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 2019

The Current Transcript for November 25, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: January 2016. That was the last time I contact with my mother. I don't know if she's alive or dead. My mother is 78-years-old. She's old woman. What did she do wrong?

LAURA LYNCH: That last time Mehmet Tohti spoke with his mother, she was Xinjiang, China. A new cache of documents reveals more reason for him to worry about her fate as they reveal troubling details of indoctrination camps filled with Muslim detainees. We're starting there today. And in about an hour, we'll speak with former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, about her views on China, Trump and the impact Barbara Frum had on her life and marriage. Also today.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Putting the information on the website and informing the media the way that he did, hasn't been done before. And so yeah, that's ground-breaking. It's definitely opened up the door to a dialogue.

LL: Leona Huggins is giving the Vancouver Catholic Archdiocese passing marks for releasing the names of some priests convicted of sexual abuse years after she went public with her own story. We'll follow up on that story in about half an hour. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

Canada needs to take 'concrete action' to help Uighurs, says activist

Guests: Adrienne Arsenault, Mehmet Tohti

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: How long do these students stay here?

VOICE 2: One year. Almost over one year.

LL: It's a rare glimpse inside what the Chinese government calls "re-education centres." Their official purpose, according to the Chinese, is to combat terrorism. But according to human rights groups, they are detention centres for as many as a million ethnic Uighurs. Albanian-Canadian historian Olsi Jazexhi went on an official Chinese government tour.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: What happens if a student wants to leave?

VOICE 2: According to the regulation of this training centre, students can celebrate weekends. So every Friday evening they could return home and they will return back to the training centre on Sunday evening.

VOICE 1: And what happens if they don't come back to school?

VOICE 2: So do you mean the students, if their family is needing some family emergency?

VOICE 1: No. They are fed up. They want to leave the school. They want to go to India.

VOICE 2: No, no.

VOICE 1: \So what happens if they don't show up?

VOICE 2: It never happens before.

LL: For years the Chinese government have denied the existence of these camps, but new reporting from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists tells another story. Secret documents describe programs of mass surveillance and interment of China's Muslim population. The National's co-host Adrienne Arsenault has been working on this story and she joins me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Hi there, Laura.

LL: We'll get to the report in a moment, but just remind us what's been happening in China's Xinjiang province over the past few years.

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: OK, so we're talking about a region where Muslims, mostly Uighurs, have lived for maybe a thousand years. And numbers-wise, you're looking at between 11 and 12 million people. So in a country of 1.4 billion, that really makes them a minority, certainly a very marginalized group. That has become more serious. So a few years ago, some workers were accused of terrorist attacks in China. At least one Uighur group did claim responsibility for one of the attacks. So China did what it says it had to do to deal with extremism. A series of laws came into place that they did everything from from bans, certain names people could couldn't call their children or make a certain type of prayer against the law. And then the constraints started to build over the last few years, really intensifying in 2017 when China opened what it called the, you know, these education, these vocational centres to retrain, re-educate, de-radicalize people. And since then, that's when all these stories started emerging of people just disappearing off the streets, people being held against their will and that's the story of the camps that's unfolding now.

LL: And at this point, how many people do you believe have been put into the camps?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: It's hard to say, but at least one researcher puts it at between maybe 10 and 15 percent of the entire population. So you're looking at a million to 1.8 Million people. That's an estimate we've seen satellite imagery analysts also take a stab at this. They're staring very closely at the landscape and the construction of facilities with prison like watchtowers. One Canadian analyst we spoke with has counted 100 of these camps. Another in the U.K. has identified what she maintains is probably the largest detention facility on the planet.

LL: OK. And now we have these documents. What are the new documents that the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: So you're talking about documents from 2017. Again, that's really key because that's the year these camps really sort of ramped up. The most, I've got them here, the most telling of them seem to be directions. They're orders on how to run the camps and pretty meticulous details and outlining if I read from it, preventing escape is the first priority. So that means ensuring it doesn't happen says when people go to the toilets or they go to bathe. That video surveillance has to have full coverage, which means no blind spots even where they sleep. There's an order in here for secret forces to be rolled out to ensure people don't talk. They don't collude. Their dormitory doors are double locked. No cell phones, no access to the outside world. And as you heard in that clip earlier, people have to be there for a minimum of a year. So every page you turn here makes it clearer and clearer you are talking, nevermind what the Chinese say about education centres, you're talking about a detention centre. And these are people who have not been charged. They have not been tried.

LL: OK, so any idea how the ICIJ got those documents?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Sure. This crucially, this is not a hack. This is a leak. It's leaked. And what's key about that is that it sort of raises the possibility, you know, that there's a senior and well-connected person within the, you know, the upper echelons of the Chinese government who might be having a crisis of conscience about what's happening. And I know some people say, well, you know, how do you know these are real? The ICIJ, which has been working with 17 different media partners, the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, us, the CBC, SRC. They've been in contact with with linguists, experts in the whose job it is to authenticate classified Chinese government documents. They verify them as authentic. These are internal party memos and bulletins.

LL: OK, the Integrated Joint Operation Platform is outlined in the documents. What exactly is that?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: What a mouthful, that is. I looked at it and wasn't entirely sure at first. But Human Rights Watch describes this as a centralized data collection system. So its purpose is to identify people of interest. That means using facial recognition, I.D. cards, licence plates, apps on on phones, internet activity, basic human surveillance, neighbours spying on neighbours. So what you see is that this system operates alongside the camp. So the system identifies the people who are then swept up and taken to the camp. So it tracks with the party, considers suspicious people. And it, you know, interestingly, reports in a very matter of fact way that in a seven day period in June of 2017, 15,683 are just picked up off the streets of Xinjiang and sent these education centres. And these are people who are seen praying, talking of their religion or behaving in some sort of fashion that sets off alarms. But I mean, really, it just shows that these are wholesale detentions. And a bit chillingly, as you go through the documents, they talk about detaining people or looking for people who have dual citizenships and they list the nationalities and it's not lost on us that they list of, says five are Canadian.

LL: OK. Earlier on we heard a clip from from inside one of these so-called schools and it was gathered by Olsi Jazexhi. I hope I'm saying that, right. An Albanian-Canadian historian. Here he is again.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: So the Chinese told us that they are sending us into a school where they were going to show it was how China is fighting radical Islam. The Chinese told us, come and we're gonna show you the classes where we teach these people. The Chinese told us that in this vocational training centres, they have brought Islamic extremists. So we were expecting to find here suicide bombers, terrorists, killers, people who are dangerous for the society.

LL: Adrienne, what did they end up seeing in those schools?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Wow. Olsi says, this is an amazing man by the way. He's very bold. But he says no we saw people who were, who when he asked them what their crime was, says well was praying or I was wearing a hijab or headscarf. He said he says he found people who are ordinary people who were who just believed in their God. A curious thing about Olsi is that he didn't at first believe some of the stories that that he'd heard that were out there. They've been out there for a little while about these camps. He thought this is ridiculous idea who would do this to people. So he very boldly contacted the Chinese government and said, you know what I would like an official tour. And the Chinese government said, well, alright and so they invited him in and put on what is arguably a show. He started taking video right away. People are dancing. They're in classrooms. Everyone seems to have brand new t-shirts on. And initially, it fit the government narrative and then it changes for him because he realizes over a few days they don't look right. They look scared. He keeps asking why they've been separated from their children. Why can't they leave? Why are they actually there? And the discomfort he asks on their faces, the discomfort you see when he asked those questions is really acute. He gets angrier, angrier, and realizes it's not true. You know that all the rumours he's heard are real and not just that, it's worse than he feared.

LL: So the Chinese officials, they responded to his questions, how?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Oh, not well. A couple times you hear the interpreter saying you really insist on this question. And at one point Olsi notices a wound on a woman's arm. You can't tell, he can't tell what it is and the interpreter sees him looking at the wound and says, okay, you can give me $2 million to rescue her. And Olsi says, pardon? And he says, yeah because you're so nice. It was very, very tense in that moment. Olsi was quickly at night uploading his videos to YouTube and it took a day or two before Chinese authorities realized what he had done. They were incandescent with him, but it has turned him from a skeptic into someone who is now trying to, he says, wake the world up to what is possibly the largest interment of of an ethnic or religious minoritiy since the Holocaust.

LL: And just briefly, Adrienne, and how is the Chinese state responded to this reporting?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Well, the BBC, which is one of 17 media partners went to the Chinese ambassador to the U.K. with this documentation and said, look, this is what's in it. What do you have to say? And the Chinese ambassador was adamant this is fabricated. He used that oh so familiar term, this is fake news. So there's a huge effort underway to get some more reaction from as many officials as possible, because denying it or pretending it isn't happening is not going to work for them.

LL: Adrienne, thank you so much for coming in and telling us about this.

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: You're very welcome.

LL: Adrienne Arsenault is co-host of CBC's The National. She was in our Toronto studio. Tune in to The National tonight to hear from Canadian Uighers who fear for the safety and security of their families in China. Now, Mehmet Tohti is with the World Uighur Congress. He is in our Halifax studio. Hello.

MEHMET TOHTI: Yeah hello, Laura.

LL: What's your reaction to these documents?

MEHMET TOHTI: It is not new for us, for Uighurs all around the world and back home. And it is, of course, alarming to the whole world. And they never expect that in this century this level of atrocities are taking place and never happen is just happening before the watchful eyes of world community. Just I have to correct number of things. Number one is the incarcerated people, it is the estimation of Dr. Adrian Zen, 1.8 million. In fact, it is more than 4 million. Because if you take two people out of eleven, you won't see empty streets, all streets in East Turkistan or China call Xinjiang new territory authority. The streets are empty for Uighurs. It is not my narrative, it is the narrative for all the reporters who went there. And secondly, China's government transferred more than 1.5 million young Uighurs to mainland China and imprisoned them, scattered them all prisoners across the provinces. And thirdly, the Chinese government held more than one million Uighur children, separated from their families. So actual numbers is more than 4 million.

LL: Alright. And you have family in Xinjiang?

MEHMET TOHTI: Of course.

LL: Do you have any idea how they're doing?

MEHMET TOHTI: I don't have any idea because since October 2016, I don't have any contact with them. I don't know whether they're alive or dead. Not only my mother, 78-years-old, all my 38 family members, direct or indirect.

LL: What did your mother say to you the last time you spoke with her?

MEHMET TOHTI: Just it was the October 2016 and she was scared. And she said probably we are going to see each other at the next world. And so keep to whatever you are doing and just stay well and don't worry about us and we should be fine. And don't call anymore.

LL: What chance do you think there is that Uighurs in China will hear about this report?

MEHMET TOHTI: There is not any chance because even they cannot pick up any phone call from abroad. And all the Chinese government already installed the government mandated software to all Uighurs, that's before the concentration camp. So that software not only monitors the phone call, the sort of phone calls you make or you receive. At the same time all of your daily activities, how much money you spend, where did you go, which way you entered your house, back door or front door, how much water you used. Everything. So it is impossible.

LL: And so what about Uighurs living here in Canada? What sort of pressure do they face from Chinese authorities?

MEHMET TOHTI: You can imagine actually, we have been bringing up this thing to the attention of our governments since more than ten years. And the Chinese extend it the arms everywhere. Because when you have families and the loved ones back home and it is not difficult for China's government to take a hostage of them and it controls Uighur Canadians here. In fact, the 2006, the first Canadian citizen of Uighur origin, Mr. Assange was abducted from Uzbekistan and sentenced for jail. Life imprisonment. So that was the signal for not only Uighur Canadians, at the same time all exiled Uighurs, just watch your step. We can extend our hands wherever you live. And that is the signal and it's still going on.

LL: Have you been pressured by Chinese authorities here in Canada?

MEHMET TOHTI: All the time. All the time because I have been advocating for this cause since more than 20 years in Canada. And the Chinese government knows me very well. And I was active when I was at university in 1980s. And that's the reason China's government did not allow any of my family members, extended family members or direct family members to come to visit me or they did not allow me to go and see them. So after I left in 1991, that was the last time I saw my mother and the family members. So that pressure are always here and for my activities here and my family members since 20 years, they suffered a lot and they sacrificed a lot. All the time if I go anywhere for a conference or anything, immediately police visit my family members and scare them to death and that pressure is all the time.

LL: Now that there is this credible evidence of what's happening in these camps, these so-called schools, what are you hoping will happen?

MEHMET TOHTI: If world community does not act, I don't know. If this level of atrocity does not send the alarm bell, I don't know what should has to happen to make our politicians or world communities to act. And so, if we do not, it is not about Uighurs, it is not about four million people. It is about our future. If China madness, Communist Party madness continues in this way, so what is going to happen after 2035 when China's Communist Party becomes world boss. What kind of world our children will be living. So it is not the Uighurs' issue. It is about our future. And unfortunately, there are some reactions from the Western world and from Canada. There are very verbal expressions of concerns without any concrete action. It is shocking. It is really, really shocking.

LL: What do you want Canada to do?

MEHMET TOHTI: Canada can do many things, and the United States already sanctioned number of Chinese companies and sanctioned number of Chinese entities. And we have Magnitsky law. And why we passed the Magnitsky law, to prosecute human rights abusers. If 4 million people and a whole population of Uighur ethnic group living in digital gulag, not only 4 million incarcerated, if this kind of atrocity is not enough to trigger or to use the Magnitsky bill, what else should happen to use it?

LL: Just for listeners sake, the Magnitsky law allows the government to put sanctions on particular officials.

MEHMET TOHTI: Yeah of course, and also as Canada, now we are providing funds for Chinese infrastructure investment bank. That is the bank provides funding for China's Belt and Road Initiative. And one of the prime reason why we are suffering today, because four landlines out of six are passing through East Turkestan, the Uighur's homeland. That's the reason Uighurs are suffering today. And Uighurs are the front line or East Turkestan, historic homeland of Uighurs are front line against Chinese plan to be a global boss. That's the reason Uighurs are suffering today. It is not about the Uighur's issue. So Canada should cut, should cut that funding to the bank.

LL: Mr. Tohti, we will leave it there. Thank you so much for your time.

MEHMET TOHTI: You are welcome.

LL: Mehmet Tohti is the Canadian representative for the World Uighur Congress. He was in our Halifax studio. And there will be more on China's expanding influence in Canada and around the world on our special CBC News series, China's Power, tonight on the World at Six and on The National. Now tomorrow on the program, sit back, relax, we're heading to space with a good bottle of wine. The spacecraft heading for the International Space Station has all the usual supplies, plus a few dozen bottles of a good Bordeaux.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We have yeast. We have bacteria with a number of other elements, like polyphenols. All that in a living environment, because wine evolves and continues to evolve even after it's been bottled. So again, this is an interesting ecosystem to study for the particular purpose that is driving us, which is to really create solutions for the future of our food industry and agriculture on earth. With a warmer earth, basically store these bodies for a year and we will indeed bring them back to Earth and compare them to identical bottles that stayed here on earth. And we will study difference.

LL: Hear more about wine in space tomorrow on The Current. Well the CBC News is coming up next. Then.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I gave them tremendous ammunition to create a new villain, and that's what they did. And it worked and to this day, as one commentator on MSNBC said, Susan Rice is the right wing's favourite chew toy.

LL: Susan Rice became the right wing's favourite chew toy over the fallout from the deadly 2012 attack against U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. I'll talk to her in about half an hour. I'm Laura Lynch. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Nova Scotia’s first all women lobster crew makes history as lobster season gets underway

Guests: Gail Atkinson

LL: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver is the first in Canada to release findings and recommendations after reviewing historical complaints of sexual abuse against the clergy. We'll find out what's next for the church. But first, a boat crew that's making waves and not just on the water.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from lobster fisheries]

LL: It's a scene repeated in harbours across the Maritimes at this time of year, lobster boats pulling out to sea on Dumping Day, the day that tops can be dumped into the water. It's happening this week in Nova Scotia and there's one boat and crew getting lots of attention. Gail Atkinson is the captain of what's believed to be the very first all female lobster fishing crew in Nova Scotia. She's on her boat, the Nellie Row in the harbour of Lunenberg, Nova Scotia. Hello.

GAIL ATKINSON: Good morning.

LL: Can you describe what dumping day is like?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, dumping day is a much, much, much anticipated the opening day of lobster season. We have a six month season. So we spent months preparing for this. And the communities are all sort of just abuzz with preparations and everybody sort of it's the talk of the town and everything. Everyone's talking about weather and whether the season is going to open or not. And it's just, it's pretty electric.

LL: And weather is having an effect on you. It was meant to be today. Are you heading out?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, sadly, no. We've been standing around the wharf a lot yesterday waiting for the conference calls in. There's a meeting with port representatives and DFO. There was a discussion about weather and whetherit's safe to go or not. And so they decided that it was a no go for yesterday. And we're doing the same thing. We're all pacing and waiting and right now, I'm not 100 percent sure which way it's going to go.

LL: When you get out there, how competitive is it? I imagine you're all racing to get the best spot.

GAIL ATKINSON: Yes, we are. It's super competitive. And what's going to make it even more competitive this season, I believe, is the I'm hearing that lobsters are going to probably open at a record high price. Two other districts opened prior to us and their catches have been down a bit. So that's driven the price up. So, of course, everyone's anticipating a big price. So everyone's going to be all the more keen to get their gear where they want t. We're pretty fortunate that we have a quite a large boat and I'm able to take all my my gear in one shot. So I plan to get it all overboard as quickly and as safely as I can.

LL: Tell me about your crew. Who's going to be on board with you?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, my partner Catherine will be onboard. My partner in business and in life. And two friends, one Sophie, who I sailed with on blue nose too. She failed the second and sailed in first. And another friend, Annie. She's also a tall ship sailor and she's fished with us a little bit. So that'll be my mainstay. Those four.

LL: Wow. You've all got experience at sea then?

GAIL ATKINSON: We do. We do have experience. They don't have the, I've been trying to teach them and train them the lobster side of things. But it's a difficult thing to simulate. Sadly, you just gotta get out there and experience it. So I've been trying to warn them that I'm going to not cut them any slack and I'm going to, you know, go at it as hard as I ever do. So they know it. They know what they're in for.

LL: And what about your wife? How did she come to lobster fishing?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, I decided I'd been lobstering for about 20, well this, I think, is my 26th season. And I decided I probably should consider trying it on my own. So I sort of asked permission to buy a licence. And that's not an easy thing to get into. It's very expensive and she agreed to give it a try. So although she's a physiotherapist by profession, she jumped aboard to give us all a hand and turns out she liked it a lot as well. So we've been working side by side for the last five seasons.

LL: Now, your story of your own female crew is getting a lot of attention. What kind of reaction has there been?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, I'd have to say overall, it's been super, super supportive. I've gotten all kinds of messages from all over the place, even as far as Louisiana from another female crew. And it's been fantastic. I kind of feel like I put a lot of pressure on my crew now.

LL: How male-dominated is lobster fishing them?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well I would say it has changed and I see lots of changes happening, but it's pretty much been a completely male-dominated industry. Like many others. I think mostly the very women usually stay or decide to stay the shore and offered support that way, in that way, but not so much working on the boats. Although I'd have to say my two decades plus of fishing that I'm seeing big changes. I'm seeing a lot more women out there on the boats, which is just great to see.

LL: But I'm still how are other lobster crews responding to your all women crew?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, on the face of it, they're all wishing us great luck and I'm getting messages see you out there girls, have a safe and prosperous season. They're not treating us any differently than they treat the other crew.

LL: So tell me about your boat, the Nellie Row. When did you get her?

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, I've this is my second Nellie Row actually. The first one I sold after four seasons and this Nellie Row is new to me. It's named for my grandmother, Nellie Anderson, and she worked in the boat building industry until she was 65 and she's still going, she's over 95. And I wanted to sort of honour her. So I named it after her and this particular boat comes from a boat yard where she worked, which is kind of a cool connection for me. And it's also a, it's called, it's an Atkinson Hull, which is a type of hull that I really believe in, have a lot of faith in. So it's the same boat, same hull that position with my dad for many years and it performs really well. So it's nice to have that underneath of you, a good, solid boat.

LL: Is that, I was going to ask you, why do you need to have faith in the hull? Is this about it being stable?

GAIL ATKINSON: It's about stability. Yes, it's about good. Like I said about being able to carry all those traps in one go and getting them in the water as quickly as possible. So the longer they're in there, the more lobsters are going to get in the traps. That's the theory anyway. And also, it's safer and also it's easier to shift your gear around and keep chasing after the lobsters.

LL: So just tell me what a regular day is like when you're out during lobster season.

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, we'll leave in the wee hours. You know, it could be anywhere from 1 a.m. to more 4 a.m. in that range and we'll travel out to our gear, which can be anything from an hour and a half to four hours, depending on where I am. The crew will be preparing the bait and all that on deck as we steam out. And then hopefully they'll have time to have a little maybe a little lay down and get some breakfast and then we'll begin hauling, which usually takes about, oh, I don't know, maybe twelve hours average to get through all the gear. So days can range from maybe 12 to 20 hours depending on how far off we're fishing.

LL: Twenty hours?

GAIL ATKINSON: Yes. But we do get to sleep because if the commute's like four hours or so each way, then somebody will take a watch and other people can lie down. The boat's well appointed. It has bunks and microwaves and stoves and heat. And it's not all that bad.

LL: OK, if you say so. You mentioned how competitive dumping day is. Is there camaraderie though between the crews?

GAIL ATKINSON: Absolutely. Yes, there is camaraderie. I think, you know, even though we are competing against one another, we're all watching out for one another as well. There's not a fisherman out there that wouldn't lend a hand to another one, even if they were rivals, when it came right down to it, if someone needs a hand or whatever, we're there for one another.

LL: But there was one incident when some of your balloon floats marking where your taps were on the water. Tell me what happened.

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, my first season, I think maybe I was getting a few warning shot across the bow, so to speak. And quite literally, I guess, they I had some of my balloons were shot up with like I think probably with a 22 calibre, I'm thinking by the looks of it. And then somehow I think I had a bit of gear hull, perhaps.

LL: What was the message you were being sent?

GAIL ATKINSON: I think maybe, you know, maybe I was being told where to fish or stay away or something like that. But one thing my father's always told me and other colleagues, don't back away. Hold your ground is a big thing here. So I do. We're all vulnerable out there. Everyone's gear is vulnerable. And I'm driving a big old, it's basically like you're having a big truck around carrying traps and stuff on the ocean and we all have knives aboard. And if somebody's going to start cutting your gear, then it's just as easy for me to go cut theirs. But I don't really want to get into that kind of a fight, but it does happen. It does happen a lot and especially in a super competitive area. You see people doing some nasty things, but I don't want to do that.

LL: But you have not back down. I'm wondering why you love this job.

GAIL ATKINSON: Well, it's a difficult thing to describe. I mean, obviously, I love being on the water. It's beautiful out there. You see gorgeous sunrises and sunsets. It is the wintertime in the North Atlantic, which is one of the most dangerous oceans around. The challenge of it, I guess, the thrill. The excitement of wondering what's going to be in my lobster traps. And it seems to work for me and I guess that old saying about it being in the blood is true.

LL: Well, I wish you good luck when you finally do get out there to dump your traps.

GAIL ATKINSON: Thank you so much. We'll take all the luck we can get by.

LL: Bye bye.

GAIL ATKINSON: Bye. Thank you.

LL: Gail Atkinson is the captain of the Nellie Row lobster boat in Nova Scotia.

[Music]

Canadian Catholic dioceses should follow Vancouver's lead on sex abuses cases, says lawyer

Guests: Mary Margaret MacKinnon

LL: I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: There's a lot more truth to be told, to be found out. There are stories that need to be told and what we've seen in other countries, we will see in Canada.

LL: Leona Huggins is looking for truth from the Catholic Church in Canada. As a teenager in New Westminster, B.C., she was abused by her parish priest. It took her decades to tell anyone about what had happened to her. The priest, John McCann, eventually spent 10 months in jail. But years later, Leona was horrified when she found out he was working for the church again in another part of the country. Leona wanted to make sure others like her, who hadn't yet come forward with their stories, got the help they needed and that the same thing didn't happen to others. Last week, the Fifth Estate and The Current reported on the campaign by Leona Huggins and others for Canadian dioceses to release names of clergy who had been credibly accused of sexual abuse, as many dioceses have done in the United States, often after being forced to do so by the state. On Friday, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver became the first in Canada to release findings and recommendations from a review of its historical files of complaints of sexual abuse against clergy. We heard some reaction from Catholics in Vancouver.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I am grateful our Archbhishop is taking steps to prevent it. So I have before they take their ordination, they are promising to God that they are not going to be tempted for all of this things. They have to keep up the promise, otherwise they shouldn't have entered into the clergy I feel. I'm not for punishment because next to God is the clergy.

VOICE 2: I don't know if I really do trust them because of their history. And it seems like maybe you get one archdiocese that maybe says something and then another one. So how do we know that they're all together in this? Or if it's only just one small segment that's going to do something?

LL: Mary Margaret MacKinnon is a lawyer and the chair of the Case Review Committee that looked into the files and she joins us from our Vancouver studio. Hello.

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: Good morning, Laura.

LL: Leona Huggins said she was looking for more stories to come out. What abuse did you uncover?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: We reviewed files dating back to the 1950s up until the present time, and we found 26 files which dealt with clerical sexual abuse of children in our archdiocese and we reviewed. I think it's roughly 10 files which discussed abuse or relationships between priests and adults of both sexes.

LL: Right. Okay. Now, the victims of clergy abuse have said that it's really important to publicly release names of clergy who have been credibly accused of abuse. Why did you release the names that you did on Friday?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: The laws in Canada are quite different than the laws in United States, and in some ways they're more restrictive. Our laws are mirrored on the British legal system, so that we have very different ideas about freedom of speech. We don't have a First Amendment right that you find in the United States. We also have privacy legislation which you'll find in each province and territory and defamation tort litigation, which makes it more difficult to release information which is in employees files. So the clerical files are employment files and we've released information which is in the public domain as a first step. I see our report really as a first step and a step forward. I don't disagree with Leona that there's more work to be done. We've released the names of people who were charged, convicted and who had lawsuits related to clerical sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Vancouver.

LL: So as you say, names that were already out there, but why didn't you release all of the names the committee looked into?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: Because we don't have the ability to do that under our current legislation. So we've appointed under the new recommendations, you'll see that we've come up with 31 recommendations. And one of them is that we have two independent investigators review all of our files. Some of the evidence in those files is paltry. It's historic complaints where there might be a letter dating back to the 1960s where somebody raises a concern or a comment on a file. Quite often where the priest was deceased when these complaints came in, not much was done. There wasn't a proper investigation to to weigh that evidence. So prior to putting somebodies name up on your Web site or publishing it. I think there has to be a real investigation. Somebody has to go back and talk to witnesses. Somebody has to see what that evidence is prior to offending current legislation, which doesn't allow you to put this stuff out on your website.

LL: So who's doing the investigation and who's paying for it?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: The Archdiocese of Vancouver is paying for it. There have been two independent non-Catholic investigators appointed to begin a review of all of the files, all of the priests files, not just the ones that were identified as problem files in case something was missed. Standards have changed over time. And what we may perceive as a problem now might not have been seen historically as a problem. Things like consent between adults is viewed very differently in today's legal terms,.

LL: Right because you might have seen a relationship between an adult and a priest, but you still see an imbalance in power in that relationship through today's lens. Is that what you're talking about?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: Exactly. Exactly.

LL: Now, Thomas Doyle is a priest in the United States who spent decades working with victims of clergy sexual abuse. He says the release of names of credibly accused clergy has been really important to victims there. Listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: For individual victims, it gives them a sense of support. It's a public acknowledgement that 'this man who sexually abused me now is being publicly admitted by the institutional church that supported him'. The other side of the coin, however, is that in many, many instances in the United States, in dioceses after dioceses, once the names are published, the victims support organizations take a look at the names and begin to do their own investigation. And in most instances are coming up with discovery that the lists are not complete. There are more names that should be released.

LL: I'm wondering Mary Margaret MacKinnon, when you when you talk about the list that you've released, would you consider it a comprehensive list?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: I don't know the answer to that. You know, there may be other victims out there. I think there are likely other victims out there. The priests that are named are priests who were identified historically as having problems raised by various individuals in the archdiocese. There may be other priests out there. I can't give you any assurance. I mean, these are the files that we found in our review. Our review is was thorough in the sense that we went through all of the files that had been identified. There's more work to be done. I don't disagree with with that. I think what we've done so far is is significant. And and yes, I think Thomas Doyle's right. I think Leona's right. Individuals who are out there need to know that we want to listen to them. We want to hear from them.

LL: Now Vancouver's archbishop said in a letter to congregants in February that his church is committed to and this is a quote, "correcting any systemic flaws that contributed to abuse or cover up." Did you find any evidence of a cover up?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: We didn't. We found one case and it's the earliest case where certainly today's standards were not met. There was a priest. There were complaints. He had certain restrictions placed on his ability to to act as a priest. But from today's standards, they were not what we would have done. We didn't find systemic abuse. We didn't find the transfer of priests within postings that you see in some of those egregious cases out of Pennsylvania, out of some of the U.S. jurisdictions. And it may be that our policies were in place earlier than those in the states. Maybe they were administered better, but we didn't find that. But any case, one case is too much, right?

LL: But were any of them, the other thing that's known to have happened in the past was some were sent for treatment instead of being referred to police.

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: We didn't find that. We certainly found that in cases involving children, those cases were, the police were notified and yes, people were sent to treatment, but in cases involving children, we did find notification of police.

LL: And notification of communities as well?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: Not necessarily. No, I wouldn't say that.

LL: You've said that the Vancouver Archdiocese has paid out settlements over the years in response to wrongdoing by clerics. How much money has been paid out?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: Again, I don't have an exact figure on that. I think someone in discussions I think someone said between 3 and 4 million dollars over the last whatever, 70 years, but I don't have those exact figures. I haven't been in this job for long enough to know those numbers.

LL: Leona Huggins was on the case review committee with you. You've heard from her earlier and we spoke with her after the release of the committee's findings.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It's ground-breaking. It's definitely opened up a door to a dialogue. Putting on the names of the clergy who are credibly accused, these are in the public domain for the most part and putting their names and photos and work history on the website is really important as well and they've done that. That being said, it falls short of the number that need to be out there. Moving forward, I would like to see the names of nuns, deacons and people who work for the church, non-clergy as well. Their names up there. And I know that our privacy laws in Canada are very different than in other jurisdictions, but where does the moral and ethical responsibility come to name names when we're talking about the most vulnerabe are children?

LL: I'm wondering what you'd say to those points made by Leona Huggins.

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: Firstly, I think it's not just the church that has this problem. This problem is widespread across all sorts of groups working with children. Teachers, law enforcement officers, other entities that have run summer camps. generally speaking, I think the point is well made that we should be attempting to put out information which allows victims to know that they are not alone and that we should reach out to them. So that's the first point. The second point, yes. More work needs to be done, to - and I think we've we've tried to start this process by appointing these independent investigators - to try and see what we can put out there, because victims who were children when this abuse occurred, whether they were at summer camp, were with their teacher, that they should know that they're not alone and that there is a pathway forward where people want to help them. And I think that's what the archbishop is saying.

LL: How will the Vancouver Archdiocese make sure nothing like this happens again and also help those who are victims in the past?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: The safe environment policies which have been put in place over the last 30 or 40 years are are actually good protections for children. There's all sorts of training which has gone on that's been strengthened through some of these recommendations. There's more vetting that takes place with respect to people entering into the clergy. We have way more instruction in terms of families and children and and volunteer screening that has gone on. So I think there's a lot more safety in it in the system. And I think that's the the main pillar of protection is is to ensure that people are aware that. They should be aware that this is a potential problem in all walks of life and people should talk about it, it shouldn't be treated with silence. The second thing in terms of helping victims, there's a new one of our recommendations is a new victims help line, where they'll be independent trauma counsellors and counsellors available to assist people and they'll be people assisting with reporting, because sometimes that's an impediment as well. People find it difficult to contact the police or sit through those interviews. We'll be providing assistance for those people during that process, which can be very complicated. So there's some new really refreshing components in our recommendations, which the church has accepted. I mean, almost categorically, these were accepted by the church, which is fantastic and a first in Canada.

LL: Should other dioceses in Canada follow Vancouver's lead?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: I think so.

LL: Why?

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: I think that we're moving towards a more victim oriented perception of this problem. Historically, there was the idea of protecting the church or the idea of change is difficult for institutions. And I think the nature of the recommendations coming out of our committee is that laypeople and community organizers and victims should take part in a process which reforms the church. And I'm hopeful that will be a process which is more oriented on victims and the marginalized people in our community.

LL: I thank you for your time.

MARY MARGARET MACKINNON: You're welcome, Laura. Thanks.

LL: Mary Margaret MacKinnon is a lawyer and the chair of the Case Review Committee at the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, which looked into complaints of sexual abuse in the church's files. She was in our Vancouver studio. Well, coming up in our next half hour, Susan Rice held important roles in the Obama administration and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations national security adviser, which means she certainly has some views on the challenging issues facing the world today. We'll talk China, Syria, Russia, and she'll tell the story of how she became the perfect villain for the right wing media. I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music]

Trump impeachment witnesses testified 'at great personal risk', says Susan Rice

Guests: Susan Rice

LL: I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: What do you mean by devastated?

VOICE 2: I was shocked and devastated that I would feature in a phone call between two heads of state in such a manner where President Trump said that I was bad news to another world leader and that I would be going.

VOICE 3: But this ambassador that, you know, everybody says is so wonderful, she wouldn't hang my picture in the embassy. Okay. She said bad things about me. She wouldn't defend me.

VOICE 4: Was there a quid pro quo with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting? The answer is yes.

VOICE 5: Zero evidence of any bribery. Zero evidence of extortion. Zero evidence firsthand of any quid pro quo. And yet impeachment is almost inevitable.

LL: Well, it is a dramatic and historic time in Washington. Last week a long list of military and diplomatic dignitaries testified about their interactions with U.S. President Donald Trump and his dealings with Ukraine during an impeachment inquiry. My next guest has been paying attention from an interesting vantage point. Susan Rice has served as the U.S., ambassador to the United Nations and as national security adviser to President Barack Obama. Her new memoir is called Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For. And Susan Rice is with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

SUSAN RICE: Hey, it's great to be with you. It's great to be out of Washington.

LL: I bet and back in Toronto where you used to live.

SUSAN RICE: Exactly.

LL: I'm wondering if you've been watching the impeachment hearings. What stood out for you?

SUSAN RICE: Well, a few things. First of all, it's quite clear all the evidence aligns and reinforces what the president said in his own July 25th phone call, which is that he was, in effect, withholding U.S. military assistance, $400 million badly needed by Ukraine, still in a hot war and a important White House meeting from the newly elected Ukrainian president in order to extort dirt, made up dirt on his political rival, Joe Biden. And so the president of the United States, is abusing his office, putting pressure on a foreign government, asking it to intervene in our political process in order to advantage his own political position. And in my lifetime, even having lived through Watergate, the Nixon impeachment proceedings, the Clinton impeachment proceedings, I've never seen anything like this where the subject of impeachment directly implicates national security and has the president apparently acting in ways that absolutely run counter to our national interest for his own personal benefit. So that sticks out. The next thing that sticks out and I'm very pleased that you ran the clip from ambassador, your vantage is just the extraordinary patriotism and dedication and intelligence and sense of duty to their oath to the Constitution that she and so many others displayed who are our career public servants. And to hear the president just blatantly lie about them, smear them, denigrate them. In this clip, you ran from President Trump claiming that Ambassador Jovanovic didn't hang his photograph in the embassy. Yet another bald faced lie. She and every ambassador hang those pictures as soon as they arrive. Sometimes they take a long time to arrive. They have served selflessly. They've come forward to speak the truth at great personal risk. The third thing that stands out is just how far gone the Republican Party is from their traditions and history and principles. The fact that they relentlessly defend the indefensible when it comes to Donald Trump is is more than disappointing. It's very detrimental to the survival of our democracy. And finally, you know, the big winner in all of this is Vladimir Putin, who, as Dr. Hill testified, Fiona Hill now is the principal beneficiary of the president's efforts to use his office for personal political gain and to try to undermine the U.S. Ukrainian relationship in the process.

LL: Do you think that, given all of that that you've just outlined, he will ultimately be impeached?

SUSAN RICE: He will be impeached, I suspect, by the House. Very unlikely he is removed by the Senate.

LL: For the reasons you were saying about the Republicans.

SUSAN RICE: Exactly.

LL: I'm wondering how you think these impeachment hearings affect how the world is perceiving the United States. I mean, it's long been sort of touted that the United States is the world's beacon of democracy. It's been promoted by so many Americans. Do you think the rest of the world is still convinced of that?

SUSAN RICE: I don't think the impeachment proceedings are what has altered that perception. In fact, arguably because the House at least is trying to hold the president to account. You could argue that there's still blood coursing through our democratic veins. I think what's undermined America's standing in leadership is a president who refuses, you know, on a daily basis to tell the truth, who has denigrated our allies and closest partners and called into question his commitment to those alliance relationships, who's lifted up and lauded dictators from Putin to Xi Jinping to Erdogan to Mohammad bin Salman. And, you know, he's really literally in less than three years, upended the foundations of our global leadership and our foreign policy. And so I think that has been the real disquieting factor.

LL: You mentioned Xi Jinping, with whom you met a number of times.

SUSAN RICE: Indeed.

LL: And I'm not wanting to talk about Hong Kong and your perspective on that. What's your impression of the protests and how far China will be willing to go to halt the protest?

SUSAN RICE: Well, the protests have been obviously extremely powerful. The violence perpetrated by a small number is concerning. It complicates the ability of countries like the United States and Canada to be as clear and unequivocal in our support for freedom of expression and for the two systems situation as we ought to be. But I want to see the United States and our Western democratic partners speak clearly and confidently in support of human rights, the people of Hong Kong and their rights to live in a system that is distinct from China's, at least till 2047.

LL: How concerned are you about what Xi Jinping might do?

SUSAN RICE: You know, I don't, I'm not in a position to predict what he'll do. I think there's ample reason for concern when you see how he's treated other populations, like in Xinjiang Province, the Uighurs. And many others, quite frankly, who've dared to deviate from the Communist Party line. I hope very much that they'll see the downside of engaging in Tiananmen style violence or even a pale imitation of it. But I can't say with confidence that that will necessarily remain the case.

LL: Now, Canada has its own issues with China. Our government is caught in this tussle between China and the United States over Huawei and the arrest of the executive Meng Wanzhou. Why do you think it was so important for the U.S. to ask for her arrest?

SUSAN RICE: She allegedly and I don't have any reason to doubt it, was very much involved in very serious export control violations, including those that benefited some of our shared adversaries, including Iran. Obviously youknow we want to see her ultimately extradited and then allowed to stand trial. You know, I recognize that that's put Canada in a very difficult position. I'm grateful as an American that Canada ceded to our requests to detain her. I think that was the right thing. I know it's come at a high cost. And what troubles me is that when Canada, as it seemingly often, if not always does, demonstrates its commitment to its relationship in partnership with the United States, we have in the White House a president who doubts and undermines that relationship with vitriol directed at the prime minister. You know, very little appreciation and respect for how important the U.S. Canada relationship is. And then shortly after the detention of the waterway executive for the president, United States, to suggest that she could be a pawn in a that we trade in a in the context of the trade war was absolutely reprehensible and inappropriate and undermine what I think was a sound rationale for seeking her detention in the first place.

LL: What do you think of the idea of China getting access to 5G networks anywhere in the world?

SUSAN RICE: Well, I think it's very dangerous because given my knowledge and experience, I have absolutely no doubt that where Huawei has access to the 5G networks, China, the government of China will have every and all access that it seeks to anybody utilizing those systems. And so when it comes to a country like Canada or the UK or Australia or New Zealand who are Five Eyes intelligence sharing partners with us, were Huawei would to get access to your 5G system, the United States would have no choice and I say this not as one who frequently agrees with the Trump administration, we would have no choice under any American administration but to substantially restrain, if not sever the close U.S. Canada intelligence sharing relationship. We cannot have Canada be a conduit or UK or Australia for that matter, be a conduit into our most sensitive information. And that's what would be the case.

LL: Even if it meant the dismantling of the Five Eye network?

SUSAN RICE: It would result in the dismantling of the Five Eye network if Canada or atleast Canada's participation in it, if Canada were to enable Huawei to access its 5G network. And there are many reasons why I say that that I can't get into in an unclassified context, but I say that with great concern and sadness. The last thing any of us, either in Canada or the United States should want is for that intelligence sharing relationship to be severed or diminished because it is so beneficial to the security of people in both of our countries. But we just can't countenance giving China that kind of capacity to access our most sensitive information.

LL: I want to turn to Syria, which you write about in your book. You talked about how your heart and conscience will forever ache for Syria. Do you think the Obama administration did the right thing in deciding not to go further in intervening in Syria?

SUSAN RICE: We had three critical points of decision with respect to Syria. The most simple one was whether or not to intervene to fight ISIS. The president decided we should. I think that was the right decision. The second issue related to the use of chemical weapons in 2013, the violation of President Obama's so-called red line. And the question was, should we have used force to respond to that absent congressional authorization? President Obama decided ultimately to seek that congressional authorization. It wasn't forthcoming.

LL: And you disagreed with that?

SUSAN RICE: I did disagree because I didn't think. I understood his logic. His logic was this could end up being a far more extended military commitment in the Middle East following Afghanistan and Iraq and he wanted the public support and through Congress. I just didn't think he was going to get congressional authorization. And so I was the lone member of his senior team in cabinet to disagree with that decision and to dissent. As it turned out, he didn't get congressional authorization, but he instead use diplomacy to negotiate the removal and destruction of what we understood at the time to be the vast bulk of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, 13 hundred metric tons and got that eliminated. That's a better outcome in policy terms than we would've gotten through bombing. So I'd like to say that I was right on the politics, but wrong on the policy. You know, I'd rather have 1300 metric tons out than zero, but neither is fully satisfactory because there's still chemical weapons there. The third tough issue we faced was do we intervene militarily in Syria's civil conflict? And we wrestled with that fight over that internally for years. My own view, which President Obama ultimately shared, is that given the totality of our interests, as horrific as that conflict was and is costly and humanitarian and strategic terms as it proved to be, it was probably wise that the United States not intervene militarily, which would have required putting our forces on the ground in support of the opposition to try to topple Assad. And I frankly didn't think then, and I don't think now that that would have been a wise decision as costly as it was. And that's why I say that, you know, my heart aches and I don't think any of us will ever sleep with confidence that we got that right.

LL: But you did decide to help arm and support those who were fighting against the Assad regime.

SUSAN RICE: We did.

LL: Did that turn out ultimately to be the right answer because that doesn't seem to have worked out that well either.

SUSAN RICE: Well, that's a more complicated question. And I'm ambivalent on that. Rarely do you find in history an example where arming an insurgency actually works. In the specific case of Syria,the opposition was really extraordinarily fragmented. And, you know, it consisted of literally bakers who left their day jobs to become freedom fighters. And it consisted of the hardest core terrorists, al-Qaeda, ISIS type terrorists. And we had to make sure to the greatest extent possible that we'd only supported those who were the moderates or the quasi moderates. And that was one hard to ensure and to. They were not the most robust of the fighting force. So it didn't yield the overthrow of Assad. I think it did put pressure on him for a while. And it may actually have prompted the Russian intervention because that came at a time when the balance seemed to be shifting, which obviously also was not a good outcome.

LL: And now, what do you think of Trump's decision to pull the troops out of northern Syria?

SUSAN RICE: Strategic catastrophe. Strategic catastrophe because, one, it takes the pressure off of ISIS. These Kurdish fighters and their Arab counterparts were the pointy end of the spear. They had sacrificed over 10,000 of their own personnel to put ISIS on the path to defeat and now they've been abandoned and they're not able to maintain that pressure. Betrayal of a partner that had counted on us, Russia occupying, literally occupying, flying the flag over American military bases or to one, emboldened and committing war crimes in northern Syria. Russia, Iran, Assad, ISIS, all winners. Along with Turkey, the United States, big loser.

LL: I want to go now to a key moment in your career. This was in September of 2012. The American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. And you were the person designated by the Obama administration to go on the Sunday talk shows to talk about the events. You did five live interviews. You ended up being severely criticized for some of your comments. You say in the book that stung. Does it still sting?

SUSAN RICE: Yeah, sure. Because I didn't do anything wrong. I used the information that had been provided to me by the intelligence community. It was our best current understanding of what had happened. It turned out to be wrong in one critical respect. There wasn't a demonstration outside of our felicity in Benghazi, but neither I nor anyone else in the administration set out to deliberately mislead the American people as eight congressional investigations validated. But nonetheless, in the heat of a political season, this was in the middle of President Obama's re-election campaign, I was branded a liar. I was branded incompetent, untrustworthy and many other names by right wing media and by Republicans in Congress in particular. And, you know, I don't mind being wrong. I mind having my integrity impugned. I don't profess to get everything right, but I don't appreciate being branded a liar.

LL: You recount this, quite frankly, fascinating exchange you have with a producer from Fox News. Tell me what this person told you.

SUSAN RICE: So this is as I'm writing the book after I've left government and it was interesting. He explained that Fox News has a very symbiotic relationship with its audience and understands exactly what its audience wants. That their job at Fox every night is to make their audience angry because anger equals ratings and nothing better than to make the audience angry than a villain. And a villain, he explained, can't usefully be an institution like the State Department. It can't usefully be the same old guy every day like the president of United States. They're always looking for fresh villains. And by going on five talk shows and creating five separate reels of video, I gave them tremendous ammunition to to create a new villain. And that's what they did. And it worked. And to this day, as one commentator on MSNBC said, Susan Rice is the right wing's favourite chew toy. I cracked up because I'm a pretty apt summary. And to this day, I'm named on Fox News almost every day of the week. And it's like a trigger. You just say my name and you know, it has the intended effect for those who are inclined to take that bait.

LL: There are consequences though. Tell me about the impact this had on your personal life and the lives of those people you love.

SUSAN RICE: Well, I think that the two people in my life that suffered the most as a consequence of this were one my mother who was in her later years in ill health. She'd been through four or five cancer surgeries and recently recovering from a stroke. And it just ate her alive to see me demeaned and vilified on TV. And she just she couldn't bring herself to turn off the television. So it's just consuming her for a period of months. And then our daughter, who was nine-years-old at the time, began to complain that she was seeing images of men coming at her out of walls when she was in the classroom in third grade or spending the night at a friend's house or even in her own bedroom. She was having hallucinations and her father and I were completely freaked out. We took her to be tested at Children's Hospital in Washington, and they were trying to figure out, is this a brain tumour? Is this schizophrenia or some other kind of psychosis? Is it a vision problem? And we waited for a few weeks until all these tests were completed and they had ruled out all the worst case scenarios, thankfully. And they concluded that she was having a stress reaction to what had happened to me and what she was hearing on TV. And we hadn't turned off the TV. Clear enough and didn't understand that what was background noise to us was terrifying to a 9 year old. She's now a happy, healthy, extremely successful 17-year-old girl. So thankfully it's OK. After some months, almost a year, the hallucinations went away. But I included those stories because I think people, at least in the United States, underestimate how the politics of personal destruction, which has now become so commonplace in Washington, regardless of your political party, has really unintended consequences for people who didn't sign up for this. The ones who who love the person who's being attacked. And that's one of the reasons, Laura, why I wanted to write this book because while I was in government, I was not in a position to speak for myself. I was speaking on behalf of the United States and speaking on behalf of the president. And so this book, Tough Love, is very much a personal story. And it's also at the end, in many ways, a plea to Americans to bridge our domestic political divisions as well.

LL: And to me, talking to you now and reading the book, I think that passion in you for your country still exists. And I'm wondering whether it's ever going to manifest itself again. Are you going to get back into politics either the behind the scenes or on a ballot somewhere?

SUSAN RICE: You know, I have no plans to do that at the moment. I have been unbelievably lucky to get to serve in the president's cabinet in the inner sanctum of the White House with a president that I enormously admire and respect and with great colleagues. And so if I never serve in government again, I'll be perfectly fine with that. If there's an opportunity to return in an appointive capacity, for the right president, I'd certainly consider it. And I haven't ruled out running for office at some stage. Not now, not while I still have kids at home.

LL: There's one last thing I have to ask you about, and this is mindful of faithful CBC radio listeners. There, it's a fairly brief part of your book, but you talk about Barbara Frum and the impact she had on you. Tell me about that.

SUSAN RICE: It's a really personal moment. My husband, Ian Cameron, worked for many years at the CBC. He was Barbara from senior producer at the Journal and they were very close. And Barbara had been a great champion of our relationship in our impending marriage. We were engaged. So this is 1992. And we were set to get married in a few months time and I freaked out. You know, I think I had a sort of crashing back of all the baggage from my parents divorce. And I went through a real period of anxiety about whether I was suited to marriage, not whether I was suited, whether Ian was suited for me, but whether I could really sustain that commitment. And so I moved out of the house for a period of time. We'd been living together. Ian was sent by the CBC to South Africa. Then I was living in a small one monastic apartment by myself in Toronto. And one morning, right when Ian was ready to come back from South Africa and we'd had no communication during this time of my introspection, I woke up as usual to CBC Radio and the headline was that Barbara Frum had died. And I just felt this sort of crashing wave of emotion and literally as I was lying in bed, it hit me that I had to marry Ian. That that was the right thing, and, you know, she had been such a champion of it and all that. All of the doubts that I'd been wrestling with sort of faded away. I had to reach in. I wanted to tell him that I'd had this epiphany, but also I wanted to tell him that Barbara had passed before he flew 18 hours back here and got off a plane to see it, you know, on a television screen. And somehow I managed to page him in the Johannesburg airport and he comes to one of those white courtesy telephones. And I say, honey, you know, two things. I have given this a lot of thought, and I hope very much that you'll still be willing to marry me, that you'll take me back and he said yes. And and I said and I got to share some really sad news that Barbara has passed. And, you know, we cried together on the phone and he got on the flight and I met him at the airport here in Toronto and we've been together ever since.

LL: Look at that. I think Barbara might have been happy to know that she left another kind of legacy from all of her years at CBC.

SUSAN RICE: Absolutely.

LL: Let's leave it on that happy note. Ambassador Rice, thank you so much.

SUSAN RICE: Thank you very much.

LL: Susan Rice served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and President Obama's national security adviser. Her new memoir is Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For. She was in our Toronto studio. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for the Q screen panel and their look at the Fred Rogers biopic, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood. Earlier in the show, I spoke with the captain of what's believed to be Nova Scotia's first all female lobster fishing crew. Dump Day, which is traditionally the last Monday of November, is happening this week. And while some traditions are made to be broken, like all male crews, Stan Rogers sang a lament for other changing fishing traditions. We'll leave you with "Make and Break Harbour." I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to The Current.

[Song: "Make and Break Harbour"]

Nov. 25, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode