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 2018

The Current Transcript for March 16, 2018

Host: Laura Lynch

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Whether we remember 1984 or not directly, we saw our parents affected directly. We saw the sadness in their eyes. We all know what happened in 1984. We all know that this was a genocide.

LAURA LYNCH: That is Jagmeet Singh, the federal New Democratic Party leader, speaking in 2015. He was an Ontario MPP at the time and he was far from his riding at a rally in San Francisco for the cause of Sikh Independence. The anti-Sikh riots in 1984 that killed thousands in India are once again front page news in Canada, as the Khalistan question dogs the NDP leader and especially the question of whether he supports or condones armed resistance for the cause. It's hardly the conversation that the NDP hoped we'd be having right now, but it's likely to follow the party and its new leader for some time to come. And that's where we're starting today. Then… look up! For a novel, public transportation idea that's catching on cities around the world: the gondola! It's replaced the bus for this woman, in La Paz, Bolivia.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: To be travelling through the air, it was a fantastic experience. Now my little ones and I use it practically every day.

LL: And now Edmonton's eyeing the cable car in the sky. But will it fly? That discussion, in half an hour from now. Plus, was there any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in the 2016 election? Well it depends on who you ask.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: What has been shown is no collusion, no collusion; there's been absolutely no collusion, so we're very happy.

LL: We'll hear what veteran journalists David Corn and Michael Isikoff say in their new book, Russian Roulette later in today's show. I'm Laura Lynch and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

Jagmeet Singh's view of Sikh separatism under scrutiny after appearances at rallies

Guests: Ramandeep Grewal, Shinder Purewal

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: One of my goals was to erase this false narrative of a Hindu-Sikh conflict and what I really believe in…

VOICE 2: Forgive me, but you could do that right now by saying no, it isn't appropriate to put up posters of Canada's worst-ever mass murderer, as a martyr... do you think that's appropriate?

VOICE 1: Well let me just clarify your point here. It's so important that we rid this notion that there's ever been a conflict between Hindus and Sikhs. It's never been the case. We've been living in existence as neighbours...

VOICE 2: Third time I'm asking... It's not a hard question... [cross-talk]

VOICE 1: ... finish my sentence.

LL: Where does Jagmeet Singh stand on Sikh extremism? It's a question that's dogged him since winning the federal NDP leadership last October and especially since that interview with the CBC's Terry Milewski. Singh was asked repeatedly what he thought of Talwinder Parmar, who's seen as the orchestrator of Canada's deadliest terror attack, the 1985 Air India bombings. Parmar was never convicted before his death in 1992. But in that CBC interview, Singh did not give a clear answer as to whether he denounced some fellow Sikhs' views of Parmar as a martyr or hero. And questions about where the party leader stands on Sikh separatism have growing in recent days. It's come to light that he spoke at a Sikh 'Sovereignty Rally' in San Francisco in 2015; and at a National Sikh Youth Federation meeting in 2015, where another speaker endorsed violence as a form of resistance. Yesterday, Jagmeet Singh faced further questions. Here he is on CBC Radio's As It Happens last night with co-host Carol Off.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: And can you understand why Canadians would like to hear you clearly say in this interview in answer to my question that you denounce violence for the sake of Khalistan? That you denounce an armed struggle, an armed resistance within whatever context you want to give. Canadians would like to know if you denounce violence toward the end of creating an independent Khalistan.

VOICE 2: Well, what we are looking at is something I can very clearly say. I've condemned terrorism.

VOICE 1: I'm not talking about terrorism. I'm asking you about violence and armed struggle because you yourself have made it clear there's a difference, this is not terrorism in their minds.

VOICE 2: We're talking about how people resist violence that's been perpetrated against them… I don't know what the appropriate response it. I know that when people talk about, would we ask a black President to condemn someone like Malcolm X? In the history of the black community, Malcolm X is someone who is a controversial figure, who fought for civil liberties but also talked about issues that people would say were controversial and perhaps militant. These are issues that are complex and don't merit a yes/no answer. There is a reality of oppression that was faced by African-Canadians, and what the appropriate response is, you know it's not something that we could just sit down and say yes or no. We have to look at the scenario in a thoughtful manner.

LL: We have two guests standing by now for their thoughts on what Jagmeet Singh has had to say and what it means for him, and his party, going forward. Ramandeep Grewal is an active volunteer in the Sikh community. She joins me in Toronto. Shinder Purewal is a political scientist at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. He has run for the federal Liberals twice in the past. And he is in Surrey, B.C. Hello to you both.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: Good morning.

SHINDER PUREWAL: Good morning.

LL: Shinder Purewal, we just heard Jagmeet Singh say he condemns the Air India bombing but he wouldn't give a clear answer about whether he condemns violent armed resistance. Does what he's had to say in the last day or so close this issue for you?

SHINDER PUREWAL: It's not going to close the issue because he's giving sort of very confusing answers in the past 48 hours. I think he has probably changed his position four or five times. He was asked very specifically by Terry Milewski to come clean on Mr. Parmar.

LL: Now that was some months ago. Since then he has said that he accepts that Parmar was the man behind the bombing and he condemned it.

SHINDER PUREWAL: Ok. For Canadians they have to make a judgement. Here is a Canadian-born lawyer. For seven years - the report was released in 2010 in which Justice Major actually held Parmar as the mastermind of the bombing. So for seven years he didn't actually believe in justice Major's report. He believed in the fringe elements, conspiracy theory, and now he comes out and says “yes” because he's saving his leadership. Is that the answer Canadians deserve? That he can change now and something comes up tomorrow and then he will have a different answer.

LL: Mr. Purewal, I have to point out because you've run for the federal Liberals before, what do you say to those who might be listening to you and saying you're just taking a partisan stand in all of this?

SHINDER PUREWAL: I ran for the Liberals in 2000 and 2011 and since then I have had no affiliation. I don't have any active participation with the federal Liberals anymore.

LL: So you're saying this as a member of the Sikh community, not as a politician?

SHINDER PUREWAL: I'm speaking as a political scientist who has written books on Sikh separatist movement. It's published by Oxford University Press. I've written articles. I observe this movement. I analyze on this.

LL: Ramandeep Grewal, what do you think? Does what he has had to say - Jagmeet Singh - in the last 24 to 48 hours end questions about his views on extremism?

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: I think he's given a clear answer. I think that there will still be questions that will continue to emerge. And as a political leader and someone who's putting himself out for the largest political position in the country it's incumbent upon him to answer those and it's legitimate for people to ask. I do want to say a couple of things and I agree with Shinder that Canadians deserve answers and Canadians deserve facts. It's incumbent I think on the Sikh community as being the closest to the issue and to the history to bring about those facts and the different viewpoints. The premise of the question is really troubling. We consistently see in the media people asking about violent armed resistance, Sikh extremism, and Sikh terrorism. It does not exist. There is a spectrum in the community of people's views. From people who advocate for greater political autonomy of Punjabis or of Sikhs, including Canadians of Indian origin that are not Sikh or Punjabi who advocate for greater political autonomy of different regions in India in a peaceful non-violent manner. It is their right. It's their freedom of expression. On that continuum there are people who fall on a different range. It's a tiny tiny minority that may overtly advocate for any kind of resistance or violent struggle.

LL: Which I think is the reason why people wonder, why they say, and they claim that they're not getting a clear answer from him. And you say he has been clear and yet in that interview with Carol Off he would not give a clear answer on whether he denounces armed resistance and violence in the cause of Khalistan independence. To the Globe and Mail yesterday he wouldn't say whether he supports Khalistan independence.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: So can I just jump in there? I think again we're asking for very simple questions to very nuanced answers. And he does not have the luxury of providing nuanced answers because people from political leaders of course are tired of what they see as you know a dodging tactic or trying to duck and cover. But again as an independent Canadian citizen I can say there's a lot of nuance there what is Khalistan. I don't understand why it's such a taboo and why it’s such a bad word when people say "Oh Khalistanis," which means automatically they must be separatists and terrorists and they must espouse violence. Khalistan can mean lots of things. For many people it means greater political autonomy, legitimate economic grievances being addressed. This whole thing started in the 70s and even before that with a greater ask for riparian rights and agriculture and economic freedom for Punjabis and Sikhs. So from that we have seen it transgress. In the 80s there was an armed resistance struggle given the oppression of the state. There were people who were responding to what was then a lack of due process and law in India. Sorry just one second Laura. And during that time there were people who engaged in violent acts and we admitted on both sides. There were people who took opportunity for their personal gain or for other reasons. There was extortion there where there was violence going on both sides. And to automatically dismiss and say we must then therefore say everyone who was engaged in that was illegitimate and we must denounce them. What I think it does is it really ignores all the people who were involved in the legitimate struggle: writers, artists, authors, lawyers who did pro bono work for people who disappeared. We can't ignore them.

LL: I know but we're what we're focusing on here is the leader of the federal NDP party. And I just want to ask Shinder Purewal, what do you think? Is it fair that he's even being asked these questions about his views on Sikh extremism?

SHINDER PUREWAL: Obviously because he has been closely associated with the movement whether he condones that or not, that's not an issue.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: Sorry Shinder, what movement is that?

SHINDER PUREWAL: The secessionist movement. I live in Surrey. Secessionist controlled temple was making members for Jagmeet Singh.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: And so what do you mean by secessionist controlled temple? People who advocate the separation of Punjab from India? In a violent way? In an overtly violent way? People who are legitimately?

SHINDER PUREWAL: They have portraits of terrorists in their temple.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: So people who haven't been alive for two decades...

LL: Let him finish.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: Sure

SHINDER PUREWAL: I never interrupted you.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: Sorry. Go ahead.

SHINDER PUREWAL: So during his primary nomination then during his leadership race and he actually concocted a theory during the leadership race that India was sabotaging his leadership. There was a clear line to get the secessionist people behind him so they will volunteer, they'll give money, and after that he comes up with Terry Milewski that same answer, sort of round and round. My question is as an NDP leader and as a Canadian he should say that he is clear about this that if you want to achieve something - we have had the issue of separatism in Quebec. It’s peaceful. They can run candidates in Punjab if they want.

LL: Well it wasn't always peaceful.

SHINDER PUREWAL: Yeah but not to the extent of what Punjab witnessed.

LL: I'm sorry…

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: ... ‘78 to ‘93 there were more than 25,000 people got killed. [Unintelligible] was minor.

LL: Ok. I just want to bring this back to Ramandeep. Does the leader of a federal political party have - let me use the term the luxury - to be able to engage in that kind of nuance about things or does he have to be clear about what his stand is on things?

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: Unfortunately I think he has to be clear. He has to be clear and he does not have the luxury because the sound bites don't last for that long. Which is why I think it's incumbent upon the community to bring the nuance to bring the dialogue. I think it's great that we have people like Shinder who have his point of view. We have all sorts of people and we have a very very robust community with different points of view. I'm glad he's spoken and Shinder has referred to a secessionist movement because again I think that's a much better adjective to use than some of the ones we're hearing in the media. The trouble is those of us who grew up here in the 80s and witnessed and lived under this shadow of this label of extremism and terrorism it's reliving that again. The more the media says these words, the more the media legitimizes that it actually exists when it does not. Or if it does it is a tiny tiny fraction of millions, tens of millions of Sikhs around the world. And I defy anybody to say come out with the examples. We see the examples. It's one in a million. It's the extreme. And the community comes out and denounces that. The community denounces it internally.

LL: Shinder Purewal, Jagmeet Singh also said in an interview with CBC yesterday he has to engage with different elements of the Sikh community and that's why he's gone to events for controversial views are aired. He wants to talk to them about his perspective on these things. He says he'll keep going. Do you think that type of engagement is productive? Otherwise he says there's a vacuum there and these kinds of elements might grow through that vacuum if he doesn't attend these events.

SHINDER PUREWAL: And that's giving too much credit to himself that others can't think without him. There are obviously different viewpoints. And he goes to very particular rallies, seminars that are dominated by secessionists and you have seen them glorifying martyrs, glorying people who committed terrorist crimes in temples, in rallies, and seminars. He can engage with the youth. He can engage with the community without actually attending those secessionist rallies.

LL: How would he do that without being there?

SHINDER PUREWAL: I don't go to the rallies. I engage with them. I have students. I go to radio shows. I go to TV shows. I've been to community meetings. And I still engage with the community by writing about it and analyzing about it

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: You know I think one of the things that the Sikh youth in Canada and maybe globally has learned is that in order to have a voice they have to be engaged. What happened in the 80s in the early 90s was divisive. The community was divided. People who were not along the same political lines did not transact with each other. They did not socialize or come to the same events and occasions. Sikh youth today I think what they've done is something really beautiful that they’ve taken a terrible part of our history - oppression and violence - asked for reparation, asked for amends, and asked for human rights abuses to be addressed, but taken it beyond India. So Sikh youth today - people like Khalsa Aid are engaged at helping Rohingya refugees or Syrians or Yazidi women who have been displaced. They've taken it beyond because they've learned that we need to rise above. We need to learn a lesson that we need to stand up against oppression and violence everywhere now and for social justice. The youth along different political lines do join together and speak together. They sit at the same rallies. They speak at the same tables. I have spoken to people who I do not agree with ideologically or publicly but I will not refuse to engage.

LL: So do you want him to keep going to those events?

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: I think it's his choice. I mean he's got to make a choice as a political leader and as a federal leader. His people who advise him have to vet carefully where he goes and who he deals with because he does not again have the luxury of providing connotation or providing explanation and people will take issue with that. But I think that what Shinder saying is that what the Sikh youth have done differently than the people of a bygone era maybe my generation and Shinder's generation is actually come together and agree to see sit at the same table even though they don't see eye to eye.

LL: Then that then that raises another question. Shinder Purewal, these questions, this discussion, do you see it having a negative effect on the Sikh community at large?

SHINDER PUREWAL: It is because there is a very fringe element. My estimation is not more than five per cent but even among that five per cent - you are talking about a very very tiny fraction of the people - who still actually advocate violence. So Prime Minister was given a list by the Indian government of some terrorists who are still sending some funds to India for assassinations, for bombings, and so on and so forth. But we're talking about numbers which are very small. But overall if you are a leader of the federal party you ought to be concerned about Canadian issues. If you're spending most of your time engaging with your community...

LL: Well to be fair any federal leader has to also be concerned about issues abroad. They have to have a foreign policy.

SHINDER PUREWAL: Yeah well we have recognized India as a union, as a fellow democracy, as a fellow Commonwealth country. We should not be engaging with people or harbouring some sentiments with those who are there to partition India.

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: I agree with what Shinder has said. I'm glad he's said it's a tiny minority of people and also that it definitely hurts the community and a federal leader should be concerned about other issues. What has happened is this conversation has dominated and it has given…

LL: Within the Sikh community…

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: And within the global environment, within Canada, and what it does it makes it appear that is a much bigger issue than it actually is. It gives credence to this tiny minority that is internally also debated within the community. And also it detracts from us having to ask a federal leader legitimate issue. What's his fiscal policy? What's position on health care? Why are we not asking him the real questions that matter? But instead asking him to condemn ghosts and issues from bygone eras.

LL: Well then that's the next question. How does Jagmeet Singh move beyond this? Is it possible for him to?

RAMANDEEP GREWAL: I certainly hope he will move beyond it. I think he's given some clearer and more equivocal answers than he has in the past and I think that's a great step forward. There will continue to be some issues that will be brought up because of course this is politics and in politics there's all sorts of strategies that come to play and he's got to turn and focus and start to speak to the issues that really matter to all Canadians and hopefully we can put this beyond us. Again I think the responsibility is incumbent on the Sikh community; people like us who are on the radio today to address these issues in the background and in the boardrooms and on the meeting tables where it matters.

LL: Ok, Shinder Purewal, same question. Can he move beyond this?

SHINDER PUREWAL: Well he can see if he can learn how to be honest in answering these questions. He always dodges questions of this nature. First of all taking seven years to accept a report commissioned by Supreme Court justice and being a lawyer how does he justify that? Second issue is he should be clear that a Canadian leader cannot endorse any movement. I mean there should be no puzzle on this issue that we are for peaceful transition to anything. If you want to advocate separation... Again there is a democracy that allows you participation. It allows you to air your grievances and so on and so forth.

LL: We're going to have to leave it there. We've run out of time but I thank you both for speaking to me about this today. Ramandeep Grewal is an active volunteer in the Sikh community. She was with me in studio in Toronto. Shinder Purewal is a political scientist at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. He has run for the federal Liberals twice in the past. He was in Surrey, B.C. We asked Jagmeet Singh for an interview but he wasn't available. The CBC News is next. Then, imagine taking a gondola across town. A bold new idea for public transportation in Edmonton is gaining support. And it may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. Mexico City has one. And we'll hop on right after the news. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

U.S. 'ignored tips about Russian plot to undermine elections'

Guests: Amber Polyquin, Steven Dale, Cherise Burda

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, Michael Isikoff was the first to reveal the U.S. intelligence investigation into former Trump advisor Carter Page, and his ties to Russia. David Corn was the first to report the existence of the infamous Russia dossier of compromising information on the president. The two have teamed up for a major new book, called Russian Roulette. And they're my guests in about half an hour from now. But first, a subway in the sky.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: It is with great pride that we are thrilled to announce the first ever winner of the Edmonton project…ladies and gentlemen put your hands together for Gary and Amber and the gondola over the North Saskatchewan River.

[Sound: Applause]

LL: Yes, indeed, you heard that right. A gondola was the big winner in a recent competition in Edmonton, asking citizens to come up with ideas for a new urban landmark for their city. The idea for a Gondola or an elevated cable car, like you'd see as at a ski resort came from Gary and Amber Poliquin. And it's not just being suggested for sightseeing but as a new form of public transportation. Amber Poliquin is with me from Edmonton. Hello.

AMBER POLYQUIN: Good morning.

LL: Congratulations. Why do you think Edmonton should have a gondola?

AMBER POLYQUIN: Thank you. Well you know throughout our travels we saw gondolas in action and used for transport in different cities and we thought a gondola would be a really great fit here.

LL: What for you want to build it over the Saskatchewan River Valley, is it for tourists?

AMBER POLYQUIN: No, actually it's for commuting. So our idea would be to build a 3K gondola line from Whyte Avenue down into Rossdale and up towards Jasper Avenue of the Shaw Conference Centre.

LL: For people who may not know Edmonton that well, what are you talking about? Are you talking about busy roadways? Are they choke points for traffic? What are you dealing with here?

AMBER POLYQUIN: Absolutely. So right now the average commute time during rush hour from downtown to Whyte Avenue - so that would be basically connecting the north and south sides of our river - is about 20 minutes and growing. And so we thought a gondola could complete that trip in under 10 minutes and that would be a great fit for adding into our transit system here in Edmonton.

LL: Now where did you get the idea for this?

AMBER POLYQUIN: So through travelling. We saw gondolas working as transport systems around the world and then when the idea for the Edmonton project came up we put it in and we started doing research. Then we really realized wow actually many cities around the world are using gondolas and using them effectively for their main modes of transport.

LL: Have you taken an urban gondola ride in other parts of the world?

AMBER POLYQUIN: No I've not had the chance to do that yet. So I'm looking forward to hopefully riding ours.

LL: Oh I have. I took one in London once when they built the one there for the Olympics and that was more of a tourist attraction. I will say it's something to see the city from above. But I'm wondering what convinced you that this could actually be a functional use for public transit?

AMBER POLYQUIN: Well here in Edmonton we have a really wide river valley and we basically need ways to cross that. And so right now during rush hour we have about 136,000 cars crossing those bridges per day. We have an LRT that takes people downtown. We have buses that take people downtown and people take bikes. So if we add a gondola into that we're basically creating a really excellent transportation system for our city.

LL: Now one Edmonton city councillor has picked up on your idea with some adaptation. Tim Cartmell thinks it could be a temporary fix to transit problems on Whyte Avenue until a light rail line is built. But he says the gondola proposal is getting some mixed reaction.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Some are intrigued, some thinks it's farce...and that's there's that spectrum of reaction that any of these kinds of new ideas get. I believe that the Edmonton Project is getting a similar sort of reaction. Some think it's a bold audacious cool idea, some think it's absurd. I think it's very important we explore these opportunities, think outside the box a little bit. Just may be that we can find a much more cost effective solution to moving people around, that is complementary to our current system, as opposed to compromising it, and can be executed at a lot less cost.

LL: Now there are two things that come out of that clip Amber. In your view does a gondola in Edmonton make good economic sense?

AMBER POLYQUIN: Absolutely. So as Tim was saying in his clip the research shows that gondolas is less expensive to build and that makes sense because there's less infrastructure. It also is the cheapest form of transportation in terms of mass transit to operate and also it releases the least amount of CO2. So overall from construction through operation it will save us money and its complementary form of transit which would fit together with our bike lanes, bus, and LRT.

LL: Now how much support is your idea had from other people in Edmonton besides this one city councillor?

AMBER POLYQUIN: And actually quite a bit. We've had different businesses contact us. We've actually had people around the world contact us say they're interested in implementing similar ideas in their cities. And you can see how people might be skeptical at first when they think, 'Well this is for the Alpine. This is for ski hills. How can this fit here?’ But when you start looking at the capability of it you know it can transport up to 10,000 passengers per hour. It's quiet. It's fast. It's efficient. It's fun. It's hard to argue that it wouldn't be a good fit.

LL: So what do you say to the people who told the city councillor that the idea is absurd?

AMBER POLYQUIN: Well for Edmonton we have the youngest population of any major city in Canada and it's growing. We're predicted to increase our population by about 40 per cent over the next 20 years and we need to build infrastructure. And part of that the gondola would be such an excellent fit for that.

LL: But are you suggesting that would replace any other forms of more transportation such as light rail lines or would it work in tandem with them?

AMBER POLYQUIN: Absolutely not. Yeah we're thinking it would work in tandem. And that's our whole thing here that this is a complimentary form of transport - not free - but working in conjunction with the other forms that we already have.

LL: So where do you go from here with your idea?

AMBER POLYQUIN: So now we're moving into feasibility studies so we have to demonstrate that there is a need and we have to work with all of our partners.

LL: Well we'll see what happens with it. Thank you very much.

AMBER POLYQUIN: You're welcome.

LL: Amber Poliquin and her husband Gary are winners of the Edmonton project for their proposal for a gondola. She is in Edmonton. While it may be some time before we actually see an urban gondola in Edmonton the idea is taking flight in other parts of the world particularly in Latin America. Mexico City is considered to be the most congested urban centre in the world. And about a year ago, it opened a gondola system known as the "Mexicable." It runs five kilometres, through mostly poorer parts of suburban Mexico City. Here's what some commuters have to say about it.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Street sounds]

VOICE 1: Because up there there's no traffic. It's super-fast. In the public buses there are a number of bad characters. But here... No. Well there's a lot of security. It's just much better.

VOICE 2: I only use public transport and the gondola is good because it's faster than the buses. The public buses take about an hour and this service is just 20 minutes.

VOICE 3: It's safer. There's a chance of robbery elsewhere. And this is more comfortable. It's good transport better than anything else.

LL: Steven Dale is an urban planner who runs the consulting firm Creative Urban Projects, as well as The Gondola Project which advocates for the creation of cable transit systems. And we've reached him in Sarnen, Switzerland. Hello.

STEVEN DALE: Hi there.

LL: So what do you think? Do Edmonton and gondolas go together?

STEVEN DALE: Why not? I mean you've got a wide river valley and the gondolas are uniquely capable of dealing with topographical challenges that other transit technologies aren't. You also have Canadian winters and of course a cable car essentially has been designed for harsh winter Alpine climates. So the two do make logical sense in a place like Edmonton.

LL: Gondolas in urban cities just seems a bit strange, isn't it?

STEVEN DALE: It is. I mean it's important to start from that perspective. It's important to sort of lean into the idea that this is you know as the councillor said “an absurd idea,” but to start actually walking back from that perspective and challenging those preconceptions. You know why is it absurd? I mentioned the idea of the inclement Canadian weather with winters and you know in our work one of the questions we always get - only the Canadians ask this - is you know well that's great it works in Latin America you know but it's warm there, how does it work in winter? We have you know snow, ice, wind. You sit back and you just go well they're designed to work in winter. They're designed to work in ski hills. They're ski lift. So that whole dynamic is really interesting because when you take the gondolas out of the ski resorts and put them into cities people's perception really change. People get really confused. They think about it as absurd and ridiculous and you know they quote the Simpsons episode of the monorail and all of that nonsense. But when you really begin to dig into the research and you look at the capabilities and you look at what these systems are doing around the world actually there's a really strong case to look at them as a complementary form of transit.

LL: Ok make the case for me because I'm still having a hard time seeing this as a form of public transit that moves people quickly and not just from point to point but making stops along the way as you would expect on a bus line or a subway line.

STEVEN DALE: Well doing intermediary stops along the line is not a promise. It's not controversial at all. There are dozens of systems around the world that are doing not. I mean La Paz Bolivia right now is building out their entire fixed link public transit grid under cable cars. They already have over 30 stops within their network. And they've implemented that in just the last five years. So you know you have both your economic case where you know from an OpEX and CapEx perspective they are comparable or more competitive than other fixed link transit technologies. You have the fact that the speeds and the capacities are comparable to medium capacity technologies like light rail and streetcar systems. You also have schedule free service that has less than a minute wait times between vehicles and most public transit planners will tell you that one of the single biggest issues to getting people out of their cars and into public transit is wait times. Waiting 10 minutes for a bus or 10 minutes for a light rail vehicle especially in a Canadian winter is not pleasant and it's not something people tend to want to do. And with gondola systems you have wait times generally speaking less than one minute. So when you add all of these things together not to mention the quick implementation times and the less disruption you have to the surrounding urban fabric there is a very very strong case for the technology.

LL: Amber Poliquin hasn't actually ever taken an urban gondola ride but you have. Tell us what it is like to rise above the city on your way to work.

STEVEN DALE: It's unique, right? I mean it's one of those things where it gives you a different perspective on your city. It's no different than you know the research that shows people would rather ride something like an LRT or a streetcar than a subway or a bus because they're a little bit elevated above the streetscape. They actually get to see the streetscape. You think about when you're taking a plane and you're either taking off for your or your landing everyone's heads turn to the window. You know there's just something in the human condition that wants to look at things. You know we're curious people. It's why we sit on street cafe patios and watch people walk by. You know the fact that we actually have a term "people watching" that indicates the fact that people want to watch things and that's a unique value proposition about the gondolas and cable car systems that really no other transit technology can match.

LL: We mentioned Mexico. We mentioned La Paz. Where else in the world are there gondolas that are part of urban transit?

STEVEN DALE: Primarily right now it is a Latin American phenomenon. We do know of a few that are operating in Europe and there's more coming in Europe. Paris is exploring several systems right now that they're hoping to implement within the next five to 10 years as well as other cities in France. And North America right now is probably come online as the geography that is most interested in this in the world right now. There's probably at least a dozen cities in North America that are looking at this.

LL: Well we know there have been proposals for Boston and Chicago and Austin but none of those - forgive the expression - have gotten off the ground. Why is there hesitation?

STEVEN DALE: Well it's simply a question of research and developing the expertise. This is an industry where predominantly most of the expertise in the industry has been centralized in the ski resort industry particularly in the European Alps. And there's not been a lot of cross pollination between that industry and the urban planning apparatus. And that is actually changing very very quickly right now. But you know when you look at Latin America this all started in 2004 with one city in Medellín in Colombia. They built one system and then it spread like wildfire throughout the Latin American world.

LL: Why so successful there? I mean I know part of the question Medellín is getting up a countryside and allowing people in poorer neighbourhoods to come into the city, but why such success in Latin America?

STEVEN DALE: Well I mean it's a single unified language group. That's part of it, right? So there are also countries that are in closer proximity to one another. So you have a similar cost structure. It's easier for people with you know planners, policymakers, and politicians to learn from one another. Cities and governments tend not to like to stick their neck out on something. They tend to want to do what everyone else has done. We jokingly call it the "no city wants to be first problem." No city wants to be first. Every city wants to be second. They want someone else to you know take the risk and if it demonstrates itself everyone will line up to do it afterwards. So Medellín now already has I believe four systems in operation. They're about to open their fifth and their sixth as well. And again in La Paz, Bolivia they've already opened over 30 kilometers of gondolas across the city. So it's an effective technology. It's not the best. It's not the brightest. It's not a silver bullet to your transportation woes. But it is an excellent complimentary form of public transit that deserves consideration within the North American transit planning toolbox.

LL: I guess some of the concerns of people in Edmonton that I've been reading about those who say that this is just a distraction from the bigger issue that there isn't enough money for public transit.

STEVEN DALE: And you might be right. But at the same time it's a question if that is an economic reality that we live in then we need to start looking at what other options are out there for us to utilize. And again in certain situations it's going to work. In other situations it's not going to work. It's important to understand that as your guest Amber said you know this is not about saying we're not going to continue looking at LRT and subways and BRT. It's not a distraction. It's simply another tool in the toolbox. That's all it is.

LL: We've been talking about gondolas. There are also people pushing for funiculars and urban escalators. So what will it take then for cities to think more outside the box on transit?

STEVEN DALE: I think we're already beginning to think outside the box and again you know urban escalators and funiculars, those are all good things. You know transit is not about a single mode. It's about weaving a network of individual tools into an overall network that complements one another. So use the escalators where they’re appropriate. Use the LRT where they’re appropriate. Use the gondolas and funiculars where they’re appropriate.

LL: What's your favourite form of transportation?

STEVEN DALE: I like them all.

LL: Very politic of you, Steven Dale.

STEVEN DALE: [Laughs]

LL: Thank you very much for your time.

STEVEN DALE: No problem. Take care.

LL: Steven Dale is an urban planner, who runs the firm "Creative Urban Projects". He joined us from Sarnen, Switzerland.

[Music: Bridge]

LL: That song is a classic. But did you know "Finiculi, Finicula" was written to commemorate the opening of a funicular cable car on Mount Vesuvius, near Naples, in 1880? That's just the kind of bold investment in transport that many say Canadian cities need, as they grow and expand. But of course there are always barriers to such projects from funding, to our love of cars. Cherise Burda is the executive director of the City Building Institute at Ryerson University. She's with me in Toronto. Hello.

CHERISE BURDA: Good morning.

LL: You enjoy the musical interlude there?

CHERISE BURDA: It was the perfect in the morning.

LL: Do you think that the funiculars and gondolas could ever be useful as public transit?

CHERISE BURDA: Well I do. I think they’re really useful when they're appropriate to both the natural and the built form. I think they're really useful in some of the Latin American countries that are very mountainous and we're seeing them being proposed in North American cities. For example New York is looking at a gondola over the River connecting Manhattan to Williamsburg. In the case that one of the trains will be shut down for a while. But I am a little bit reserved about the idea of putting a gondola down an urban main street downtown for a number of reasons. Mainly because when we look at the type of transit that we want to move down our main street we want to ensure that it is going to help animate that street and rather than just moving people through a street in a neighbourhood like a thoroughfare. We want to make sure that the type of transit is actually connecting the neighbourhood.

LL: So It's kind antithetical that you have people flying over top instead of being involved on the streetscape.

CHERISE BURDA: Exactly and if I were a merchant there on Whyte Avenue I'd be very concerned about detaching the commerce from the ground level.

LL: Can you foresee a use for a gondola here in Toronto?

CHERISE BURDA: I haven't thought about that. Perhaps. I know that some people have been talking about zip lines going over the ravines. I think there are all kinds of ways to connect. But we have to look carefully at what is the right mode of technology that corresponds with our built form. And like certainly things are going to be different whether you're crossing rivers. If we want to be focusing on how to reduce congestion on our main streets and we need to be looking at the type of innovations that Toronto's already implementing. Things like the King pilot project and putting bike lanes.

LL: King pilot project being...

CHERISE BURDA: Being where the King Street streetcar which was mixed in traffic with all the cars and trucks and nobody was happy. Nobody was going anywhere. The idea was let's give that streetcar its own lane. Let's remove a lane of traffic and let's widen the sidewalk and build up the public realm and introduce wider sidewalks and more sort of street art and benches and things like that to animate the street. So you want to kind of connect the faster moving form of transit with that urban fabric to try and animate the street and bring more commerce.

LL: Just to talk about the King street project a little bit more... Even what Toronto is doing it wasn't easy to do. It was met with a lot of controversy and a lot of fight back. Why is it so difficult to come up with transit solutions?

CHERISE BURDA: I think the challenge especially when you see them in the urban areas people are very fearful of removing a lane of traffic or removing a lane of parking. They think that it's going to lead to less business and I get that. The thing is what's really important when we're doing this is to look at data and study the data. There have been so many successful examples. For example in New York City when they reduced their traffic from four to two lanes to introduce a bike lane retail sales went up 49 per cent. It was greater than Manhattan as a whole. In Toronto when we put a bike lane on Bloor Street; took away parking, we found out that the people who came by bike or walking were doing more of the shopping and it actually increased the retail sales. And there's a misperception among merchants on Bloor Street. For example there is a perception that 25 per cent of people shopped came by car when in fact it was only 10 per cent. So we have to look at those examples where we've been more successful by removing those lanes and ensuring that you're also investing in the public realm. And so for King street for example a lot of investment is going this spring and summer into animating those sidewalks putting in patios and public art and seating and lighting and then you're going to have all that foot traffic. I think there's a perception that if the street isn't full of cars then it's not busy. But cars don't shop. People shop.

LL: What should cities do then to better integrate mass transit?

CHERISE BURDA: Well I think it's really important to look at what your goals are for the city and the network. And taking us back to Edmonton for example I heard and if I'm hearing correctly from the other guests the sort of longer term objective is to build an LRT along Whyte Avenue which makes sense because Whyte Avenue is a wide avenue it can accommodate and it also means taking removing a couple of lanes of traffic and I think that's where the challenge is. I think that's why people are saying well we don't want to lose those lanes of traffic. So let's elevate it so we won't be interfering with the current street form. But if that indeed is the long term goal of Whyte Avenue then investing in a whole other type of infrastructure which is the gondola seems like a wasted investment because it would be hard to sort of then reinvest in an LRT down the road. What they should really consider is investing in a BRT which is bus rapid transit. And you can create all the same infrastructure. It runs in its own lane. You can have all door boarding. You can introduce a lot of the same features and you can make it electric and Edmonton wants to turn its buses electric by 2020.

LL: And the debate continues. Cherise Burda thanks for coming in to talk about it.

CHERISE BURDA: Thanks so much.

LL: Cherise Burda is executive director of the City Building Institute at Ryerson University. She was in our Toronto studio. And we'd love to hear your thoughts about the Urban Gondola or any other creative public transportation solutions you have in mind. Send us an email from our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent. And click on the Contact link. You can always find us on Facebook, or on Twitter @TheCurrentCBC. Coming up in our next half hour... it's a story with more layers than a Russian Matryoshka doll. But veteran reporters David Corn and Michael Isikoff know it inside and out. They join me after the break with their new book, Russian Roulette. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... a gondola? This could be Edmonton's newest transit solution

Guests: Michael Isikoff, David Corn

LL: I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Friday edition of the Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Russian speaking language]

VOICE 1: And I'd like to congratulate the American people with the end of the electoral cycle August. And I’d also like to congratulate Mr. Donald Trump with his victory in these elections.

LL: Well, that message of congratulations from Vladimir Putin was hardly the last word on the subject of Russia and the 2016 American presidential election. The degree to which the Russian president helped bring about Mr. Trump's surprise victory, is still the subject of much controversy and an active investigation. Just yesterday Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel investigating Russian interference, subpoenaed the president's businesses. Also yesterday, the Trump administration took its most significant steps against Russia since the election, imposing sanctions against Russians for their role in election meddling. There seem to be new developments every day in this story, and my next two guests have broken much of the news themselves. Michael Isikoff is the Chief Investigative Correspondent for Yahoo News, and David Corn is the Washington Bureau Chief for Mother Jones. Together they’ve authored the new book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. I spoke with Michael Isikoff and David Corn from New York City, earlier this week. Hello.

DAVID CORN: Thanks for having us.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Hello there.

LL: David Corn let me start with you. The book begins with the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Moscow. Why was that event important in understanding how the Russian involvement in the U.S. election unfolded?

DAVID CORN: For 30 years practically Donald Trump had wanted to do business in Moscow. He wanted his tower - a tower up - up on the Moscow skyline and he had failed many times. But he saw an opportunity when he had the chance to hold Miss Universe in Moscow in November 2013. Now the only way you do business in Moscow as everyone in Miss Universe told us of an operation like that is with the approval of Putin's government. So from the very start of the Miss Universe project Donald Trump started putting out flattering tweets and making complimentary statements about Vladimir Putin: will he be my best friend when I go to Moscow? And it was clear that he was trying to court Putin and not just because of Miss Universe as people Miss Universe told us - the organization. The whole contest, bringing it to Moscow, the real agenda for Donald Trump was to use that to get an inroad for greater and bigger business opportunities in Moscow particularly when he was partnering with a billionaire oligarch named Aras Agalarov in terms of bringing the pageant to Moscow. So he's hoping that afterwards they would build a tower. And while he was there for the contest in November he seemed obsessed to be gripped by one thing. Not who would win the contest but whether Vladimir Putin would come to the contest or he could have a meeting with him - private meeting - while he was there in Moscow for almost two days. He kept asking people is Putin coming? Is Putin calling? Is he coming? Is he calling? And eventually he heard from not Putin, but his press spokesman Dmitry Peskov who apologized that the president couldn't make it to the event but perhaps they could meet during the Sochi Olympics that were coming up and he wanted to convey Putin's good wishes. This was highly disappointing to Trump to such a degree that he even suggested to one of his Miss Universe colleagues that hey we can tell people that Putin came. No one would really know. Of course they didn't do that. But he did get the deal he wanted. At the end of Miss Universe they announced they were building a Trump Tower or developing one in Moscow with the billionaire oligarch who he had partnered up with for the contest - Aras Agalarov. And then he spent the next couple of months working on that deal. Donald Trump Jr. was in charge of it. Ivanka came over to tour the sites of where the tower might go up and through that time of course he has to keep flattering Vladimir Putin and eventually the deal fell apart perhaps in part due to the U.S. sanctions imposed after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the takeover of Crimea. It's a long explanation. But really it's where his attitude towards Russia and his attitudes towards Putin were put on full display. And we saw this very odd and curious relationship take hold.

LL: Now Michael Isikoff as early as 2014 Western intelligence knew that Putin and his inner circle were planning this campaign to attack Western democratic institutions in the United States. What can you tell me about that?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Back in 2014 the U.S. government had a secret source inside the Kremlin who was talking to a U.S. government official about Vladimir Putin's plans. And look this source had access to Putin's inner court. He's divulging all sorts of information much of it gossip: Who's up and who's down and inside in Putin's inner circle. But he learned some extraordinary things. Number one the contempt that Putin and his circle had for Obama and his administration often expressed in racist terms referring to Obama as a monkey, using the N-word, but gave the U.S. government some idea of just how Putin looked at the American administration. But the most extraordinary information comes during this period when this secret source inside the Kremlin starts talking about this aggressive plan that the Kremlin has for attacking and undermining liberal democracies in Western Europe and the United States. Information warfare, cyber-attacks., subversion using Russian state propaganda organs such as, RT and Sputnik - all part of a grand plan to essentially attack and sow discord in the West. And you can see in these reports that are coming from this secret source inside the Kremlin that much of what was to come later was laid out in graphic details for the U.S. government. The problem is that people in Washington weren't paying attention.

LL: You talk about the overall desire to disrupt things. Why was there a specific desire to take the United States to task or to go after the United States in 2016 beyond that general idea of disrupting?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well this goes back to sort of you know Putin's view of the world, his view of the West. You can go back to a famous speech Putin gave at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 - George W. Bush's still president - in which she talks about the U.S. trying to impose its uni-polar vision on the world. Basically you know he was fighting back against what he saw as American hegemony in the world. And when you look at the events of 2011 and 2012 he believes that the Obama administration through Hilary Clinton is undermining him. When Hillary Clinton spoke out about the massive fraud in the Russian elections in 2012 that re-elected or that elected Vladimir Putin to his third term as president. And then when the Obama administration and the European Union imposed sanctions on Russia over Crimea and the intervention in Ukraine I mean this was part of Putin's way of striking back.

LL: All right. So David Corn the FBI learns Russia is carrying out these operations. What did the bureau do about it?

DAVID CORN: Well they kind of figured out pretty quickly the hack of the Democratic Party was announced in June of 2016 and the next month was when they started releasing e-mails stolen from the Democratic Party - the Democratic convention - and within a couple of weeks of that the U.S. intelligence community was pretty damn certain that you know Russia was indeed behind the hack and indeed behind the dumping. Now on the negative side of the ledger the story that we tell in the book which is - I don't want people not to buy the book – is like watching a movie like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The FBI contacted the Democratic Party in September of 2015 and said we think that some folks, the Russians maybe have gotten into your servers but what they did was they called the DNC helpline and they were given passed along to an I.T. person who wasn't in charge of I.T. security. He was in charge of making sure the e-mail system worked for the DNC. And for the next six or seven eight months it's painful. It's painful. There are these you know communications between the FBI and these low-level I.T. people at the DNC every couple of weeks. Not like every day. Well have you found anything? No we haven't found anything. Can you tell us anything more? No we’re the FBI we don't really tell you these sort of things. And it was like the gates were open for almost a year. So the FBI and the DNC tremendous screw up, a tremendous tragedy that we tell in detail. I think it's kind of gripping. But then you know after this becomes public the FBI and the intelligence community pretty quickly come up with the conclusion that it is indeed the Russians. And at the same time they come to that conclusion, they’re getting intelligence in that there are contacts between people in Trump’s world and Russians that is troubling to them and they learn that one of Trump's campaign aides - foreign policy advisers - had been in London and few months earlier and months before the DNC hack was made public had told an Australian diplomat at a pub where there were probably too many pints served that he had learned from one of his Russian cut-outs that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

LL: Before you go any further. For those of us who don't know spy craft language as well as you a cut-out is...

DAVID CORN: A cut-out is someone who is not necessarily working for the Russian intelligence service system or the foreign ministry but who reports to them and does favours for them and acts as a go between.

LL: The same time the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private server, wouldn't that have affected the way the leadership of the Democratic Party would view the FBI?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Yeah actually it did. And there was a great deal of paranoia on the part of the DNC and even more the Hillary Clinton campaign. In fact we detail in the book about how at one point before any of this is public the FBI goes and visits the Clinton campaign to alert them that they may have some problems that the FBI has picked up some indications that there may be attempts to be attacking and getting into its computers and the FBI doing business the way it usually does doesn't call for an appointment just shows up. And the people at the highest levels of the Clinton campaign freak out. They think the FBI is there because this is part of the investigation of Hillary Clinton itself. And Robby Mook who's the campaign manager is so spooked about this he won't meet with the FBI. He's afraid to meet with them. He thinks there might be some element of entrapment going on.

LL: Ok, so with all this happening you write some hard liners in the administration especially within the National Security Council recommended that the Obama administration hit back hard against the Kremlin for the intervention in the election. What were some of the options they proposed?

DAVID CORN: Well this is in the summer and fall - early Fall 2016 - when the U.S. intelligence community has determined that the Russians are behind this information warfare campaign and analyst and specialist particularly on Russian policy matters inside the White House - the National Security Council - come up with a list of very very aggressive counter actions many of them involving cyber warfare. They talked about trying to take down Russian news sites and some of the Russian related sites that were putting out the stolen material from the DNC. They talked about you know doing kind of the same type of stuff; taking intelligence they had on Putin and his cronies including information about bank accounts held by Putin's daughters in Latvia and putting that up online. They talked about having this big war, game a very public war game, involving cyber-attacks on a country that looks very much like Russia. And they were very assertive about this and believed quite strongly that Obama had to strike back, the administration had to strike back, and show the Russians they couldn't get away with this. There was a disagreement on this within the White House. Susan Rice the national security adviser for whom these people worked told them to stand down. Stop doing this. They were of course were ticked off about this. They thought this was the way to go. There were other deliberations amongst the senior most members of the administration. CIA chief, FBI chief, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and others who were trying to figure out what was the best response and when it came to cyber-attacks they were worried that would lead to a cyber-escalation and it would be tit for tat and that the United States which is more wired than Russia was more vulnerable. At one point James Clapper the director of National Intelligence says at one of these meetings you know if we get into this the Russians might be able to take down our electric grid which raises a profound issue that we're so vulnerable that if you want to take an aggressive step against Putin or anyone else we're not able to because we are wide open to an attack that might do worse to us in any way. And you know this is my favorite chapter of the book which is why I sound excited. It's Chapter 14 for those of you who have a copy and to me. It's like what would you do situation? We go into the situation room. We go into the meetings and the NSC. And everybody gets their say in this book. But I think it's a very hard issue. And I'd love for people to read the book and think about which side they would be on and what decision they would make in this difficult situation.

LL: Willing to share what they decided to do?

DAVID CORN: Well they decided not to use these counter attacks and the president himself was very worried that the Russians had the ability to basically blow up the election. They've been probing state election systems and they thought maybe something could happen on election day and his foremost concern was to not get into a situation where something would go wrong on election day and we'd end the 200 year long tradition of peaceful transition of power.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I think there is also another element that was going on and we write about this in the book which is that there was the expectation that Hillary Clinton was going to win anyway. And so there was a little bit of we can kick the can down the road and let's let Hillary handle this when she gets in. It's obviously a huge issue. Do we provoke a confrontation with the Russians now? I think that was sort of the widespread assumption at the time. And of course in retrospect that does not look like it was the correct assumption.

DAVID CORN: And the other thing going on at the time was that Donald Trump was already saying this election is going to be rigged. And so the Obama White House was worried that if they did anything that talked about the legitimacy of the election that Donald Trump would accuse them of playing politics.

LL: All right. I know you're excited but we're just going to shift focus a little bit here. There are still lots more to talk about. Last month the White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders had this to say about President Trump and Russia.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: He has been tougher on Russia in the first year than Obama was in eight years combined. He's imposed sanctions. He's taken away properties. He's rebuilt our military. He has done a number of things to put pressure on Russia and to be tough on Russia.

LL: Michael Isikoff is she right? Has President Trump been tougher on Russia than President Obama?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: No she's not. But look a couple of things. We document in the book how one of the first things the Trump White House tried to do and the Trump State Department tried to do after Trump takes office was to lift or ease the sanctions against Russia. So its first impulse after taking office was to shift gears and do away with the sanctions that President Obama had just imposed. Now having said that we do go back and look at Obama's record on Russia and it's not one that the Obama administration is especially proud of. In fact there are aspects of it which many of them now regret. The first few years was governed by a reset. The assumption was that the new president of Russia that Medvedev was somebody Obama could work with. We can do deals with. We can put aside the disagreements of the past but there were warnings from the beginning that Putin was lurking in the background. He was the prime minister. That he was the real guy who was pulling the strings. And then you get to the 2012 election campaign. Remember Mitt Romney the Republican candidate warns that Russia is the primary geopolitical adversary to the United States and the instinct of the Obama White House was to ridicule him and say this is a guy stuck in the past still thinking in cold war terms. And so I think that it's they can be legitimately criticized for not realizing the threat that Russia was posing to the West for not picking up fast enough on the kinds of warnings that we talked about and this is a case of the U.S. government failing to connect the dots and see the full picture.

LL: Let's talk about the so-called steel dossier, the reports by the former British spy Christopher Steele that were reported very sensationally that contained allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. David Corn you wrote the first story about those reports. Have they been discredited?

DAVID CORN: Well there's a lot of information in the reports that has not been confirmed. And these were not finished reports. These were not things for public consumption. Christopher Steele who spent his life as an intelligence officer now is working as sort of a private capacity was doing what intelligence officers often do - sending in these are the leads I've found my sources are reporting this. This is kind of akin to what a reporter might send to an editor I'm looking to this story, I'm finding these leads. He didn't expect any of this to be used for public consumption. It was sort of guidance to the group fusion guess that had been hired by the DNC the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign to gather information about Donald Trump and then see what they could do with it. Sometimes it's just a matter of passing it on to a reporter saying this is what we've found. You know can you confirm it? Can you use it? Which is what ended up happening. There’s the salacious stuff that people have focused on of course, the golden showers. And in the book we do detail the time that Trump was there when this supposedly happened and people can look and decide if there was the opportunity. We track him quite closely and we find there's a window one night where his whereabouts are not fully accounted for. He goes to his hotel room but it's unclear to me whether there was the opportunity for this to actually happen.

LL: And again just for our listeners sake it falls to me to describe the alleged incident of President Trump having allegedly two prostitutes to his room who were then made to urinate on him thereby that the term golden showers. Go ahead David.

DAVID CORN: Well not actually on him but on parts of the room.

LL: I'm glad you have the details, forgive me.

DAVID CORN: So let’s get that right. But so stuff like that is obviously have not been confirmed. People would know if it had been. But some of the big picture items that there was an attempt by the Russian government to co-opt and cultivate Trump. There is a lot of evidence to show that's indeed what was going on. They were trying to penetrate his campaign and his inner circle and that there was some cooperation. You know he talked about in those memos an exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Now we do know that there are members of the Trump campaign that were reaching out to the Russian government. And we do know that the Russian government you know the top prosecutor in the government tried to give the Trump campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton at that infamous meeting at Trump Tower in June of 2016 with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner the president's son-in-law meeting with a Russian emissary. So there are some you know big elements of the memos that do you know overlap with what we've subsequently learned.

LL: What was President Obama and Vice President Biden's reaction when they learned about the contents of the Steele dossier?

DAVID CORN: Well this is one of our favorite stories in the book. You know we have the honor of being the first to report this. It's not until January of 2017 that Obama learns about the details of the Steele memo and Susan Rice the national security adviser tells somebody else that he has to be briefed on this because at this point the memos are circulating amongst journalists and within the intelligence community. And so they may become public. So they you know tell him about the golden showers allegations and other stuff and Obama you can just imagine them doing this right. Looks around the room at everyone and says, “Why are you telling me this?” And he's incredulous and he goes “What's happening here?” He just couldn't believe that this was what he had to hear about. And a few days earlier Vice President Joe Biden was briefed on the intelligence the FBI had collected. And this is much more real golden shower allegations on contacts between the Trump campaign and Trump associates and Russians. And Biden has this visceral reaction. “If anything if this is true,” he exclaims - probably shouts – “It’s treason.”

LL: I think we will have to leave it there but I trust you will be writing a sequel sometime in the near future.

DAVID CORN: We'll see about that.

LL: Gentlemen thank you.

DAVID CORN: Thank you.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Thank you.

LL: Michael Isikoff is the Chief Investigative Correspondent for Yahoo News, and David Corn is the Washington Bureau Chief for Mother Jones. Their new book is Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. They joined from New York City. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Today, comedian Kathy Griffin joins Tom Power to talk about her attempt to return from "comedy exile" after making a Donald Trump joke that was beyond the pale. And remember you can always take The Current with you to go on the CBC Radio app. It lets you browse through past episodes of our show and start listening in just a few seconds. You can search for stories you missed or want to hear again, or listen LIVE to your local CBC station, right from your smartphone or tablet. Hear the day's top stories; even make your own playlist of your favourite stuff to listen to later. It's free from the App Store or Google Play. I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 16, 2018 Full Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This