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 April 4, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JANE PHILPOTT: You have to be able to hold your head high, and look at yourself in the mirror at the end of the day, and say that the choices that you made are the best ones in the circumstance.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Jane Philpott, signaling her comfort with the choices she has made in the controversy that has engulfed both the Liberal government and the Liberal carcass that she was part of until Tuesday. What began with allegations of political interference on the SNC-Lavalin file from former Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Reybold has had a ripple effect. And drastically changed the trajectory of Dr. Philpott's own once stellar political rise in the Liberal cabinet chain fell apart. Jane Philpott joins me with her perspective in just a moment. And then a different political fight, as Ontario teens and tweens stand up to their provincial government.

SOUNDCLIP

STUDENT: They should definitely walk out. Because a lot of them all they’re saying is like it’s not important to them, but it should be important to them because it’s affecting their futres.

AMT: High school and middle school students across Ontario planned to walk out of their classes this afternoon to protest provincial education policies that will, among other things, expand class sizes. Will that hinder their ability to learn. The view is divided, and we will hear the arguments in half an hour. And then 25 years ago, in April of 1994, Odile Sanabaso, a nine-year-old girl who was separated from her family was hiding in terror from Rwanda Hutu killers.

SOUNDCLIP

ODILE SANABASO: three guys passed by, and they machetes. And they were just walking around trying to find other people to kill.

JP: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: We just learned last night on CBC News that there were secret discussions to broker a compromise with Jody Wilson-Reybould before you were both removed from caucus this week. Were you part of those discussions?

JP: Well, there were allegations around some discussions that took place. I am not sure what the source of that information was, or how the CBC or others would have found out about those conversations. You know I can't speak to any conversations that Jody Wilson-reybould was involved in. For my part, I would say there were very, very few conversations that took place between myself and the Prime Minister's Office over the last number of weeks. In fact, there was probably only one conversation.

AMT: And when was that conversation?

JP: That was a few days ago, probably about a week ago.

AMT: And were you looking for anything from the prime minister at that point? Were you looking for an apology?

JP: Well, I have been very clear from the beginning when this took place. The issues just to remind our listeners is that there is very good evidence that there were attempts to have political interference with a very serious criminal trial. And I had to resign from Cabinet because I was not willing to deny that that took place. And from the beginning, I have tried to suggest that the way to deal with this is to speak the truth, to admit that mistakes were made, to apologize to Canadians for it, and find out how it happened, and make sure it never happens again. That's been my stance from the beginning that I've communicated to the prime minister and his office and others. So to that extent, there have been conversations going on. But I would not say that they were intense in any way. There were no efforts to bring all the people involved into a room together to actually try to resolve this. So I was I would have to say fairly stunned when I was expelled from caucus on Tuesday without ever having had an opportunity to speak to caucus to share my perspective on what had happened and why I had resigned from Cabinet, for example.

AMT: And how did you find out you were expelled from caucus?

JP: The prime minister invited me to his office and told me.

AMT: And what was that conversation like?

JP: It was a relatively brief conversation. He gave some reasons why he felt he had to make that decision. Obviously, it's the prime minister's... he is the leader of the party and the prime minister of our country and I respect his decisions and his authority. I wished him well, and, you know I hope that this will not have negative outcomes for those who are trying to move forward on really important causes for our country. I believe that I have positive things to contribute as a Member of Parliament for Markham-Stouffville, and I can do that as an independent. But I thought that I could perhaps do even more by working alongside my former Liberal colleagues — but I respect the decision that was made, and I said to the prime minister that I do wish him the best.

AMT: But you talked to him a week before, what was the tone of that?

JP: No, I did not talk to him the week before, I had not had a conversation with him from the time I resigned from cabinet until the day that he expelled me.

AMT: Ok, and what was the tone of this conversation when he told you were out then? What was his tone?

JP: You know I think everyone wishes that we were in it in these circumstances. Obviously, if the clocks could be rolled back many months that this attempted interference had never taken place then we wouldn't be in this regrettable situation that were it. So I think there's a tone of sadness and regret because it has taken away the attention of ministers and others to focus on some of the important issues. So obviously, it would be great if none of this had ever happened. I always think that one of the things I learned in Madison was that you know when bad things happen, when mistakes are made, errors take place. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner you admit that you know without malice sometimes errors take place. But you need to own up to that. You need to apologize to the people that may have been harmed. And you need to find out why it happened, and make sure it never happens again. I think those lessons could be transferred quite easily into the political sphere. And this could have been taken care of and addressed in a fourth rate honest way much earlier.

AMT: And so, just to be clear, you weren't in any kind of discussion to get back into the fold, in terms of like a discussion. We know that that there was a discussion with Ms. Wilson-Raybould, with certain conditions.

JP: I don't know where you got that information from. Certainly, I can speak for myself, I would never reveal the content of, or even the details of conversations I had when I was a cabinet minister with the prime minister, those are confidential conversations. So I think it would be good to talk to Ms. Wilson-Raybould to confirm her perspective on the stories that were, I gather, leaked to the CBC from some sources. So I don’t really want to comment on that in particular. I would say that there were people that were very well-meaning people, former caucus colleagues who reached out to me to try to have positive conversations and see what could be done. I was always happy to have those conversations. And I appreciated those who came to me in a respectful way to ask about what could happen. But from my perspective, there was no formal process or effort to try to resolve the impasse.

AMT: Why do you think more members of the Liberal cabinet and caucus have not rallied around you and Ms. Wilson-Raybould?

JP: Well, what I did, for example, I have to say it was a hard thing to do. I made the decision to resign from Cabinet because there is a constitutional convention of Cabinet solidarity. That means that when we talk about a decision in Cabinet, we may air our disagreements around the table privately, but we have to go out from that room of one mind to prepared to defend and support the decision that we have made together. And I've always been able to do that on any of the other important issues that we’ve talked about. In this case, the issue at the heart of this is the independence of our justice system. We cannot have a democracy without an independent justice system that is free from political interference. And I felt there was evidence that there had been some attempts interference. And the expectations of cabinet ministers to deny that the interference took place even, and/or to suggest that it didn't matter, that it wasn't important in some way was not something that I could do in good conscience. And so I could not meet my expectation of Cabinet solidarity on that matter. But it was a very hard thing. You know I don’t want to go into a lot of detail, but I have received some treatment which I think is less than respectful for my former colleagues and lots of folks on social media and elsewhere. And you know that’s not what the story is about. I can deal with critique. But it takes a certain measure of courage to step up and do something that is going to upset others. But I believe so strongly in the importance of us as a country having a justice system that we can trust to know that decisions are not going to be made in the courts based on whether the person or the company on trial is friends with or associated with a particular politician who will plead their case. That's the fundamental issue here.

AMT: Do we have a justice system in Canada that is now deeply flawed? You left, you didn't get what you wanted, it didn’t change. Does that mean our justice system is flawed as it stands right now, under this Liberal government?

JP: No, in fact, I think Canadians can be very thankful that the system did work. I believe it worked because the former Attorney-General did not bend to the wishes of those who wanted her to interfere in the trial. The decision around this particular trial, the SNC-Lavalin, is that you know it's been described by some as the largest corporate corruption trial in modern Canadian history. It's not an insignificant trial in any way. And there is a person called the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is completely non-political, who has a large office of people who are trained in criminal prosecutions. She made the determination that this should go to trial. There is a tool that the former Attorney-General could have used if this company qualified, but the Director of Public Prosecutions said they did not qualify for that. And there’s lots of evidence as to why we can be thankful that we did not have political interference didn't occur, but it was because the former Attorney-General was not willing to meddle.

AMT: And you make the point that she did not bend, so Jane Philpott, if she didn't bend, why do you have to resign? Did you not deal with it internally ... help me understand? In fact, it didn't happen, right? So why would you step away?

JP: The problem was that the decision of the government at large was to go out… and the first lines that you may have heard when the story broke initially in the Globe & Mail, the first lines that very day were: the allegations are entirely false. Well, we know now that they weren't entirely false. So I, of course, would not have felt comfortable having believed the former Attorney-General. I did not feel comfortable going out and saying the allegations are false. The story of the government has changed now to not necessarily denying the allegations, but to saying well it doesn't actually matter. Is I think the general tone of the messaging at that moment. And I don't believe that either because I believe it does matter but that this attempted interference took place, and that it does matter. And I think Canadians deserve to know, that someone takes responsibility, and apologizes for what took place. I essentially, couldn't go out and, you know to use a much-used phrase, toe the party line on this. And as a cabinet minister, I had the obligation to do that. Members of Parliament don’t have to agree entirely with the government. That’s, in fact, how the system was to work that Members of Parliament are free to hold the government to account even if their caucus members of the same party. But a cabinet minister has to be able to defend entirely and say in good conscience that they support the approach of the government. I couldn't do that because I felt that our approach was wrong.

AMT: And does that suggest that you think that the government will now, that Jody Wilson-Raybould is not the Attorney-General, that with a new Attorney-General the government will do exactly what it wanted to do under her?

JP: I have no information as to what the plan is. As I said, a long time ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that they do not qualify. I assume that the current Attorney-General will not allow himself to be the victim of interference in causing him to step in, unless he has some new information, but I'm not privy to those details.

AMT: I just want to ask you, you have been a star cabinet minister, with big portfolios, a reputation when you got Treasury Board for being the one who gets things done. With all the priorities you championed as a senior member of the Liberal cabinet — reconciliation, climate change, health, gender equality — you chose to sacrifice your political career over in this.

JP: Well, I chose the truth. I chose to act on principles that are so important to the future of our country. That's more important than my political career. I got into politics to improve people's lives, to be the very best member of parliament for Markham-Stouffville that I could possibly be, to stand up for truth, to represent what I heard from my constituents. And if that means that in some way I've been taken out of opportunities that I had before, it makes me very sad. I loved the work that I was able to do, but I have to be able to speak to my children and my mother and my husband and say I did the right thing. And to my constituents and say I did the right thing, I spoke up, and I spoke up for truth. If that means that I can't continue in Federal politics that will make me very sad. I don't know what my political future holds at this point, I think there may be some opportunities out there for me yet. The truth is more important than any individual's political success.

AMT: So if your decisions are out there are about principles and doing the right thing. What does that say about the principles and competence of your former colleagues in the Liberal caucus? What does that say about the principles of the government you are no longer part of?

JP: I don’t think it would be fair for me to judge the principles of others. People have to make decisions for themselves…

AMT: But they didn't do what you did. So that suggests that you’re suggesting the date on having principles.

JP: Well, thank you for asking me to clarify that because I don’t want to suggest that you know obviously everybody in it you know honourable Members of Parliament from all parties are just that. They’re honourable people who have the right to be here because their constituents sent them. They are all people of integrity. People I suppose have different bars, different principles that to them are lines that they can’t cross. For me, this was something that I could not defend the approach that was being taken on the SNC-Lavalin case because I didn't support it. And I ‘m confronted by media every single day putting a microphone in my face. I will never lie to the media or to the Canadian public and say something that I don’t believe to be true. And for me to go out and say everything's fine. I didn't feel that that was truth from my perspective. I understand people have different perspectives. And so it just became untenable for me to be able to continue and be able to speak freely and fairly what I believe.

AMT: There’s been a lot of criticism of Jody Wilson-Raybould for secretly recording her conversation with the then Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick. Do you think what she did was ethically acceptable?

JP: Well, I encourage people to read her submission that she sent to the Justice Committee, a very good forty-three page document, and it explains the reasons why she made that tape. But what I would say is I think it’s a bit of a red herring to be talking about whether or not her justification is reasonable, and not to focus on the content of the tape, what was said in that tape, what was being attempted in that tape was to interfere with the Attorney-General, who is in that case who was not wearing a political hat, she was representing the independent justice system. And there were attempts to try to make her do something that she didn’t believe was the right thing to do. That’s a disturbing tape, especially following on months of similar kinds of conversations. So I get that people find that its unusual. Conversations in Ottawa between media and politicians and lawyers and lawyers etc. are taped all the time…

AMT: This is a Minister of the Crown talking to the Chief in the Privy Council and then releasing it. Is that a little different?

JP: She will have explained that very well in her case that she reached a point where she did not feel safe, where she had endured months repeated efforts to get her to change her mind…

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Jane Philpott, we’re almost out of time here.

JP: I hope Canadians will want to know the truth. I think that’s what they’re saying to me.

AMT: We have to leave it there. Jane Philpott, thank you.

JP: Thank you.

AMT: Jane Philpott, former Liberal cabinet minister, Member of Parliament for Markhham-Stouffille. She joined us from Ottawa. This is “The Current,” stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Part two: Ontario student walkout

Guests: Rayne Fisher-Quann, Nina Bascia, Paul Bennett

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, and you're listening to “The Current.”

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come. It was 25 years ago that the genocide in Rwanda caught fire, and the world for the most part averted its gaze. Ahead of ceremonies marking the grim milestone around the world this weekend, I'll speak to two survivors who now live in Canada about living with the trauma a quarter century on, and whether the world has absorbed the lessons of Rwanda. But first, students in Ontario are using their own lesson plan today.

SOUNDCLIP

STUDENT ONE: To protest Doug Ford and his absurd decisions.

STUDENT TWO: It’s important to recognize students and teachers and what they’re worth.

AMT: The voices of students in London, Ontario, just a few of the tens of thousands across the province planning to walk out of their classes today. As you heard they're protesting some changes being brought in by the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Doug Ford, from a back to basics math curriculum and changes to sex-ed, to a new requirement for all high school students to take online courses. Not to mention a ban on cell phones in class.

SOUNDCLIP

STUDENT THREE: Schools are taking away like the help that kids need who actually need extra help. They're taking that away. They're putting classes online.

STUDENT FOUR: And I know like me personally, I'm more of a hands-on learner and like visualizing something. So I if I'm just sitting on a computer, it's not going to be the same. And it'll be a lot harder.

STUDENT FIVE: When I'm doing online courses that I don't take in as much information than if I were to do it in a class environment.

STUDENT SIX: I mean cell phones are a really important tool, and very helpful in class. Sure, some kids use them improperly. But it’s a very helpful thing. It’s like a computer in your pocket.

STUDENT SEVEN: By taking away the phones, nobody is really learning anything because they could always sneak it into class. And then even if it got reprimanded, I mean they use that at home anyway, right?

AMT: Well, one of the biggest flashpoints is class size. The number of students in the classroom will be going up for grades four through 12, despite concerns from students, parents, and teachers. Ontario education minister Lisa Thompson insists that larger class sizes will not hinder learning. Here she is speaking with the CBC last month.

SOUNDCLIP

LISA THOMPSON: One thing that we've come to realize is that when students are currently preparing to go off to postsecondary education, we're hearing from professors and employers alike that they're lacking coping skills and they're lacking resiliency. We heard that loud and clear at an Ontario Chamber of Commerce consultation that we had. And so by increasing class sizes in high school, we're preparing them for the reality of postsecondary, as well as the world of work.

AMT: Well, in a moment we'll hear from an education expert who has studied what impact class size has on student's success. But first, Rayne Fisher-Quann is a Grade 12 student, one of the organizers of today's #StudentsSayNo walkout. And she joins me in our Toronto studio. Hi.

RAYNE FISHER-QUANN: Hi, thank you so much for having me.

AMT: How many students do you expect will walk out today?

RFQ: Well, we are expecting very big numbers. We're looking at anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 students across Ontario.

AMT: So you've been in touch… you're organizing right across like in cities across the province?

RFQ: Absolutely, absolutely.

AMT: And so that's a big event to organize. How did you go about spreading the word?

RFQ: Well, we organized it entirely over Instagram. So it spread very virally within the first two days of our Instagram account being open. We had over 10,000 followers. So this is an issue that students really, really do care about. And when students care about it, we spread it.

AMT: What message are you trying to send with this walkout?

RFQ: Well, obviously, we are addressing all of those cuts. All of those changes. But I think we're also trying to send a bigger message to our government, which is that we aren't feeling heard, and we don't feel like our government cares about us. We don't feel like they're expressing compassion or empathy. It seems like they're looking more at the dollar signs than they are looking at real human lives that they're affecting. And the student voice matters on this issue. And we're demanding to be heard.

AMT: Why are you concerned about the expected increase in class size? What do you think it will do?

RFQ: I really, really do think that it's going to fundamentally change the way that our schools run. When class sizes increase, students get less time one-on-one with teachers. It's harder to learn. It's busier. And especially for students with challenges, students with autism, who are already facing so many cuts, students with different learning disabilities. This is going to be absolutely life-changing. I have a sibling who is on the spectrum, and who also has some other learning disabilities. Like I can't tell you like it. It breaks my heart. It's going to be so, so hard for them to function with these changes. And I think it's just showing that right now our government doesn't really care about the most vulnerable students in our province.

AMT: Tell me a little bit more about your own experience with classes and with the larger number of students?

RFQ: I mean I've been in classes that have had 18 kids, and I've been in classes that have had 32 kids. Like we already have classes that are stuffed to the brim. It is such a different learning experience. When you're in a smaller classroom, it's teachers can talk to you more, students are calmer, you can actually focus. And then when you're in classrooms that are, first of all, overheating because there's so many students in them, you have students passing out, you have students falling asleep. You have so much visual and auditory stimuli it's impossible to focus.

AMT: When you say stuffed, I mean how big are the classrooms? You mean literally like cramming yourselves in there with the desks?

RFQ: Yeah, absolutely. There are many, many classrooms in many, many schools across the TDSB where there simply isn't enough space to accommodate us.

AMT: This is not the first time you have helped organize a student protest. You were involved with the changes to the sex-ed curriculum and the protests there, were you not?

RFQ: Yeah, I hope to lead the We The Students Do Not Consent walkout.

AMT: And what were you saying there?

RFQ: Again, it was a similar message. I mean obviously that time we were focused on the changes to the sexual education curriculum and to the Indigenous curriculum. But the message was the same. I mean where the students were not feeling heard. And we really feel like our voices deserve to be listened to right now.

AMT: And do you think that anyone in the government is listening to you?

RFQ: I would say that I have met some incredible politicians over the course of my journey with activism, and members of the official opposition and the Liberal Party have been very, very open to hearing our concerns and listening to us. However, from the Ford government, I have not really felt any kind of empathy or any kind of caring for what we believe.

AMT: I wanted to ask you about the clip we heard of the Ontario education minister Lisa Thompson. We did ask her to come on the air with us today, and we didn't hear back. But you heard that clip from CBC “Metro Morning” where she says that not only will larger classes not impede student learning, it would help build resilience. What do you think of that?

RFQ: I was very disappointed when I heard her say that. I think it's ridiculous that the government thinks it's in the position where they're going to put our students through hell and just pray that they come out better because of it. That's not what government is supposed to do. We're supposed to be supporting our students. We're supposed to be helping them. And the changes that are being made it's going to be too much for the more vulnerable students to handle. I'm sure there are some students who would go through it unscathed, but many, many, many will not. And that's not a risk that we can take.

AMT: Tell me a little bit about the e-learning issue as well?

RFQ: Well, the government is making it mandatory for you to take four e-learning courses, which means that instead of taking four credits in school, you would have to take four online. I can't even begin to talk about the issues with this. First of all, I think it's incredibly classist. Like we're assuming that students have access to the Internet, have access to computers, which many, many, many students do not. And we're putting them at simply a systemic disadvantage. And at the same time, again, for students with learning disabilities, for students who maybe do not function as well in the school environment, that one-on-one teacher's support is absolutely essential. I've been in online courses, and I can tell you it's not the same.

AMT: And what is your suspicion that that's how they're going to cut teachers? They're going to have you just learn on the computer?

RFQ: Absolutely. I don't think that there's anything that can replace the value of a real life teacher. And I don't think that e-learning is any way to replace that.

AMT: And so this walkout happens the afternoon. Are you getting any support from teachers on this, or are you even looking for support from teachers on this?

RFQ: Oh, we are absolutely, absolutely looking for teacher support. I mean we do believe that we're fighting for the teachers in this too. We're fighting for their jobs. We're fighting for their rights. There are like we do have many, many teachers who are showing their individual support. Obviously, the larger unions and school boards can't make official statements. Safety is the number one priority. But we're really working on making it a collaborative effort with parents and with teachers.

AMT: And it's a 45-minute walk out, am I right?

RFQ: Yes.

AMT: Ok, and it happens at…

RFQ: 1:15P.M.

AMT: Why that time?

RFQ: I mean it was somewhat arbitrary. We wanted to pick a time where if students we do expect that students will be back in class after the 45 minutes. But we do want to make sure that in case some students do choose to leave, which we are expecting, we wanted to make sure that they were in school for as much time as they could possibly have that day. We wanted it to be in the afternoon because a lot of students have first period spares. We just wanted to make sure that everybody was included.

AMT: Ok. Thank you for coming in. We'll, watch to see what happens.

RFQ: Thank you so much.

AMT: That is Rayne Fisher-Quann. She’s a Grade 12 student. One of the organizers of the #StudentsSayNo walkout to protest changes to Ontario class sizes, among other things. She joined me in our Toronto studio.

SOUNDCLIP

JESSICA LYONS: The cuts will hurt my kids, and the cuts will hurt your kids. We have crumbling schools. We have kindergartens with 30-plus kids. They don't get enough one-on-one attention that they need to develop the relationships that really support learning properly. And these cuts are going to involve the loss of grants and programs that support the students who need it the most.

AMT: That is Jessica Lyons, a parent of three daughters in an elementary school in Toronto. The biggest changes in class sizes will come at the high school level in Ontario. They come after a concerted effort to reduce class sizes under the previous Liberal government. Of course, the issue has also been a matter of debate across Canada, with teachers unions in B.C. going as far as the Supreme Court of Canada to argue successfully that class sizes should be reduced. For a look at what the research has to say about the impact of class size on a child's education. I'm joined by Nina Bascia. She is a professor of education policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. She's with me in our Toronto studio. Hi.

NINA BASCIA: Hi, Anna Maria.

AMT: So what do you think of what you heard from Rayne Fisher-Quann, her fears about the increased class size in high school?

NB: In my experience, based on research that I did a few years ago in Ontario schools across the province, she's absolutely right. At the time that I did the research, which as I said was a few years ago, it was early days in the class size reduction initiative in the primary grades. And the smaller classes meant that young kids had a lot of attention from teachers, a lot of opportunities for one-on-one interactions with teachers, and time to really develop positive social relationships with other kids. As soon as they moved into the larger classes, in grade four, it was game over. We saw a lot of classes of grades four through eight where the numbers were into the 30s even we had. I'm agreeing with Rayne here. We saw classes where students were sitting on counters there were not enough chairs. Very teacher-directed lessons. No opportunities either physically or otherwise logistically for kids to interact with anyone else. And those are the years when kids tune out from school.

AMT: And we should point out that some of the children who will walk out today are middle school kids, so they would be like Grade seven and eight as well.

NB: Right.

AMT: Did you track what it did to the actual grades? You're talking about the conditions. What did that do to actual learning and like what did you see?

NB: We didn't look take a look at the students grades, which is actually it's an important indication, but it's not the only indication. We talked to a number of parents of kids who said that their whole child's engagement with school and their happiness and their ability to get along with other kids had been transformed.

AMT: Transformed in a good way or a bad way?

NB: In a bad way.

AMT: Ok. And after Grade eight, like what did you see in high schools? Is that the same issue the crowding…

NB: That was not an area that we looked at in the research. But clearly, the class sizes in high schools have always been larger. And this is a time when a lot of kids who are vulnerable, again, turn off from education. I get asked, and you may be about to ask me, whether there is an optimal class size. And the research is really quite, quite mixed on that question. But the more kids there are, the less likelihood there is that teachers get a good read on how kids are learning and what else is going on with them. And the less opportunity that kids have to interact academically with other kids and teachers.

AMT: You know there was some pushback at one point. The economist Don Drummond did a report on Ontario public services reform in 2012, and concluded that, and I'm quoting here, “that there isn't really solid evidence,” end quote, that reducing class sizes have value.

NB: Well, I'm not sure where he got that that information. But I do know that the research on class size is incredibly mixed. And the reason it's mixed is that there hasn't been a kind of a repeated effort to study the same phenomenon over time. We're studying very different phenomena, where we have different kinds of kids in different kinds of situations with teachers with more and less supports, et cetera, et cetera. And so the outcomes are really mixed.

AMT: And how do you respond to the statements of the education minister in Ontario Lisa Thompson when she suggested larger class sizes may build resilience?

NB: They may build resilience in some kids, but they will turn a lot of other kids off of school.

AMT: How expensive is it to have a cap on class sizes? Like is that the issue?

NB: Well, I haven't heard that the province is interested in establishing a cap on class sizes. What we had was a hard cap on primary grades, which meant you could not have classes larger than 23. It simply was not possible. In grades four through 12, it usually operates more as a rolling average, which is why we saw some classes that were absolutely huge. It is more expensive to have a hard cap. And so the government put a lot of money into hiring more teachers when the Liberals were in power.

AMT: You have said in the past there tends to be some magical thinking around this issue of class size…

NB: Right.

AMT: What you mean by that?

NB: Well, what I mean is in every case where a government introduces a new policy they're hoping that that single event will create a completely different situation in schools. And schools are complicated, very complicated beasts. And there are many policies at play. And there is no one single magic bullet that will transform teaching and learning in schools.

AMT: Do you think these students who are walking out today are doing the right thing?

NB: I do think they're doing the right thing. I think many of us have to speak in a whole variety of different venues and a whole variety of ways.

AMT: Thank you for coming in.

NB: Thank you, Anna Maria.

AMT: That is Nina Bascia. She’s a Professor of education policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. With me in our Toronto studio. Well, the loudest voices today across Ontario will be of students, but Ontario teachers have already been sounding their concerns.

SOUNDCLIP

TEACHER ONE: My concerns as a teacher are really the concerns of my students, and I do talk to them. And I'm hearing students that are concerned about being lost in a sea of desks, and not having access to their teachers, and really going through a system that doesn't have the time or resources to attend to their specific needs or interests. And I'm concerned that they're right.

TEACHER TWO: I fear that these cuts are going to perhaps increase my class size by double. I have 15 right now. The current cap is being pushed up to 28 for regular classes, but I can't help but think that perhaps next September, I'm going to house even more vulnerable young adults in my class, and it's going to be even harder for me to reach them.

TEACHER THREE: Slashing 25 per cent of teachers out of the high school system. It means 25 Per cent fewer professional caring adults in schools, both curricular and extracurricular are going to be cut out of the system as well.

The voices of Ontario teachers A. J. Blauer and Phillip Crichton.... and Harvey Bischof, who's President of the Ontario Secondary School of Teachers Federation. And while they're all worried about the changes afoot my next guest says maybe... they don't need to be. Paul Bennett is a former teacher and principal, and director of the Schoolhouse Institute, and independent research institute. He says class size may not be the be all and end all, when it comes to determining a student's success. Paul Bennett joins me from Halifax. Hello.

PAUL BENNETT: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: So what are you thinking as you hear the concerns about class sizes. From our last two guests and from those teachers you just heard?

PB: Well, there's a massive disruption in Ontario education. And everyone is focusing on one of the changes or the other. And they all get conflated into concern about the direction of the changes, whether it's mandating e-learning, banning cell phones, increasing class sizes, or an effort to take one billion dollars out of the school system. All of these things are fraught with difficulty. And have created tremendous turbulence. And what you're hearing are the voices of anxiety and felt experience in the schools. My focus has always been on let's separate the experiential evidence from the evidence-based research. And with respect to say class size, it's inconclusive. The massive reductions in class size from 2003 to the present haven't really produced the gains in student achievement that most had hoped. They have had some benefits as illustrated by Professor Bascia, and her research confirms that it improves teacher-student-interreactions. It's created more space for teacher innovation and development. But it hasn't really fulfilled any of the goals in terms of improving, directly, student learning.

AMT: You've referred in the past to an elephant in the room when it comes to the issue of class size. What you mean by that?

PB: The biggest issue when you poll teachers across Canada is not really class size anymore. It may be in Ontario now because of the proposed changes. But teachers are most concerned about class composition, and that is the complexity of today's classroom. The increasing numbers of kids who are severely learning challenged, or they have complex needs, and their inability to manage the class let alone teach it. And when you pit these two things, are you more concerned about class composition or class size. Class composition comes out ahead. And that is very recent too because of the teacher voice survey of the Canadian Teachers Federation. And a lot of other surveys too have indicated that the interesting dimension of this is we've got a bigger problem with class composition than with class sizes. Keep in mind that class sizes across this country in every single province have gone down since 2003, even in B.C. now with the Supreme Court decision.

AMT: So it's interesting though, eh? Because like you put your finger on something about the composition, but we know, for example, that there is far greater diagnosis of certain kinds of things like anxiety, A.D.H.D, a student who might be somewhere on the autism spectrum, but in those classes. Like that is a reality of our world today with young people who need to be educated. So does the system need to accommodate all of the different students with their complexities with smaller classes? Like is that just a given now?

PB: I’m actually in favour of amendments to any changes to protect those students who need the support the most. I think what's missing in this debate is a more nuanced understanding of what the changes in class size will actually mean. What we do know though is the reductions in class size from 2003 to the present have improved matters in terms of teacher-student interaction, allowed for more professional development, given teachers more latitude and freedom. And by and large, students are happier in smaller classes. We know that. That's not really debated. The fundamental issue is whether student achievement has improved. And there I think Don Drummonds report is more accurate.

AMT: And what does student achievement mean then? In terms is that like hard grades?

PB: Well, student achievement measured in terms of the only measures we have, which are student tests and assessments. And whether they be national, board-wide, or provincial. And these are all the measures we have. Now having said this, I'm actually the founding chair of Eesearch Ed Canada, and our mandate is to improve the quality of research. And the president of the OSFDF he was absolutely right when he said the research is inconclusive, and statements that are made like the Minister's statement that increasing class sizes will increase and improve resilience in students. That's indefensible. There's no research to support that. We have to call out statements that are being made that do not actually correspond with evidence-based research.

AMT: It's almost time to let you go. But what do you think is the most important thing for governments to consider when they think about changing class sizes?

PB: Let's look at the research and truly make it evidence-based policymaking. And when you do that, you come up with the conclusion that reducing class sizes was not always the best thing to do. And we don't know enough about what increasing class sizes does. There needs to be better research. The research by Professor Bascia is 2010. That's very dated.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Ok, we’re going to leave it here then. We hear you. Thank you very much Paul Bennett. Paul Bennett, former teacher and principal, director of the Schoolhouse Institute joined us from Halifax. Let us know what you think. Tweet us : @thecurrentcbc. Find us on Facebook. Go to the website: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. Stay with us.

Part three: Rwanda 25 years

Guests: Regine Uwibereyeho King, Odile Sanabaso

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, And you are listening to “The Current.”

SOUNDCLIP

REPOTER: ONE: a premeditated holocaust.

REPORTER TWO: They told Hutus the Tutsi rebels were foreign invaders, bent on turning them into slaves.

MAN: The bloodbath in Rwanda was not just simple tribal civil war, but was rather a sophisticated state-orchestrated final solution that was years in the planning. We can trace the silent complicity of so many members at the United Nations, who chose to simply means of genocide, so as to avoid making it clear.

REPORTER: THREE: General Dallaire makes it clear that something here has got to give, and soon.

AMT: A montage of reports on the genocide in Rwanda from 1994. Despite the warnings from the then commander of the UN peacekeeping forces there Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, nothing did give. The world watched, or more to the point, turned its attention away. And an estimated 800,000 to one million people, mostly Tutsi Rwandans were massacred over 100 days in a killing frenzy that began 25 years ago this week. Events to commemorate four months of slaughter will take place throughout Rwanda and around the world, including here in Canada this weekend. UN peacekeeping missions in Rwanda before, during, and after the genocide also included Canada. As you heard Romeo Dallaire was actually running the UN peacekeeping mission when that genocide began. Canada is now home to many survivors of this genocide Regine Uwibereyeho King is one of those survivors, she was a university student in Rwanda when the genocide began. She is currently an associate professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary. And she joins us from Calgary. Hello.

REGINE UWIBEREYEHO KING: Hello.

AMT: What are you thinking as you listen to that little clips of people talking about what was going on in Rwanda?

RUK: For me, it's the memories of the genocide coming back. When we felt maybe we had been left alone to defend ourselves. It's a memory of hoping that someone was going to notice and to come to our rescue. Unfortunately, we didn't see that happening.

AMT: No, you did not. Can you take us to that day when the killings began, where were you?

RUK: The killings began when I was in my hometown. I was on the Easter holidays before returning to university. I was actually on my way to Kigali for some reasons. I was delayed by rain in my hometown. And I never left town on April 6. And later on, I learned that my godmother's family, which lived in Kigali, was attacked early morning on April 7^th, and there is no survivor in that family.

AMT: Wow. So if you had gotten on that bus, you would have been staying with your godmother that night in Kigali?

RUK: Yeah.

AMT: And what happened to the people in that house?

RUK: So early in the morning, we learned that her and the three kids and two housekeepers, they were all murdered.

AMT: How did you react when you learned that?

RUK: It was a huge shock. But after the shock, it took me back to my anticipated departure. And I had a feeling that maybe there was a reason that wasn’t with them that night.

AMT: So incredible. You can be you can be grateful for your life being saved, and still be full of grief for what happened to them. It’s so terrible.

RUK: Yeah.

AMT: We should remember that the call to kill Tutsis was actually broadcast. I'm going to play a very short bit of a radio broadcast from April of 1994.

SOUNDCLIP

NARRATOR: All Tutsi's will perish. They will disappear from the earth. Slowly, slowly, we will kill them like rats.

AMT: Regine, you would hear that on the radio all the time, wouldn't you?

RUK: Constantly. That was the only thing that was on the radio, other than classical music.

AMT: And they would call Tutsis cockroaches, enemies of the people. Why?

RUK: Because that was part of the propaganda that Tutsi were the enemies, that they were going to pay, that we were accomplices of with the RPF.

AMT: That was the Rwandan Front…

RUK: Yes, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. So we were kind of associated with this army. It was through informal messaging by people who were raising awareness for the Hutus to rise up and kill their Tutsi neighbours.

AMT: Did you grow up with tensions like that between the Tutsis and the Hutus?

RUK: Not really where I come from. In fact, many Tutsi left other areas and they fled. So in the area where I come from, the killings didn't even start until the 22nd of April ’94. Simply because people looked at each other and they were like you are not my enemy. Now people are used to make it feel like almost like a joke, telling neighbours that I don't hate you, but I have to kill you.

AMT: Because one was Tutsi and one was Hutu?

RUK: Yeah.

AMT: So if we go back to that day that the killings began, and you realize that the family that you are going to stay with had been slaughtered. You were at your parents place as you say in what was then Butare. Did you stay there? What did you do?

RUK: Well, everyone was coming into Butare. So we kind of felt safe for the first week of the genocide. And then we realized that the areas that bordered other provinces, the people who lived in those the areas, were actually feeling towards our area. Many of them with machete cuts. And then we knew that were not going to be safe. But by the time we realized that, we couldn't do anything about it, it was already too late. Then we started sleeping in the bushes on April 22^nd. Our home was attacked, so we could not go back. So we tried to hide with one neighbor who his wife was a Tutsi. So we were kind of running between the bushes and his home depending on the mood of the day.

AMT: Who did you lose in your family, Regine?

RUK: On April 22^nd, my uncle was murdered. My two brothers were murdered. One was a sever cut with machetes, and miraculously he survived. But I can’t count the number of our extended family because they were many scattered in different areas.

AMT: What about your father?

RUK: My father was very lucky. He passed away in 92.

AMT: And your mother?

RUK: My mother is still alive. We survived together.

AMT: Okay, I'm going to… so much to continue to ask you about, but we have someone else who's listening in, who was also trying to escape with her life. Odile Sanabaso is listening in ready to join us. Odile was 9-years-old in Rwanda when the genocide began. She is with us in Montreal. Hi, Odile

ODILE SANABASO: Hello.

AMT: Where were you when it all started?

OS: I was at home on the 6th. My family was living in Nyanza, my parent’s hometown. That's in Butare. And I barely remember the details, but I remember that when the airplane got shot, we heard about it on the radio.

AMT: And this was carrying the president, of course. And this is like everything came from that.

OS: Exactly. So yeah, I was home. And I remember when we heard on the radio, I know vaguely you know my parents were kind of got really scared. Like I could see it. And it was a very big shock, to me. My parents probably knew was coming up.

AMT: There were a lot of kids in your family.

OS: Oh yeah. We're a big family.

AMT: How many?

OS: Total, we had ten kids. But in the house at that time because a lot of my siblings I had a few that were in university, they were living outside of Rwanda. Others were in high school. So they went to boarding schools.

AMT: Now you get separated with your dad from the rest of the family. What happens?

OS: So what happened is like a few days after my parents decided that we're going to go to my grandma’s in the countryside a little bit far because by history no killings ever got that far in the country. It was usually happening in big cities. So my parents decided to send us over to that place. And what happened is just I was the one that little girl who was very close to Daddy. So I refused to go with them. So my mom went with all the other kids and the cousin. So I stayed home with my dad made. And they had a hard time trying to convince me to go there because I think you know they thought was the best way to save me. And I was very stubborn. And thank God I was. So yeah, I stayed at home with daddy.

AMT: And at some point, you get separated from him. What happens?

OS: So if I go with the dates, close to when the genocide started in Nyanza, my dad decided to send me over to do an errand to his friend. His friend was living downtown, so I don't remember if it was something serious, but he sent me over. He said go give this to my friend. And then I remembered that like a couple minutes when I got there we started we started hearing fire guns like in the city like the genocide really started at that moment. So I couldn't go back home. So that was actually the last time I saw him. And then from there, when I got to the family, we started creating a little groups of people because it was just safer to hide as small groups.

AMT: I can't imagine what you would have been thinking. You're 9 years old. You don't know where your dad is. You're with people you don't know well. And you're hiding. Like you're literally moving around hiding?

OS: Literally yeah, in the bushes. Even though I was very young, I knew I was different, and I knew I was not safe.

AMT: So you kept hiding like right in that area? Tell me more about what happened. Where did you end up?

OS: So what happened was I was in the group with this lady that was a babysitter to a few kids in that family. I mean she was a Hutu, so it was kind of safe to be with her at the time. And with the two or three of the other kids. So we went to the bushed and walk and move around trying to find new hiding spaces that seemed to be safe through the night. And then in the day, we would stick to that place because that's where the movements are happening. So you don't want to be seen.

AMT: Could you hear people being killed?

OS: Yeah, we heard everything. Like you heard people being shot. You heard people walking actually sometimes. I remember one time I was hiding in that spot, and then three guys passed by us. And they had machetes. They had just killed a cow at the time, and they were like holding her legs and everything. And they are just you know walking around trying to find new people, other people to kill.

AMT: That’s got to be frightening.

OS: Yeah.

AMT: I can't even imagine. I mean frightening is not even the word. It's sheer terror I guess.

OS: Yes. And just not knowing if you know not knowing anything about me, I was very worried also about my family like I had no clue what happened to them. Had they been killed? But you know, again, I had some hope that you know my family I went to the countryside was maybe safe because I was told it was safer there. So I had some hopes. And then along the way, we had to play with that lady because it was getting very dangerous for her as well. Like she had an ID that shows that she's Hutu. But then she couldn't justify why she's with us. So sometime along the way, I got by myself.

AMT: And where’d you end up? You ended up at somebody else's house, who was it?

OS: At some point, yeah, I ended up close to my house. And then I went to visit people like first time I went to this neighbour lady that had been very friendly with us, and trying to you know help her you know keep me safe, which didn't happen because she decided to call the guys for me to come and pick me up at her house.

AMT: She called who?

OS: The killers. She got me in the house, and then she gave me food, so that I keep calm. And then she went outside, she called three or four guys, and then she called me outside. She’s like here. So yeah, so at that time, I knew it was over because what do you expect, right? The guys were there with their machetes and they're going to bring you to the Killing area. But luckily, one of the guys knew probably knew my brothers. So as we were walking towards the final destination if I could say, he walked slowly with me behind. And he tells me we're almost there, and when you get there, you're going to die. And he tells me like a very low voice he's like you I'm giving you two choices, either you run away in the bushes right there, or that's it. But it was something like a matter of a second, so I don't even think he ended his sentence. I just run away.

AMT: Where do you go?

OS: Honestly, there's nowhere. It’s in the bushes because when like that experience got me traumatized because it's a lady that I was thinking was a friend and everything. So I was like where else can I go. You know I don't trust anybody anymore. But the last the last person I saw before let's say before the end was another neighbour I went to. And then the guy told me like he can't keep me for a long time, but he kept me for the night, fed me. But he told me I can't keep you here because it's unsafe. But he told me about the orphanage in the area that was in Nyanza that would accept young kids. So my mission was to cross the whole city and get to that orphanage. I was living on the other side. But at that point, you know it's either I try that or I keep running around. So I managed to get to the orphanage very hardly. I don't know it may have taken me one or two days. I don't know.

AMT: How would you do that? Tell me a little bit more about what that little 9-year-old girl was thinking?

OS: At that point, honestly, because he was more toward the end of the genocide like it's pathetic to say, but I was getting experience and not being scared if I could say. So at that point, it was just like a matter of I just need to find somewhere safe. So if I have to cross the whole city and risk it, then I'll do it. And I did it.

AMT: Who in your family was killed, Odile?

OS: Both my parents, and my siblings.

AMT: How did how did you find out?

OS: I don't know till now actually because, unfortunately, my family didn't get a chance to find the bodies. It is the fact 25 years later I don't believe I actually lost hope on the 20th anniversary.

AMT: You know you've both been in Canada a fairly long time now. I'm just wondering how I listen to the two of you talking, and I wonder if you think you're on a different planet sometimes when you think about what you went through. And you know we pass you on the street, we don't know this. What's it like to be in this country, you know?

RUK: That's a very intriguing question. For me, I don't shy away from talking about it. Of course, if people are interested to learn. At the same time, I feel like I don't want to impose my past on others. But for me, I realized this so many Canadians don't have any idea of what happened then, and they don't have any idea of what has happened after. So when they realize that many people didn't know, initially, it would make me very upset. But then I realized I was just being upset people who wouldn't have any clue of what had happened. So I took it upon myself to become a public speaker and raise awareness.

ATW: What about you, Odile.

OS: It’s really quite contrary. I don't really speak about it much. I guess from the fact that I was very young when it happened and I came into a new country. I had to adapt to learn the languages and stuff. I really kept it to myself for a very long time. Actually up to this day, I never even told my whole story to my siblings. And I guess it's just my way too… I don't know. I try to put more energy on what helps me to advance and you know go forward in life. But I guess I'm getting older, it’s coming back. And now you know like I talk about this you know doing interviews and stuff. And I think it's helping me accepting and then which I think you know I've been avoiding it, but I know at some point in time, it will catch up. So it's starting to catch up now, but I never seen myself as any different because of my story. It's more people looking at you and being like you've been through this and that. And I hate it when people actually told me that because I felt like I… just didn't like it.

AMT: Did you go back to Rwanda.

OS: Oh, many times

AMT: When's the first time you went back, Odile.

OS: I went back in 2000. I went back to the area I was during the genocide. There were some people who would recognize me, and be like oh my god this is you. But I will remember them, except one lady that remembered me. The lady I told you about earlier, the one that called the killers for me.

AMT: The one who turned you in?

OS: Yeah.

AMT: You went back to see her?

OS: Honestly, I was told that she was still alive, and she was still living in the same house, same place. So I went for a visit.

AMT: And did she recognize you?

OS: Not only she recognized me. She even remembered my name. She was in shock when she saw me because obviously she wouldn't think I was still alive.

AMT: No, she sent you to your death.

OS: She sent me. She didn't get any news because I left Rwanda right after genocide. So when she saw me you know six years, after I asked her do you remember me? She was like Yeah, I think I do. And then she said my name like are you Odile? I'm like wow, you remember my name. I was really surprised. And then she started to act as if she was happy to see me like oh my God.

AMT: Did you confront her? What did you say to her?

OS: I was just I was just so much in shock that she is pretending to be happy to see me. And I just told her like you know stay away from me. Like don't play games. Don't do anything, you know? I just left. Like it was just too much for me like that moment. How are you.

AMT: She never apologized?

OS: I didn't give her a chance.

AMT: You know I want to ask you both because there would be some people who would be so angry at somebody like that that they would want revenge. And when you look at all of the people who were killed in such a short time, Rwanda is a country that has had reconciliation. Has it worked? I'm just wondering what people do with all of that pain, Regine?

RUK: Some people more hold on the anger and that revenge thoughts and defeating they just they either eat your way and they kill you. So for me, I couldn’t hold it in. In fact, for me, I think it's a very strange situation to be in. Because on the one hand, you see the evil in people. On the other hand, you also see the good. So I think for me, after the genocide was over, I really focused on the good that I was able to see in the midst of the genocide. I kept thinking of the family that accepted us in when we were running to their home. I keep thinking of a woman who used to cook food and bring it to us in the bushes. I think to me that they almost defied the actions of many.

AMT: Odile, how do you see it? The relations between the Tutsis and the Hutus now?

OS: Like to me, I'm not going to lie, I've had that anger for a very, very long time. And I guess that probably comes from the fact that it's not something that I would talk really about very much. I just kept it internal, so I was still in 94 for a very long time. But lately, I did a lot of work on myself. And I don't know, I'm starting to be more open. And I see there is hope. And I don't think that in this for the next generation everything is going to be clear and people are going to love each other and there is not going to be that being scared that anything could happen, but I have a lot of hope that in the next two or three generations, we are going to be one and people are going to be more united. But I really enjoy like I like how you know the new system is trying to have everybody together you know as Rwandans. Because I guess it's I guess from the fact that we were always we've always been told that we're different that everything happened. So it's a really good initiative that I'm hoping is going to work.

AMT: I was going to ask you how you're going to mark the anniversary of this, but I'm guessing that that it I don't know if you need to mark a certain date or if you live with this all the time, but I'm wondering what you want the rest of us to understand?

OS What I would like people to keep in mind the issues I have a lot of times people are trying to deny it. So I really think it's sad after this many years people are still saying oh, nothing happened, or there was a genocide for Hutus or Tutsi and Hutus together. But then again, I don't want people to identify Rwanda to just genocide, but not to forget because I think if this could happen it could help in any other country because people not knowing you know becoming or is not helping in any way. So never forget. But also you know keep moving forward.

AT: I think listening to the two of you, that is the message we get because you've both been through such harrowing experiences. And yet, you have both built lives here. And you bring so much humanity on so many levels. I really appreciate you sharing this with us today. Thank you both.

OS: Thank you.

RUK: Thank you very much, Anna Maria.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 4, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This