside Story of Presidents in Crisis. Coming up after your regional update:

SOUNDCLIP

MALINDI ELMORE: I had everything I wanted in life at that point. I had two healthy children. I was returning to running completely on my own terms. I was willing to let go of the disappointment from the past and just start fresh.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Two decades after her first Olympics, marathon runner Malindi Elmore is competing at her third Olympic Games. She retired in 2012. The love for racing never left her. Now she's 44, older, wiser and stronger. We'll find out more coming up in 90 seconds right here on The Current.

[Music: Fades up]

Malindi Elmore retired from Olympic running — now she’s back

Guests: Malindi Elmore

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. With the Olympics coming up next month, we are talking to Canadian athletes who are headed to Paris. My next guest's Olympic path hasn't exactly been typical.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Taking in all the glory, and there she is! Malindi Elmore has the ninth-place position, a top ten Olympic finish within her sights!

VOICE 2: That was Malindi's goal today. To be top ten. Here she is, 41 years old, two boys, and she has just finished ninth place, 17 years after running the 1500 metre in Athens.

MG: That's Malindi Elmore's finish at the Tokyo Olympics in 2021. Her first Olympics was in 2004, in the 1500 metre race. Then in 2012, she retired. If Ironman races count as retirement, they don't. And we'll get to that in a few moments. She returned to professional racing in 2020, but to a completely different sport-- long distance running-- only to smash the Canadian marathon record. And now, at the age of 44, she is headed to Paris for her third Olympic Games. Malindi Elmore joins us now. Malindi, good morning.

MALINDI ELMORE: Good morning.

MG: As I said, not the typical Olympic athlete trajectory. How does it feel, looking back, as to how you got to this moment now.

MALINDI ELMORE: Well, you know, if you had told me at 20 years old that I'd still be in this sport 24 years later, I think that would be hard to believe. And I certainly, as a younger athlete, would have had a hard time believing I would be a competitive Ironman and marathon runner in my latter career. When I was younger, in high school and university, I loved the short distance, middle distance races. The 800 and the 1500. So, it's been quite a journey, and it's been filled with ups and downs. But I'm really grateful for all the opportunities I've had.

MG: How hard was that decision to retire from Olympic competition in 2012?

MALINDI ELMORE: You know, in 2012, I was feeling really discouraged and really burnt out from the sport. I missed making the 2008 Olympics in the 1500 by 0.07 seconds. And there was a lot of stuff going on with doping and politics in the sport that was really kind of dragging me down. And then, you know, I decided to put my head down and try and make it in 2012, after being disappointed in 08', and missed the games again by less than a second. Won national champs, Olympic trials, but didn't have the time that I needed to go to the games. And so, I just kind of knew I needed to take a step away from the sport and sort of reconnect with myself and why, you know, what I wanted to do in life. And so, it was a really great break. I mean, I had my kids and explored triathlon and started a teaching and coaching career. So, life has kind of evolved. And then it eventually brought me back to wanting to be competitive again in running.

MG: As you mentioned. I mean, you had your first son after you retired and then got into triathlete world and competing in triathlons. Having felt burnt out, as you said, on the sport, why did you go towards something as difficult as a triathlon?

MALINDI ELMORE: I think I'm a glutton for punishment. I just, it was fresh and new to try a different sport. And I think sometimes we get stuck in a; you have to do the same thing mentality. I wasn't, I didn't have a background in swimming, so learning to swim was a steep learning curve for me. And I love riding my bike and running, obviously. And just like, it was, you know, the opportunity to push myself really hard in something else, but also be successful because it was also new. So, that was exciting for a few years, and I really enjoyed it and the process. And I love being competitive and I love being active. But, at the end of the day, when I went back to running, I realized that what I love most is running. And so, I was spending the whole time getting through a swim and a bike race just to do what I enjoyed the most. And I could just skip the warmup and go straight to running if I, you know, if I switched sports.

MG: What was the Ironman experience like for you?

MALINDI ELMORE: I really loved Ironman, actually. It's a long day, but it's a really, really amazing day. It's serious.

MG: It seems like the hardest thing that somebody could do.

MALINDI ELMORE: It pretty much is. Yeah, it definitely is. Yeah, I did two. And my first one felt sort of effortless in a way. And I was really thrilled with how it went. And then my second one was kind of the opposite, really. It was just, it was just hard all day. And it's, you know, nine hours of kind of going at your max effort and... but, you know, it's a great community and it's pretty fun to, you know, test your limits and see what the body can do.

MG: When did the marathon, I mean, you talked about how the other parts of the triathlon were hard and you loved running. When did the marathon come back into the picture for you? When did you start to think, you know what, this is something that I could give a shot at?

MALINDI ELMORE: You know what? I actually had no aspirations of getting into competitive marathoning when I decided to switch to marathons. But it was sort of more, again, an evolution. I had my son, who was three months old, and I was out running with some friends who were going to run the Chicago Marathon. And they were running recreational age group marathon races. And I just thought, oh, I want to go with them. Like, this would be so fun to go to Chicago for the weekend and hang out with my friends. But the baby was young, and I was in no fitness to run a marathon. So, this was about September and my husband said when I came home, I said, Can I go to Chicago next month and run a marathon? He's like, That's crazy. No. But you could be ready for a marathon in January if you start training now. And he said he'd help me get ready for it. Because he has some coaching background. And so, Graham, my husband, wrote me a training plan to get ready for this marathon in Houston in January. And I went. The baby was six months old. Graham came with me. Obviously, we weren't leaving the baby home alone or home with family at that point. And I ran it not with huge aspirations, but I completely exceeded my expectations. And I ran 2:32 for my first marathon, which was at that point, two and a half minutes off the Olympic standard, a year out from the Olympics. And we just kind of looked at each other and laughed when I finished the race. And he's like, you've got to try for the Olympics now.

MG: What did... I mean, in your mind, you know how strong you are and you know what you're capable of. But that must have still shocked you.

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah, that's actually been one of the best moments I've had in sport, was finishing that race and just really loving everything about the training for it. And the race felt effortless. And here I was, you know, I had everything I wanted in life at that point. I had two healthy children. I was returning to running completely on my own terms. I was willing to let go of, you know, the disappointment from the past and just start fresh. And it was pretty exciting thinking, Oh, wow. Like, here I am, 39, turning 40. I have the opportunity to get back into sport at a high level and have another shot at it.

MG: And then a year later you go back to Houston, and you finished third overall, in what? 2:24:50?

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah, exactly.

MG: That's a Canadian-- you beat the Canadian record by more than two minutes.

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah, yeah. That was a great experience.

MG: When you get across the finish line, what did that feel like?

MALINDI ELMORE: Oh, that was so exhilarating. Yeah, that race was just like, oh, it just all came together. At that point, I had a much better idea than the year prior what I was capable of doing. And we'd had another full year of training. I wasn't still, you know, nursing a baby at the finish line. And just, it was just kind of a perfect day out there in Houston. I remember hitting, oh, mid-race just before the halfway. And I was in a big pack, and I thought, Oh wow, I feel so great. I feel like I can just do this forever. And this is just like what I'm meant to do. It was, you don't always, you don't get those feelings all the time in races. So, when you do, it's pretty special.

MG: Can you describe what that feels like? I mean, for people who-- there's this idea of flow, right? And for people who do physical activity, there's a moment where you kind of just lose yourself and you're in it and it's happening. But when you're doing it at that level, what does that feel like? When everything is working perfectly and you know how fast you're going?

MALINDI ELMORE: It's a really special feeling. And I think that's what keeps me in the sport. And I think it's probably what people feel when they're, you know, when they are in a deep meditative state or they're really engrossed in their art or their music or something, and you're just so focused on the task at hand. And you can just really, your mind and your body are working together so well. You've got no other competing thoughts. You know, it's just like this process of everything's clicking and feeling effortless and also knowing you're doing really well, and that it's all going to come together.

MG: How do you celebrate a race like that?

MALINDI ELMORE: Oh, usually, you know, it's nice to have family around at the finish line. And that's one of the things I'm most excited about Paris. Because in Tokyo, of course, family and friends couldn't come to the Olympics. So, that was the point when I thought, I've got to go back to Paris. Being able to have my family, like my children, my husband, my sister, my parents and friends all coming. So, the best way to celebrate really is to go out and, you know, get some burger and beers and enjoy. And have have some good times for a few hours after the race. And I've got such a great support group, so it's really nice to be able to share it with them.

MG: I mean in Tokyo -- we played a little bit of it at the beginning of the conversation. People who watch that race, I think we're feeling for everybody who is out on the course. Because it looked so hot and humid. You finished in ninth place. It's the best result for a Canadian woman in the Olympic marathon. But it looked brutal.

MALINDI ELMORE: It was brutal. Yeah, actually, I was speaking to my children's school yesterday and that was really fun. And I was talking about the race. And then the vice principal says at the end, Wow, you're really selling the marathon.

MG: Because you kept saying how terrible it was.

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah, yeah, basically. And how painful it was. And then I was like, no, no, no, no. But it's still fun. It's still fun to like, suffer and to know you did your best. But that race, you know. Oh, boy. Like, in the last six or eight kilometres just sort of felt like a death march. But everybody felt that way, and we were all just melting out there. But thankfully, you know, I held it together, and I crossed the line. And it's really an amazing feeling when you achieve your goal and when your goal is lofty and you can, and you do it. And I was really, really quite thrilled to to finish in the top ten.

MG: Can you go back to something that you just said, which is it's fun to suffer? Help people understand that. For people who don't do what you do and what you do, what you run toward is something that a lot of people would say, absolutely not, thank you very much. What is fun about suffering?

MALINDI ELMORE: I think the thing is, is it's rewarding knowing you got the most out of yourself. And setting big goals and going after them wholeheartedly and putting everything into it on race day and being able to finish a race thinking I could not have done any better. I did everything I could from a preparation perspective and from an execution on the day, and I did my absolute best. I left nothing out there. And I just keep coming back for more for that feeling.

MG: Does it surprise you that you were able to get back to that place? I mean, you were talking about retiring in 2012 and how you felt then. It seems like you have a completely different--not mindset, but a renewed love for what you do now.

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah, I think so. I think part of it too, is now that I know that if you fail, life goes on and you're still going to be okay. I think at that age and at that time in my life, everything for me rided on my performance. And you know, when you can take a step back and it's like, I wouldn't change anything in my life now. I've got everything I need so I can fail and I'm still going to be okay. So, I can just focus then on my sport and the process and not the results all the time.

MG: You have a crazy busy life. You are-- you're sitting in your car right now. Just explain what you did before you picked up the phone and said, hello.

MALINDI ELMORE: Well, I met some of the athletes that I coach because I coach at UBC Okanagan in Kelowna. I met them this morning at about 6:30 a.m., and we did a workout together. And that took about two hours. And my husband met me towards the end of my workout, dropped the children off while I did my cool down around the fields. They're thankfully a little bit older now, so I can actually run around the fields because they're not going to, you know, wander away and disappear. And then he had to go to work, so he had to drop them off to me. And then I got them to school. I got them to school, unfortunately, a minute late. The bell had rung when we...

MG: One minute late.

MALINDI ELMORE: And minutes are everything in this world. And then now I'm waiting to go into the gym to do my weight workout, so I'm just sitting in my car, chatting with you because it's only 9 a.m. in B.C. right now.

MG: How do you fit-- I mean, this is a question that you could ask anybody. But having just run all that down, how do you fit everything in?

MALINDI ELMORE: Boy, I don't, to be honest, there's a lot of days I go to bed thinking I did not get everything done I needed to. But isn't that life, right? I think that a lot of people feel that way. Just trying to be super organized and manage time really well. And be flexible. I have, you know, a 30-minute run this afternoon and so I will drop my son off at piano lessons and literally run from his piano lesson and show up again, probably a minute late to pick him up. But thankfully, most people are pretty understanding. And just finding, like, all those little windows of time and opportunity through the day to get things done.

MG: What is it that, at this point, what is it that's motivating you to keep doing this?

MALINDI ELMORE: Going to Paris has been a huge motivation since I've crossed the line in Tokyo. I think, you know, obviously the race went well from a results perspective being ninth. And I thought, well, why would I quit now? Why? Why? There's no reason for me to stop. I'm still healthy. I'm still enjoying this. I'm still supported to do this. So, my goal immediately shifted to making the Paris Olympics. And we, you know, worked really hard over the next few years to make sure I qualified. I've had some great races between Tokyo and now that I'm really proud of. And it's been really, really motivating to be able to bring my kids to Paris to see me actually race at the Olympics.

MG: I heard you say that you can do this better because of your kids.

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah, I think they give me a focus that I maybe didn't have at one point, and they give me a really strong reason for why I'm doing this, because they're, you know, my family has to be on board with this. There's a lot of our family that revolves around my training and racing. But it's not all. Like, the kids do, the kids live a pretty good life. I don't think that they're, they have anything to complain about. But, you know, like again, like I said before, I've got these windows of opportunity to train. I have to prioritize my training to still be able to balance being a good parent and being a good community member, that sort of thing. And when it comes down to it, in the really tough, dark moments in the marathon, I really, I think about them and and wanting to make them proud and wanting to be the role model that I want to be for my kids.

MG: What did your son say to you when you told him that you'd qualified for the Olympics?

MALINDI ELMORE: Oh, [laughs.] He said, Huh, Mom. They couldn't find anyone faster, eh? I said, Well, Charlie, you know, it's kind of a big deal to make the Olympics. He's like, Well, mom, this is your third time. It's not that big a deal.

MG: Hard to impress.

MALINDI ELMORE: You're right. And then he goes, Did you bring me a snack? I'm hungry. Alright, here we go.

MG: Let's get to the important stuff.

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah.

MG: You mentioned age. Let me just ask you about age a couple of times because you mentioned it a couple of times as well. And you said that when you retired from track at the age of 32, you felt old. You're 44. You're not old now. You're-- I just wonder how you feel now.

MALINDI ELMORE: Yeah, I think I've just stopped paying attention to the number and the birthday. And I think that, you know, there's a trade off. Like, with age brings maybe a different perspective on life and different perspective on yourself and a better understanding of yourself. And so, all the things that I spoke about, about just like being way more process oriented now than maybe just focused on the result as I had to be in my 20s, but I was quote unquote 'failing' to achieve what I wanted to achieve. I think that's really helped me a lot as an athlete. And I definitely cannot run as fast or powerfully as I could when I was younger. When I was running 1500, I would hate to race my former self over 400 metres. But I'm way stronger aerobically than I was when I was younger. And that just comes with years of doing sport and showing up and being consistent. So, I know I would, you know, if you lined myself up as a 1500 metre runner to now over the course of 20 years, just weight, really. Maybe not as fast, but we stronger over distances and that's everything in the marathon.

MG: It makes us rethink in some ways, I mean, people have kind of an idea of when somebody is old in sport. And as we all get older and we want to stay active, that runs through your head. But what you've been able to do, I think, kind of pulls the plug on something like that.

MALINDI ELMORE: I think we're just seeing a lot of people in their, you know, their beyond maybe their peak years, still have really amazing performances. And it's not like it just ends and it's like a cliff that you fall off. Like you just keep showing up and working hard and, you know, being the best athlete you can be. And I'm seeing some amazing things from athletes in their 40s and even really into their late 40s, 50s now. There's an Australian woman who's one of my big role models. She set the Australian national record last year at 46 and 2.21. And she's lining up this year. She'll be in Paris and she's at least 47 this year. So, who's to say that there's, you know, there's a limit on age.

MG: What is it? What is your goal for Paris? Or what are your goals for Paris?

MALINDI ELMORE: Definitely top ten again would be, I'd be thrilled with that. And I will never give up the dream of winning an Olympic medal at some point. And this might be the last point, who knows? So, if the opportunity presents and I run the race in my life, you just never know, and I wouldn't count myself out.

MG: I don't, I would be a fool, I think, to count you out. And I think anybody who does is not paying attention. You're amazing. And we will be cheering you along. It's great to talk to you. And good luck and thanks.

MALINDI ELMORE: Thanks so much, Matt. And have a great day.

MG: Malindi Elmore will represent represent Canada at the marathon event in Paris at the Olympics. In the lead up to the Olympics next month, we are speaking with a number of Canadian athletes who will be flying the flag, and we will continue to do that in the weeks to come here on the program. This program is The Current. My name is Matt Galloway. Earlier this week, we were talking about how unaffordable renting in Canada is these days. The number of people renting across the country is now at a record level, and finding the right place for the right price is getting harder and harder. You can imagine that conversation resonated with a lot of you. Here are some of the letters that you sent to us. The Current senior producer, Karin Marley is here to read some of that mail. Karin, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning, Matt. So, this first letter is from Kathryn. She writes: "I'm a professional biologist living in Victoria and working in the public service. I am a single parent renting the upper level of a two-and-a-half-bedroom house. I pay what is now below market rate but rent and utilities are 81 per cent of my income. Yes, 81 per cent. I consider myself very lucky to have a nice home in reasonably good condition, biking distance from my son's school and my workplace. But the only way that I have been able to afford it has been loans from family members. Many times, I've searched for more affordable housing. Sometimes I'm not able to find a single place that costs less than my current $2,790 a month. I'm very cognisant of how fortunate I am that family has been able to help but worry for everyone across the country as these housing costs show no sign of decreasing."

MG: This letter is from another listener who writes: "I am one of the people caught in the housing crisis in a very scary way. I have rented my entire life. Five years ago, I had a 1350 square foot, three-bedroom apartment for $1750. Three years ago, they sold that house and I had to move to 1000 square foot, three-bedroom townhome for $2,100. Now they are selling, and I'm realistically facing a $2,200 or more rent for a one to two bedroom at 700 square feet, for me and my two kids. What the housing crisis is doing to me is keeping me impoverished. Realistically, I am facing the fact that if I can't manage to get into subsidised housing, I will become homeless because I won't be able to afford the most basic of housing. And that is as a working 40-year-old who is well-educated and making $53,000 a year at a government affiliated job.

KARIN MARLEY: Shauna wrote to say: "I wanted to share the perspective of a mom-and-pop landlord to help shed some light on problems in the rental housing market. My husband and I own two townhouses, which we rented to tenants. We are generally really good landlords who take care of our tenants. We fix things that are broken, and we often don't raise rents even when we're allowed to by law. We have been operating our rentals for about ten years and things have been fine until now. Fast forward to 2024 and the rapid interest rate increases have handcuffed us. Our costs have increased by $1,000 a month on each unit. Even if we raise rents by the $50 a month the government allows, we're still underwater. Our only option is to lose $10,000 a year on each townhouse, or to sell. Our tenant as a parent of young kids, and we feel horrible having to sell their home, but we can't afford to keep it at current rates."

MG: Finally, a note from Danielle, who writes: "I disagree with both guests I heard on your program. I believe there is a short-term solution for the housing crisis. An immediate ban on all short-term rentals is, at this point necessary. This would free up rental units for families in desperate need of housing. In the last five years, I have witnessed two separate family members of mine who own multiple family homes, evict long term tenants only to adopt the short-term rental business. This practice should be made illegal. There needs to be a stop to commercialising single family residential units." Just some of the mail that you sent to us on this issue. We will continue to talk certainly about the rent as it continues. Karin, thank you very much.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MG: And that story continuing being the high cost of rent, but also people trying to find solutions to it. If there's anything you hear in the program that you want to comment on, do get in touch. You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. Or even better, because it's radio and we love to hear the sound of your voice, send us a voice memo recorded on your phone and then just email it to us.Thecurrent@cbc.ca. That is The Current for this Friday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. Before we go, a friend of The Current's, a long-time listener is undergoing treatment for a brain tumour. Listens to this program every day. Says the show is his lifeline right now. He's originally from Australia and says he's learned a lot about Canada through this program. His favourite band is The Talking Heads and so we end this week with this one, for you, Mark. This is Talking Heads; This Must Be the Place. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend. We'll see you on Monday.

[Music: 'This Must Be the Place' by The Talking Heads]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Friday June 14, 2024 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This