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 2021

The Current Transcript for January 13, 2020

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

DONALD TRUMP: The impeachment hoax is a continuation of the greatest and most vicious witch hunt in the history of our country. And it's causing tremendous anger and division and pain, far greater than most people will ever understand, which is very dangerous for the USA, especially at this very tender time.

MATT GALLOWAY It is history in the making, and my next guest is well positioned to help us make sense of it all. Jill Lepore is a professor of American history at Harvard University, a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of several books, including "These Truths: A History of the United States". Jill Lepore, good morning.

JILL LEPORE: Good morning, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY It is great to have you back on the program. You have said we are off the grid of the trajectory of American history. As a historian, what is it like for you watching all of this unfold?

JILL LEPORE: Well, I have to say, you know, one watches it first as a citizen and a human being, and it's... it's devastating. It's incredibly painful, the anguish the country is going through. The sense of real fear, I think, day-to-day of further violence. And then I think just the sense of loss, right? I mean, everyone around the world is dealing with enough loss right now between the pandemic and the suffering other kind of economic suffering or job loss, housing loss, people needing food. And then, on top of it, to watch the country that you love implode on itself. It's... it's... it's I think it's hard to sort of set that aside and be a scholar. But as a scholar, it's... it's extraordinary. It's a really, truly extraordinary time. There is no way to know what's going to happen next. This kind of thing hasn't happened in American history before. I think our models for this kind of Democratic implosion really come from other parts of the world and lead to of cycles of violence.

MATT GALLOWAY Can I ask you more about that loss? I mean, yes, the loss of the pandemic we have talked about a lot. But what do you think, as an American, what was lost on Wednesday?

JILL LEPORE: You know, there's a lot of idealism in the United States, and that is Americans at their best, I mean, not the bombast of that idealism, [slight chuckle] but I think there's a kind of, at its best, there's a quiet nobility to American ideals of the consent of the governed, natural rights, human rights. These are our founding ideals. And Americans do kind of steer themselves by those ideals. They think of the United States role in the world in the context of those ideals. And there have been a thousand ways in which we know that we fall short and that the country's history has in many ways been a betrayal of those ideals. Our role around the world has very often betrayed those ideals. But often it has lived up to it. And the story of the country is the story of the struggle to understand and stand up to that promise. So here was the promise being crushed. Really, it was agonizing to see. I mean, I will say I sat down on Wednesday with one of my kids who was doing a civics project on the Electoral College. We were just going to watch the certification, which I knew was going to be tumultuous, in the sense that everyone knew that the Senate, a certain number of senators led by Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, were going to stand up and and contest the certification of the Electoral College results. And they had support in the House, and they would go into their separate chambers. And we had, you know, like, [scoffs] parent/civics home teacher, you know, [laughing] like, trying to help set that up before we sat down at 12:30 to watch the coverage. So we sort of saw it unfold live. You know, we were... we were... we were watching these guys stand up and say these outrageous things on the floor, but we were watching the TV coverage where they would occasionally scan back to the Ellipse and then to Pennsylvania Avenue with the March proceeding and becoming violent step-by-step. So I had that to reckon with as well. I mean, I didn't want to continue to set aside the interpretation as a scholar, but as a parent watching it through a child's eyes, this is your country. This is... this is... this is the only country you know. I know a different country. I have at least the history of my own lifetime. I have the biography that is my history. This is... this is all a whole generation of Americans know about the United States.

MATT GALLOWAY People have been trying to figure out the right words to apply to what happened on Wednesday. And you wrote in The New Yorker that a possible term for last Wednesday's events might be race riot. How much of what unfolded was about white supremacy, in your view?

JILL LEPORE: You know, I guess how you would measure that is hard to say, right? We don't have a biographical portrait of each participant in the insurrection. You know, we have our glimpses. And I think the more footage that has emerged in the days since the 6th of January, the more violent, the more intentional, the less clownish and reckless and haphazard the action seems, the more predominant, in my view, the white supremacist attachments of people who are involved in the insurrection appear. They certainly were overwhelmingly white. Trump's support at the extreme very much draws from white supremacist organizations. And I don't mean to say like white people who some people would say are racist. I mean organized groups whose mission is avowedly neo-Nazi and white supremacy, kind of neo-Confederate neo-Nazi groups. This isn't me saying these people look so racist to me. [laughing] This me saying that a lot of these people belong to organizations whose objective is white supremacy. So, you know, I wrote in the essay because I think it was striking to me that no one called it that. We are so quick to call every organized action that features lots of Black and Brown people a race riot. That terminology dates to the 60s, and it was a way to turn civil rights protest into criminal acts, right? It was a way for opponents of civil rights to.. to... to classify political action as crime and to associate it with crime. And [laughing] here this was, this overtly criminal, I mean, even if you didn't believe that it was a determined insurrection and overthrow of the government, it was... it was vandalism. It was looting. It was attacks on the police. You know, it was assault and battery. It was, you know, the illegal carrying and bearing of arms. It was overtly criminal. And overwhelmingly white people. Like, just at some point, you kind of have to say, why not call this a race war? I don't think that myself, that's the best label. But I think I wanted to kind of call our attention to the absence of a label.

MATT GALLOWAY In part because, I mean, the House is going to debate the incitement of insurrection charge later on today. If he were to be convicted, Donald Trump would be the first American president impeached twice. And you've pointed out that the term insurrection also has this complex racial history to it in the United States. Tell me briefly about that?

JILL LEPORE: Yeah, so an insurrection often is used synonymously with rebellion. But an insurrection is a deliberate attempt to overthrow the ruling order, and it was used in the 17th and 18th century to talk about slave revolts. All through the 19th century, it was used to talk about organized rebellions of slaves who were seeking their freedom, political action, whose determination was to overthrow the political order. But it set in motion all kinds of legal apparatus. If you call something an insurrection, you can suppress it with armed force. You can assemble a posse. You know, there are things that slave patrols in the South could do. that's one reason they called it an insurrection. But, of course, you know, the... the... the other piece of the language of insurrection, which later in the 20th century came to be replaced by race riot, the Confederates were involved in an insurrection. And so one of the stranger elements of the impeachment is a reconstruction era section of the 14th Amendment, Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has participated in or incited an insurrection from ever holding federal office. This was part of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War to make sure that people who had participated in the... either recruiting or fighting for the Confederate Army or as officers in the Confederate Army couldn't be elected to Congress or to the presidency of the vice president, you couldn't hold federal judgeships. There's been some discussion of using that Section Three of the 14th Amendment as it's as an additional legal manoeuvre against the Trump administration. And not only there Trump himself, but members of Congress who voted to overthrow the election, and who used language that incited insurrection. It's possible, and, you know, I think this is something that's being bandied about that that language could be deployed here and would not be Inappropriate to prevent some of these people from holding office or running for office in the future.

MATT GALLOWAY Regardless of what happens with the impeachment vote, How do you think history will judge Donald Trump as president?

JILL LEPORE: You know, Trump is... there's no contest for the worst president in the history of the country award here. And I... I... I don't think there will be debate about that. I think, you know, plenty of people who write history are quite sympathetic with the policy aims of people who voted for Trump and supported Trump. And, you know, as they should be, there's plenty of room for political opinion amongst reasonable people in the United States, as in other countries where [chuckling], you knowm small government, the things that Trump stood for, lower taxes have been long-standing policy preferences of a very, very large number and often the majority of Americans. But as a leader in a democracy, there's just no way that any historian, whatever, that historian's own personal political preferences, there's just no way that any historian can really see Trump as having done anything but nearly destroyed the country.

MATT GALLOWAY What about those other Republicans who are facing criticism, to your point, for fanning the flames as well? They've been called enablers. They... and many of them are now saying, well, hold on, we've had enough. But up until, you know, last Wednesday, many of them were right alongside him. When you look at the history of the GOP and where it stands today, what's the story that emerges to you?

JILL LEPORE: Well, I think a lot of them are still right alongside him today, and that remains really surprising, I think, to people. I think in many ways, as horrible as the events of the 6th of January were and as dreadful as their consequences are, for those Republicans and certainly for GOP leaders who are eager to move past Trump to get back to the work of governing and away from the work of what would essentially be a planned obstructionism of the Biden administration, people who are actually care about the country, want to see Biden succeed, even if even as they want to contest many of his objectives. This this is... This is an incredible opportunity for them to reshape the Republican Party, I think would be a very different party. But it looks quite difficult from here to see how the Republican Party continues as a single party at this moment. I mean, the fracture between those who are willing to vote for impeachment, who have already renounced Trump, I mean, we've already heard that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly supports impeachment, thinks the offences were impeachable. It's hard to see how he co-exists in the same party with people who, to the very end, will be defending Trump.

MATT GALLOWAY What about the nation itself? I mean, before the election, we did on this program, the sort of virtual road trip down the Mississippi River. And we talked to voters, Democrats and Republicans and people who were still trying to make up their mind. And to a letter almost, they said that they were concerned about the divided nature of the country, the fact that people weren't listening to each other, that they were talking at each other or shouting at each other. Are there lessons... I mean, Joe Biden has said that he wants to unite the country. Are there lessons from history about how to actually do that?

JILL LEPORE: I think it's quite important to note, though, how many Americans share a sense of exhaustion at this politics as warfare, especially the kind of holy war degree of this kind of politics. So I think the overwhelming majority of Americans are exhausted and eager to move on, in spite of their real political differences. I don't think people have the kind of appetite for incitement, that is to say, the vast majority of Americans, that has been fan for a long time. So I'm somewhat optimistic. I think that if I imagine the kind of basic boring duties of being a bureaucrat that I think Biden and his administration will be good at, I'm pretty excited for. Like, I'm pretty excited for the weekly press conference where, you know, different members of the cabinet come in and report on what they're doing. And we hear Pete Buttigieg talk about some high-speed rail plan. And then, we hear the CDC talk about vaccination rates and a new step-up of the vaccination distribution program. And then we hear someone come on and... and talk about the federal budget for 20 minutes and answer questions from the AP. [laughing] Like, that seems very appealing, I think, to most Americans right now compared to being stuck in this very dangerous pinball machine.

MATT GALLOWAY Because people... some people have called for some sort of, you know, Post-Trump Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to really get at the heart of those divisions, but try through a commission like that to, you know, air the grievances and then figure out how to bring the two sides back together. Given what you said about people, you know, being exhausted. Do you think there's an appetite for that? Is that the right way to move forward?

JILL LEPORE: Yeah, I think there's absolutely an appetite for that. You know, that... that proposal has been made again and again. You know, I absolutely believe there need to be consequences for the criminal behaviour of the Trump administration, for the constitutional violations, for the human rights abuses. I think it's tricky for Biden that there's that the impeachment will be the first thing that Congress is doing as he is sworn in next week. And so, you know, I... I one of the reasons I myself am not a fan of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is that one of the logic of those commissions is that they provide amnesty to perpetrators. So the reason to do it, among the reasons to hold a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to provide a full and complete historical record for victims of atrocity, which is... which is essential in cases where the historical record has been destroyed, as it in cases like South Africa, say, or Guatemala. But the way the record is assembled is by promising amnesty to everyone who comes to testify. I don't believe in amnesty for people who have been part of this regime in the United States. I think people should be prosecuted. I also don't believe the historical record is impoverished in this way. If you think about the policy of separating parents and children at the border and detention camps, the human rights abuse that that is, the grotesque atrocity that that is is nevertheless well-documented, needs to be investigated, needs to be punished, needs to be exposed. To me, that I wouldn't be willing to give away the possibility of prosecution in exchange for forgiving that historical record.

MATT GALLOWAY Just in the last few minutes that we have, I know you don't like to predict the future because you've said that historians are terrible at doing that. But do you worry, knowing what you know about the institutions of American democracy and what you've seen not just in the last week, but over the last four years, do you worry about the fragility of democracy itself?

JILL LEPORE: I absolutely worry about the fragility of democracy itself, not only here, but around the world, and I would give predictions if I thought they were any good [both laughing]. They're always so terrible. And we really are living in a moment when the possibility for think about the seeming suddenness of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Twitter could go under tomorrow right? [chuckling] You know, we could lose massive social media platforms to regulation. The mechanisms by which we communicate with one another, the platforms that have been so profoundly contributed to the division, to misinformation, to the delusional conspiracy theories that animate so much of politics here and around the world, that communications infrastructure, that's not part of the natural world, that stuff was built. It could fall apart any day now, could collapse like the Berlin Wall. So we don't... we just don't... and when that happens, the entire game changes. So we don't really know. And I think one of the things that people wanted to call the 6th of January was Epiphany, because it was the day of epiphany. And it seemed, I think to many people watching. Oh, well, this will finally reveal at last that the Republicans have been lying about the election having been stolen. And it seemed that way for about 20 minutes, [laughing] 20 minutes, that it would be some epiphany. And I don't think it's going to happen, but it is a day from which there is no coming back.

MATT GALLOWAY It's always a pleasure to talk to you. I really appreciate your time this morning. Jill, thank you.

JILL LEPORE: Thank you so much, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY Jill Lepore is a professor of American history at Harvard University, a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of several books, including "These Truths: A History of the United States". Your CBC News is up next. And then.

KEN BOSSENKOOL: You know, in the past, when people said, oh, isn't what trump's doing good? And I would always say, well, Trump's a horrible man. And they're like, well, yeah, he's a horrible man, but what he's doing is good. So I'm glad he's there. And I would sort of let the conversation end at that point. I'm not going to do that anymore.

MATT GALLOWAY The Canadian Conservative strategist Ken Bossenkool, on why he is shutting out Trump supporters from his social and political circle. He's here in six minutes time. I Matt Galloway, you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. Stick around.

[Music: Theme]

Rooting Trumpism’ out of Canadian politics

Guests: Ken Bossenkool, Charelle Evelyn, Kelly Cryderman

MATT GALLOWAY: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: Still to come, for decades, it was common practise for unwed Irish mothers to have their babies taken away by the Catholic Church. Now, a new report reveals a staggering level of abuse suffered by both mother and child. A look inside Ireland's mother and baby homes coming up. But first, rooting out Trump ism in Canada's Conservative Party.

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: Before the news, historian Jill Lepore was here speaking about how history will see Donald Trump. His style of populism has taken hold in other countries beyond the United States. And that is something our next guest is worried about in Canada. Some may be surprised to hear that he is a lifelong, dyed-in-the-wool conservative Ken Bossenkool has worked for Stephen Harper, Christy Clark and Preston Manning. And in the last few years, he's listened to fellow Conservatives brush aside Donald Trump's character flaws, and express support for his ideas. But he says the events of the last week changed all that. And he wrote an opinion piece for The Line saying he would no longer tolerate casual Trumpism in his personal or political cohort. What does that mean? Ken Boessenkool joins me now. Ken, good morning.

KEN BOSSENKOOL: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: What did you mean by casual Trumpism?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: There's a difference between the people who are the radicalizers and the people who are... who are knowingly lying about things like stealing the election. And then there's people who... who listen to those people and sort of take it under their wing. And I'm talking more about the latter people. And, you know, I've got a number of them in my private life. I've got a number of them in our political life. And, you know, in the past, when people said, oh, isn't isn't what Trump's doing good? And I would always say, well, Trump's a horrible man. And they're like, well, yeah, he's horrible man. But what he's doing is good, so I'm glad he's there. And I would sort of let the conversation end at that point, but I'm not going to do that anymore. I'm going to say, look, Trump is a bad man, he's an evil man. And he did evil things. And he tried to overthrow the government in order to try and steal an election. That combination of character flaws [chuckling] is so great that I'm just not going to... I'm not going to allow people to get away with saying that what he did was OK, even if he was a bad man.

MATT GALLOWAY: For people who might be having difficulty wrapping their heads around it, why did you tolerate that casual Trumpism until now?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: The word tolerate means you allow people to say things that you disagree with, but you don't, you allow them to get away with saying it. So I disagreed with them. I just allowed them to say it. You know, at some point, I just stop talking. And now, I'm just I'm going to go one step further and say, what you believe is unacceptable.

MATT GALLOWAY: But for you, I mean, when Donald Trump was even, you know, announcing that he was going to run for president, he came down that escalator. People have seen the video. And he talked about Mexicans being rapists and murderers. His character was on full display. And there were a lot of people who at that point said, a lot of Republicans who said, this man is a destructive force. This man is not acceptable. What he is saying is not acceptable. And they stepped away from that. Given the fact that you say that there was some things that he did that you appreciated, was there sort of a transactional relationship among some Conservatives that that, you know, he was in power, they were willing to forgive other things because he was able to do certain things?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: I'm going to correct you because I don't think it's things that he did that I think are good. I think things happened in the last four years, I mean, the president doesn't control the entire agenda in Washington. And I think most... most of the things that I like that happened were... were not things he did, but were things that some of the other people who tolerated him in Washington [chuckling] got done. Look, I was one of those people who said this was a bad thing. I think the weakening of political parties across... across many countries these days is a bad thing. I don't think Donald Trump would have been able to get the nomination in... in the U.S. In 1984. And I think political parties need to do a much better job of making sure that the people that they put in places of power have the character appropriate to the power that we're giving them. And the Republican Party failed to do that.

MATT GALLOWAY: To what extent do you see Trumpism in the federal Conservative Party now?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: In every political party, there are the ideologues, and I use that term in a positive sense, not the pejorative sense many use it. They're the ideologues who have a vision for the country and a vision for the government that they want to get done. And then there are populists, who are known for what they're against as opposed to what they're for. And every political party needs to keep the populists and the ideologues within their tent. And to be perfectly blunt, Conservatives are not going to get elected without talking to the populous. Those populists are part of the coalition, and it's how you talk to them. And, you know, I would say we find policy solutions that speak to them as opposed to stoking their anger. That's a lot harder, but it's what we need to do.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you think it's appropriate that the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, Candice Bergen, is seen in a photo wearing "Make America Great Again" hat?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: Candice is a close friend. I'm led to understand she was given that hat by someone to pose with it. I think she made a statement on Donald Trump that I accept. I wrote in my piece that people deserve second chances. I have been given a big second chance myself after I made a huge mistake in my life. If Candice put on MAGA hat today, I would be extremely dismissive and extremely upset.

MATT GALLOWAY: What about a post by the party saying that Trudeau is rigging the next election? This post has been taken down, subsequently. But again, if you're talking about actions and actions having consequences, but also meaning, is something like that appropriate for the Conservative Party?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: I think the context of that post was some electoral reforms that the Liberals were proposing --

MATT GALLOWAY: But it said that the Liberal Party was going to rig the next election. I mean, how different is that than Donald Trump saying the election was stolen?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: So I think the language they used was probably over-the-top. They didn't say, as some others have said about Harper in early days, that Harper did rig the election. They're warning people that the legislation and the program that that Trudeau was doing was going to give his party an advantage. I don't think rig the election was particularly helpful or good language, but it was... it was, a, prospective. And, b, it was in reaction to something that the Liberals were proposing to do that would have given their party an advantage, which is very different than going out publicly and saying a party that didn't rig the election did rig the election in order to overturn the election. So I think... I think there are some nuances there. I'm not... I'm not... I'm not excusing that kind of language, but I think it's very different.

MATT GALLOWAY: You said that, you know, someone like Derek Sloan should not have been allowed to run for the leadership. Why?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: Because he has views that are they are... they are conspiracy theories. He has bordered, if not crossed the line, on racism. And has stoked those kinds of fears. And he is using anger and falsehoods to stoke the populace, as opposed to doing what a leader should do and a party should do, which is to understand the challenges facing these people, understand what is motivating their anger and do things to address that in policy terms, not in conspiracy terms. I've said that Derek Sloan should be kicked out of caucus a long time ago.

MATT GALLOWAY: What should what should Erin O'Toole do then as the leader of the Conservative Party when it comes to someone like Derek Sloan, but also to address, to your point, the issues that you are concerned about?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: I can only say what I have done in similar circumstances, or I with Stephen Harper. In the very early days of the Harper government, there were a number of people in caucus who spoke about homosexuality in ways that was... that was unacceptable. And we made it clear in caucus that that would be unacceptable. And we removed members of caucus who spoke that way. And so I think you have to set these ground rules and say these are things that we will not tolerate, and we will remove you from caucus if you talk this way. This is where this political party needs to be strong enough to be able to do that.

MATT GALLOWAY: Are you afraid of alienating the voters who might agree with some of what Derek Sloan has to say, and might be a constituency that the party needs?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: I think that there are other ways to speak to those people. You know, I'm a social Conservative. I attend church every Sunday. And when I look to politics, I don't look to politics to hear a faith message. I don't look to politics to hear what I hear in church. What I look to politics is for them to respect religion, and for them to strengthen the family. And I think if we can get them excited about policies about family then we don't have to promote, and we don't have to validate stupid views on vaccines. We need to find policies that speak to these people and get them excited about those policies.

MATT GALLOWAY: You wrote this piece now for a reason. I mean, there's the possibility of a spring election. It seems like there's always the [chuckling] possibility of an election, but there is the real possibility of a spring election. What's at stake for the political right, if I can put it that way, in this country, if this is not addressed in a meaningful way?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: Some of the pieces that I've written over the years that that have gotten the most attention have been from a deep personal place, and for me, this was very personal. There are people in my personal and private life who I've been saying some of these things, and they think I'm kidding. And part of what I was doing is to say I'm not only serious. I'm going to put my name to this in public. And so my primary motivation, to be perfectly honest, was my... my personal views and defending those personal views to the people that I care about the most. My secondary view is I think that there is a danger within the broader conservative movement if we continue to go down this road of doing a lot of damage. You know, I must admit, I'm very encouraged, by the way, in which Doug Ford has approached the pandemic. Individual policy decisions aside, he has toned down what I would call the polarizing rhetoric, the populist rhetoric, over the last year and dealt with this issue. And and that's a very positive thing for the party. You know, you don't hear him talk about Buck-A-Beer and just silly things like that that are just mostly designed to stoke the views of the populist people as opposed to solving real challenges. So going forward, I get asked to help out on campaigns on a regular basis, and I'm going to do a much bigger job of due diligence in terms of, you know, how are you going to address the populace within our party? I don't want these people to leave our party. I just want us to find a Conservative solution to address the underlying concerns as opposed to using anger, to make them mad, to get them to vote for us.

MATT GALLOWAY: What's the reaction been just finally from people that perhaps would look to you when you make statements like this and you say enough is enough and I'm calling it? What's the reaction been?

KEN BOSSENKOOL: Look, the reaction of my friends on the left, they're clapping and cheering, and that's not always tremendously helpful [laughing]. But within the Conservative side, I have been very encouraged by the large number of private messages that I have gotten from people across the Conservative side of the spectrum. And I have been very encouraged by the public comments that have been much the same. And I have not been surprised at the people who have gotten upset about this. I think it's pretty clear, given what's happened in the U.S., where there kind of politics leads and I won't be shy about calling it out.

MATT GALLOWAY: I really appreciate speaking with you this morning, Ken. This has been fascinating. Thank you very much.

KEN BOSSENKOOL: My pleasure. Any time.

MATT GALLOWAY: Take care of yourself. Bye-bye.

KEN BOSSENKOOL: Cheers. Bye.

MATT GALLOWAY: Ken Bossenkool is a long-time conservative strategist and senior research fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute. We did invite the leader of the Conservative Party, Erin O'Toole, onto the program for an interview to respond, but he was not available. These accusations of Trumpism within the party, from a Conservative strategist, no less, come at a high-stakes time for the Conservatives with the potential of a spring federal election. And so our national affairs panel is here to discuss this, as well as the political blame game that seems to be going on around the rollout of vaccines. Charelle Evelyn is managing editor at the Hill Times in Ottawa. Kelly Cryderman, Globe and Mail reporter in Calgary. Good morning to you both.

CHARELLE EVELYN: Good morning.

KELLY CRYDERMAN: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Kelly. We'll start with you. Listening to Ken talk there, what does Erin O'Toole need to do to get this so-called Trumpism in the Conservative Party under control?

KELLY CRYDERMAN: You know, it's a question of what he wants to do with it? And I think there... he has been quite clear in his statements that he doesn't agree with what happened in Washington earlier this month. He is... he abhors the violence. But the problem is there are people in his party who support Trump. And as Ken mentioned, he doesn't want to completely alienate them. And he has to walk a very careful walk in doing so. And, you know, it is in one way it's baffling because the Conservative Party is very well aware of where its weaknesses lie. And this certainly is a weakness to most of the Canadian population that that the party gets associated with Trumpism at a time when the whole world is really casting the most critical eye on the four years of Donald Trump's presidency. It's no surprise that the Conservatives are coming under the glare. And they must know they need to do everything possible to get rid of the idea that they're associated with it.

MATT GALLOWAY: How is that complicated by the fact that there's a photo circulating of the deputy leader of the party wearing a MAGA hat?

KELLY CRYDERMAN: It is complicated. And, you know, if her... her words on this are to be believed, she believe she was photographed it... she... she doesn't... she doesn't feel that way. I think there are more serious issues with the Conservative Party in terms of, like, a slogan to "Take Canada Back", which sounds like it came.. it could have come from the United States. It sounds like it could have come from the Republican politics that is happening in the United States. I think there are more substantial issues that the Conservative Party needs to focus on. And to, as an election approaches, stop giving fodder to the Liberals for things that they can poke holes in.

MATT GALLOWAY: Charelle Evelyn, what sort of leadership are you seeing from Erin O'Toole on this, particularly to Kelly's point, as talk of a spring election ramps up?

CHARELLE EVELYN: Well, as talk of an election ramps up, I think what we actually need to see is probably a little more in terms of leadership from Erin O'Toole. I mean, after we saw what we saw a week ago in Washington, you know, the Conservative leader was pretty quick to say, you know what? We... we totally disavow, you know, attacks on freedom and democracy, and then he just kind of left it at that, and then left it to the foreign affairs critic, Michael Chong, to come out with a stronger statement, you know, specifically naming Donald Trump, as you know, the person who had incited the violence, and was and words mean things, and you can't do this, and so on and so forth. But through his tenure, and he's only been the Conservative... Erin O'Toole's only been the Conservative leader since late August, he's kind of taken a bit of a step-back approach when it comes to dealing with some of these more sensitive issues, if you will. We think back to when there are a couple of members of his caucus that were, they say, inadvertently, you know, sharing conspiracy theories about Chrystia Freeland and George Soros. And we didn't hear anything from him that's had to say, oh, well, you know, by the time I saw it, it was already taken down. And I just kind of wagged my finger at her. There wasn't a very strong message that this is not going to be acceptable. And I'm putting my foot down. Instead, what we've seen throughout the last few months is... is more of a trying to... to walk the balance of keeping both sides of the party and all... all areas of the tent happy and keeping the base secure. While at the same time, trying to... to grow the party and reach new people. But you can't necessarily do that while at the same time, you know, crying about the radical Left, and the woke mob and cancel culture. While, you know, not saying anything about, specifically white supremacy. Or not saying anything specifically or specifically acknowledging the fact that systemic racism exists. So there needs to be a little bit more, I think, leadership from Erin O'Toole as we go into the spring, when people are going to be looking for alternatives to Justin Trudeau.

MATT GALLOWAY: Well, let's talk about that. I mean, here's what the prime minister said yesterday about the possibility of a spring election.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We don't want a spring election. We need to continue to work hard and focus on Canadians, on delivering supports, on keeping Canadians safe, on creating and continuing to deliver our strong plan that is going to bring the economy roaring back and make sure the Canadians get through this the right way.

MATT GALLOWAY: Charelle Evelyn, the prime minister's been saying that he doesn't want an election. There are many people who aren't entirely sure about that. Do you think it's likely that there will be an election this spring?

CHARELLE EVELYN: Well, it's possible I mean, we've had... my colleague, Abbas Rana, reported in The Hill Times earlier this week that, you know, Trudeau told his board of directors at the Liberal Party that it's that it's likely that that it looks like, sorry, I should say, that an election is going to happen in spring. Those are... these are... and there's a bunch of calculations that have to go into that, obviously. How the vaccine rollout happens is going to play a major role in what happens there. And there's also a budget coming that the party is going to have to stand behind and could be the, I think, the major precursor to whether or not people actually end up going to the polls.

MATT GALLOWAY: I want to ask you about... let me ask you about the vaccine rollout in a moment. But, Kelly Cryderman, one of the things we saw yesterday, in addition to the prime minister saying he doesn't want an election, is a cabinet shuffle. And Jim Carr, who has been out of cabinet after a cancer diagnosis, was back in cabinet as a special representative for The Prairies. What do you make of the renewed focus on the West from the federal government?

KELLY CRYDERMAN: Well, I think it's... it is a sign that definitely that the agenda that the prime minister laid out after the last election when they won in minority and didn't win any seats in Saskatchewan, and... and the prime minister said we need to pay more attention to the West. I think it's a sign that that still exists, even though a powerhouse like Chrystia Freeland has left that role. I... I think it's, you know, there might be some hope for political gains, certainly in a province like Manitoba. I don't think the likelihood of any political gains in the West are that realistic. And I'm sure they don't have it because, you know, when we're talking about the Conservative Party, there is... and why the Conservative Party has its base in Alberta, Saskatchewan, it's very much an economic argument there. And that... that the West doesn't feel, or those two provinces especially, don't feel like their views are represented at all by this Liberal government.

MATT GALLOWAY: Well, and to Charelle's point, I mean, part of this is also around the pandemic that we're in right now. And while all this political drama unfolds, we're dealing with COVID and we're dealing with a rollout of a vaccine that people want yesterday, not in a months' time. Jason Kenney this week said that he was floating this idea that maybe he would just buy up his own vaccine supply because he believes the federal government isn't providing enough. Kelly, how successful do you think that strategy, whether it's grounded in reality or not, but how successful would that be for Jason Kenney? I mean, nobody knows whether he can actually go and get his own supply. But in saying that, what does that do?

KELLY CRYDERMAN: It's really interesting because part of what he said isn't unlike what the premiers of Manitoba and Ontario have been saying, that they can actually get the vaccine out more quickly than the federal government is providing the vaccine. So in that, if that was the context for his comments, you know, everybody was kind of scratching their head when he said, you know, we don't get the Moderna or the Pfizer vaccine fast enough, we might go to one of the other makers of a vaccine that's not even fully approved and see if we can make a deal with them. I think, you know, this is you know, it's not... you know, Jason Kenney has been open to these kind of ideas, both talking about them and enacting them in practise. But you also have to put this in the context of he has had some of the worst weeks of his political career ever. He had... you know, we saw the departure of his chief of staff and a high-profile cabinet minister, who travelled over Christmas. And he initially did not ask for their resignation or take strong enough action for most Albertans, I would say. So he he is looking for any bit of good news, and I think a powerful way for any politician to change the channel on bad news right now is to have some good news about vaccines.

MATT GALLOWAY: Charelle, in the last minute or so that we have, we have seen an increasing politicization of this pandemic response around the vaccines. To Kelly's point, the Ontario government has also accused the federal government of not providing enough supply of the vaccines. Where does that leave Canadians? Where does the finger-pointing between the premiers and the federal government on the vaccine rollout leave Canadians, do you think?

CHARELLE EVELYN: Well, it leaves Canadians absolutely confused and angry and upset because they don't know where to turn for information that's reliable. I mean, there's questions to be asked on both sides of both the provinces and the federal government in terms of the vaccine rollout. The provinces are the ones who are responsible for getting those needles in arms. The federal government is the one for getting the vaccines to Canadian shores. Saying that, you know, we don't have enough and we're running out of vaccine, knowing that, you know, the federal government has given the provinces a schedule of, well, here's when we're getting more. You know, it doesn't really help people in the long run who just want to know when can I start to get my life back in order and see my loved ones again? So the finger-pointing doesn't really help people get the information that they need. And it does just kind of stoke that bit of resentment that nobody's kind of looking out for people's best interests.

MATT GALLOWAY: In just a couple of words, are you surprised that it came to this? I mean, at the beginning of the pandemic, everybody was singing from the same hymnbook, and we were all in this together.

CHARELLE EVELYN: No, I'm not surprised. I mean, at the end of the day, it's politics, and it's always going to come back to that.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's always going to come back to politics, Kelly?

KELLY CRYDERMAN: I think so, and in a way, you know, if everybody is pushing for the vaccine to come faster and putting pressure on each other for the vaccine rollout to happen more quickly, maybe that's a good thing for Canadians ultimately.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's good to speak with you both about this this morning. Thank you very much.

KELLY CRYDERMAN: Thank you.

CHARELLE EVELYN: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Charelle Evelyn is managing editor for The Hill Times. She was in Ottawa. And Kelly Cryderman is a reporter for the Globe and Mail. She was in Calgary. Your regional update is next. And then,.

MAN: It was always the woman that was to blame. It was always the woman's fault. And that's why I like to give my story out there. And I want this to go into the history books of Ireland, what was done to the women in the past.

MATT GALLOWAY: It was a dark chapter in Ireland's history, one that has come to light through a long-anticipated new report looking into the trauma inflicted by so-called mother and baby homes. We will speak about that trauma from personal perspective, and talk about what's changed in Ireland since those homes were closed. I'm matt Galloway, you're listening to The Current. Back in 90 seconds. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Survivors of Irish mother and baby homes receive state apology. COVID passion projects

Guests: Anne Harris, Colm O’Gorman, Jamie Rajf

MATT GALLOWAY: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

[Music: A boys chior sings a hymn].

GIRL: Philomena, they've taken Anthony. They've taken him away!

[Sound: Footsteps from running, and a creaky door opening]

GIRL#2: [crying] Where is he? [Sound: A baby cries, more footsteps]

GIRL#2: [yelling] Anthony!!!

MATT GALLOWAY: The Oscar-nominated film "Philomena" told the true story of one woman in Ireland searching for her child who'd been taken away. But it was the experience of many in mother and baby homes between 1922 and 1998. Those homes were set up for women who became pregnant out of wedlock. Many children born in the homes were adopted or taken to orphanages run by the Catholic nuns. A new report from the Irish government details the mental and physical abuse the women and their children suffered. It estimates that 9,000 children died in these homes. Many more were taken from their mothers and adopted out to other families. The Irish government is issuing a formal apology in parliament today. Anne Harris gave birth to her son in one of these homes. She was 19. And we spoke with her earlier.

ANNE HARRIS Thank you for having me on the program.

MATT GALLOWAY: I really appreciate you being here. Did you ever think, given your own experience, and knowing what you know, that you would see a day when a report about the abuse at these Catholic homes would come to light?

ANNE HARRIS No, I didn't. And the only reason this report was drawn up was because Catherine Corless, who's a historian in the west of Ireland, uncovered the truth about burials in tomb. They found that there were a number of recorded deaths, which didn't tally with the burial sites. This created a huge scandal. So the government decided to set up a commission of investigation into the conditions in the mother and baby homes. And then the remit of this commission was extended to not all but quite a few mother and baby homes throughout the state. And people were invited to come and give evidence. And I did that five years ago.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just briefly, tell me a bit of your own story. What was your experience like in one of these homes?

ANNE HARRIS Well, my experience was very, very different to Philomena Lee's, and I feel almost guilty that I got off so lightly, to be quite honest. There was a kind of class system in operation in some of these homes, whereby if your parents had enough money to pay for your stay there, then you were entitled to leave just as soon as your baby was born. And that was my case. So I only spent two months in the home. And then I left when my child was one week old, and he was... he was taken by an adoption society and adopted.

MATT GALLOWAY: You say you got off lightly, but, I mean, for 25 years, you didn't know where your son was.

ANNE HARRIS Exactly. I mean, OK, our experiences in the home may be very different. And, you know, she was with her child for three years, which I find unimaginably cruel because already after one week, it was traumatic. I think the trauma is the same, no matter what. So I lost 25 years of my son's life. But now I've had 24 years with him. So we're getting there.

MATT GALLOWAY: Did you ever talk about what had happened over the course of the 25 years? I mean, was it something that was the subject of conversation or was it ...one of the things we're hearing coming out of this report is that this was never a subject of conversation. This was... this was hushed up. This was, you know, not to be spoken about publicly.

ANNE HARRIS Oh, absolutely. First of all, in Ireland, when I came back from the home, I went back to college as if nothing had happened and never spoke about it, not at home, not with my friends. I just didn't discuss it at all. And then I left the country to work abroad. And there, I suddenly realized that there were people who were... who were not married and who had children, and nobody batted an eyelid. They didn't think that was in any way strange. So I felt doubly-guilty then because I thought I can't tell them that I've had a child because they'll think I'm a horrible person because I've given him up for adoption. And they won't understand. So there was secrecy on two different levels, if you like.

MATT GALLOWAY: How did you cope with that?

ANNE HARRIS How does... I don't know? I don't know how you cope with that? I don't know is the answer. You just do. I think you... human beings adapt to all kinds of events. And people go through all kinds of traumas, and some adapt, and some don't. And I got on with my life. I did what I was told, which was you must put this behind you and think that you've made this wonderful sacrifice and you've given your child great opportunities, which he wouldn't have had with you. That was... that was the narrative that we were given.

MATT GALLOWAY: You did decide, though, to search for your son. And as you mentioned, you've had 24 years with him. What was what was the impetus to search for him?

ANNE HARRIS Well, I always wanted to find him. I had done a lot of reading on the subject, and I knew that, you know, any effort to take him away from his adoptive family would not be a good idea for him, for them. So I kind of made a pact with myself that I'd wait till he was 18. And then I went back to the adoption society. And I said to them, look, I want it to be on record, that I'm here, I'm available if he ever wants to find out who his mother was, then, you know, you can get in touch with me. And they fudged and said, no, we don't encourage that. And he's not mature enough. And all this kind of stuff, which was not true because he was quite... he would have been quite happy to meet me at that point. And it took me six years of badgering them, going, you know, I lived abroad, but I would come back to Ireland every six months or so, and I'd religiously go and see them and try to convince them that I was a normal person that wasn't going to, you know, create havoc in anybody's life. And, eventually, I got really tired of their attitude. So I went about searching for him myself and found him. And then I went back with that information to the adoption society. And I, without telling them I had found him, I said, look, you know, if you don't do something now, because you know me, I'm resourceful, and I'll find him if I want to. So they said, OK, and they passed on a letter, but they insisted on my leaving the letter open so that they could read it, which I found very patroniZing and insulting. But there you go. And when he got the letter, he was delighted, and he wrote back, and we began a correspondence. And gradually, he met my father. He met his brothers. And we have an excellent relationship now.

MATT GALLOWAY: what do you think it says about Irish society then, that this was your only option in some ways as an unwed mother?

ANNE HARRIS You know, there's a lot of talk at the moment about, oh, it wasn't the Church's fault, it wasn't the state's fault, it was society's fault. But, to me, they're all intertwined. You know that the Church dominated Irish society for so long. And I'm not just talking about the Catholic Church either, you know, were other churches involved.They shaped people's attitudes. The society was extremely judgemental. I think our society was extremely stable during all that period. And it was because people were afraid to step out of line. That's just how it was. And I don't blame my family, you know, because there's also another narrative coming out of this report, which is that people, women were admitted to the homes because they failed to secure the support of their family.

MATT GALLOWAY: Yeah.

ANNE HARRIS Well, that's not true for all women, and it certainly wasn't true for me. My family were extremely supportive, but they were completely... [deep sigh] what... brainwashed? I don't... I don't know what word to use? By all the official people involved, tso the parish priest, the adoption society and so on. And they we were made to believe what they were doing was the best thing for me.

MATT GALLOWAY: The taoiseach, Micheal Martin, is giving an apology today. What did you need to hear in that apology?

ANNE HARRIS I want to hear that they're now going to knuckle down and do all the things that they should have done years ago, which is bring in legislation on information and tracing because there are still lots of people out there who are having huge difficulties tracing their birth parents or birth mothers like me looking for their children. Legislation existed in the U.K. since 1975 on this, and the sky didn't fall in. [chuckle] So I don't see why it's so difficult in Ireland for the government to introduce this type of legislation. And the other thing is, I want to see an undertaking that the issue of the burial sites is addressed as a matter of urgency. Because, again, you have a lot of women whose babies died, and they don't know where they're buried. And I think that is appalling and cruel. And that needs to be dealt with now and not in ten years' time.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just before I let you go, you... I mean, you were told, as you said, for decades to just get on with it, to not talk about this. Does it help now to speak openly about this sort of thing?

ANNE HARRIS Oh, yes, [bright chuckling] it's been... I've found the whole process very cathartic. And, yeah, I've... I've also written a book. I wrote a book for my son so that he would have a record of everything that happened, and my search for him, and so on. Yeah, and I found that very, very therapeutic. And also, getting to know other survivors and hearing their stories, because as I said right from the start, I feel so privileged that I've... we've had a happy outcome to our story. But I know that there are so many people out there who didn't, and I cannot even begin to imagine what they're going through.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's really good of you to speak with us. I really appreciate it, Anne.

ANNE HARRIS Thank you for having me.

MATT GALLOWAY: Take care of yourself. Bye-bye.

ANNE HARRIS Thank you. Bye-bye.

MATT GALLOWAY: Anne Harris is the author of "Unspoken", and a survivor of an Irish mother and baby home. Colm O'Gorman is the executive director of Amnesty International in Ireland, and he's been tracking the story of mother and baby homes for decades. He is in County Wexford. Colm O'Gorman, good morning to you.

COLM O'GORMAN: Good morning, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: What are you thinking as you listen to Anne Harris' story?

COLM O'GORMAN: First of all, Anne is extraordinary. For a woman who was separated from her child, who was denied access to her child, who had to fight for six years to have contact with a child who wanted contact with her. And for her to describe herself as privileged compared to other women, I suppose, speaks volumes about exactly what it was that people endured in these so-called homes. I mean, the report that was issued yesterday, I mean, it absolutely affirms much of what survivors have been saying about appalling conditions, about forced labour, about physical, emotional abuse. about Adoptions without consent, despite the fact that the report, I think, is rather wishy-washy on this point. It makes it clear that many of the women were clear that they did not give free and informed consent to have their children adopted. And we know that infant mortality rates in some of these homes were 600 per cent higher than in the general population. And if you think about that for a moment, if there was one place in this country where women and their children should have been best provided for and safest, it was in so-called homes. And yet, these were the most dangerous places for babies to be born in this country at that time.

MATT GALLOWAY: How much stigma and trauma still exists for the women who gave birth in these homes? I mean, Anne talked about the idea of not speaking out about this, but getting on with it. But knowing what you know in the research that you've done, tell me more about how this still affects women now?

COLM O'GORMAN: What I think is the most poignant and troubling example of how this impacts many women, it's really evidenced by some of the conversations that happen around access to information, where adopted people quite rightly want to be given all of the information that's available about their origins, about their identity, about their birth and about their adoption. And it's resisted by policymakers and by legislatures at times because they have concerns for the privacy of birth mothers who were guaranteed anonymity. And they talk about heartbreaking contacts from women in their 80s who are terrified of a knock on the door. And because all of what had happened those years earlier would be surfaced, and because they have never spoken to anybody about it. So we have a large number of women, many of them very elderly and are living in this country, who decades later are carrying trauma and shame because of how society treated them. And to this day, the response of many people who are well-intentioned but are not thinking adequately about this. The response of people to that is to simply accept the reality of that shame rather than challenge it. What we need to say to those women is this was never your shame. You should not have been forced to carry it for this long. And we must now address that.

MATT GALLOWAY: Well, and it wasn't ancient history. I mean, some of these homes operated into the 90s. So if you take a look at that --

COLM O'GORMAN: Yeah, the last one in 1998.

MATT GALLOWAY: Yeah. How much... how much power do you think the Catholic Church holds in modern day Ireland? I mean, Anne was talking about it's not just society, it's the Church, it's government, it's all of that together. What's changed in that time?

COLM O'GORMAN: Well, let's be clear about one thing first before we get to that point about the Church. The state is ultimately responsible for all of the violations that occurred in these places because the state permited, facilitated the existence of these homes. It funded them. It inspected them. It deferred to the Church when the Church refused to accept, for instance, that conditions should be improved in the homes. But if we want to talk about the power of the Church, I mean, there's a bit of a rush to want to focus on society's responsibility here. The society that we lived in at that point was a theocracy. In the 1940s, the Catholic archbishop of Dublin was able to have tampons banned because he disapproved of their use in what he called unmarried persons. I remember when I was campaigning for an investigation into the rape and abuse of children in Catholic parishes here in this country, speaking to a government minister at the time about that, and him saying that relatively recently to that date, and that was 2003, it was normal practise for any major piece of social policy or legislation to be run by the hierarchy of the Church before it went to cabinet, nevermind to parliament. The control of the Church was extraordinary. They were more powerful politically than government or any other political party. And they enforced that power with ruthless determination.

MATT GALLOWAY: If you take a look at now, I mean, now Ireland has same-sex marriage. There are abortion rights for women. Divorce is allowed. I mean, has that grip then been loosened substantially?

COLM O'GORMAN: I think that grip has been utterly broken and shattered. We're now a very, very different society. If we look back at both of those referendums, particularly at the marriage equality referendum and then the referendum to remove the constitutional ban on abortion. And the Catholic Church was muted in its engagement. It stated its position, as it's perfectly entitled to do, but it did not have a particular influence. And its grip on the country has been quite rightly broken. I mean, that's not to say that that religious organizations don't have an important role to play in public and social discourse. But what they're not entitled to do is what they did for many decades, and that was to dominate and to enforce. If we ignore the fact that that was a reality and simply talk about how families placed their children in these places. You know, families who failed to comply with the dogma of the time would have been denounced from the pulpit publicly. They would have been shamed and ostracised within their communities. They would have lost their livelihoods, their standing in society and quite potentially their liberty.

MATT GALLOWAY: Anne talked about the importance of a public conversation and being able to air this. But beyond that, what else should follow this report? I mean, should there be a criminal investigation into this?

COLM O'GORMAN: Absolutely. I mean, we are calling on and have supported calls for a large number of the issues that have been identified in this report now to be referred for criminal investigation. And we understand that yesterday, the report was forwarded to public prosecution authorities for their consideration. I mean, you're talking about forced labour, physical and emotional abuse of children, about adoptions without consent. But you're also talking about talking about a situation where, and the report deals with this as well, where victims of rape and sexual assault, including underage girls, were hidden away in these institutions, and there was no intervention. Rather than been given the support that they needed because of the crimes that have been perpetrated upon them, they were punished as the victims of those crimes and further brutalised. So there's an awful lot that needs to be addressed here. The government has to make good on its commitment that victims and survivors will be able to access their personal records and data. It must put in place a full and proper redress and reparation system and process. It said that it's going to do that. And all aspects of this particular investigation have to be transparent and have to be made public. There's a major issue at the moment around the right of those who participated in the investigation to have access to their own records and to their own testimony. And that needs to be dealt with urgently. We've had, you know, secrecy and shame, and the suppression of information is what led us here. The way out of that is to be much more open and much more transparent about how we move on.

MATT GALLOWAY: Colm O'Gorman, it's great to speak with you. I appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

COLM O'GORMAN: Thanks, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: Colm O'Gorman is the executive director of Amnesty International in Ireland. He was in County Wexford.

[Music: Folk].

MATT GALLOWAY: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. In the midst of this pandemic with illness, job loss and a rocky economy. As hard as it sounds, some people are actually finding a silver lining, people who, out of necessity often, are reimagining their lives. That is the case for my next guest. Jamie Rajf was working in the music and event industry when the pandemic hit, and it forced her to rethink her job and her future. It was also just the push that she needed to pursue a dream. Jamie, good morning.

JAMIE RAJF: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Take me back to March, just briefly, what was going on in your life?

JAMIE RAJF: Well, March feels like it was a distant past, [both chuckling] but also only a month ago. I was working in music and events, as you mentioned, I was just gearing up to go on a big trip to Europe. I never took vacation time. So I was really looking forward to going away for a while. And all in a matter of three days, I had to cancel my trip, for a good reason, and ended up getting laid off from my job, so. [a brief chuckle].

MATT GALLOWAY: How quickly after all of that, the floor falls out, did you start thinking about Plan B, and what Plan B might look like for you?

JAMIE RAJF: Pretty soon after. I think I was so shocked by the fact that I suddenly had such open gaze. And up until that point, I had been so busy all the time. My job was pretty demanding. And I am a bit of a workaholic. And so having a lot of time on my hands, I thought, well, I can't just sit here. I need to do something about it.

MATT GALLOWAY: And what was this something you did?

JAMIE RAJF: Well, so my dream for a very long time has been to open up a vintage shop. Obviously, the iterations of that have changed over the years, but it's something that is always kind of stayed in the back of my mind. And I had actually sort of started collecting some items that I loved, but I maybe didn't have room for in my own apartment and just kind of keeping them on the back burner, thinking, you know, one day maybe I'll get around to doing something and selling these. And in March, when I suddenly had all of this time on my hands, I thought, well, I finally have time to photograph everything and really start to dig into this project that had kind of been, you know, just just sitting there in my in my mind as an idea.

MATT GALLOWAY: And the shop is called Good Day Vintage?

JAMIE RAJF: It is.

MATT GALLOWAY: What's behind the name of that.

JAMIE RAJF: So there's a lot of things behind the name. I think, ultimately, I wanted the shop name to really imbue this positivity and optimism, which is how I feel about really taking items that might have ended up in a landfill or something and giving them new life and giving them a new home. And I also am mildly obsessed with Paul McCartney and everything that he does. And I have always loved the song "Good Day, Sunshine". I've always felt like it really is that anthem for optimism and positivity. And when I was actually getting started to think about when I might launch the shop, I was thinking about how "Good Day, Sunshine" was first released on August 5th, 1966. And, you know, I thought the timing just kind of lined up. But I also thought, you know what? This is the "Good Day, Sunshine" day. Maybe this can be my good day, too.

MATT GALLOWAY: So you launched the business in August of last year. What do you remember about that moment when you pushed the button and sent it out into the universe? It was such a weird, weird feeling, especially, you know, just sitting in my apartment looking at the things that I had been obsessing over. I think it probably took me a month to figure out what I wanted my first items to be listed. And, you know, I think it was 8:00 a.m. I pushed all of these items live, and I just sat there and thought, well, you know, maybe someone will look at it, maybe they won't. At least is out there in the world. And I was honestly overwhelmed with how many people, you know, mostly friends, reached out to me in the first place and really were interested in what I was posting and wanted to buy them.

MATT GALLOWAY: And you're doing this all on Instagram?

JAMIE RAJF: I am.

MATT GALLOWAY: Which makes... I mean, given the fact that people can't go out, but also that we're spending so much time on our home... on our phones at home... is that the kind of perfect venue for something like this?

JAMIE RAJF: It really is. And I think that, you know, I kind of spent the better part of a year, year-and-a-half and sort of seeing some vintage resellers pop up on Instagram. And I thought that it was such a great idea to be able to use the platform, which is really such a visible or a visual and aesthetic platform to be able to showcase the beauty in these vintage and mid-century housewares.

MATT GALLOWAY: You mentioned your friends. I mean, in a moment like this, when everything is changing, and there's real difficulty, you've lost your job and you can't, as you mentioned, go on this trip that you had been planning for. What role do friends and larger community play in helping to build up a business like this and convince you that you can do it?

JAMIE RAJF: Honestly, my friends have been super, super supportive in all of this, my friends and my family. I think that the... we really just need to build each other up in the community, and it's really the kind of situation where, you know, everyone can succeed and everyone can be positive and be supporting one another. And it's been so nice to have friends reach out, and even to have strangers reach out who have just followed the shop either through one of my friends or through completely random means, and send such positive messages about, you know, sometimes I'll post something, and people will comment, Oh, I used to have these growing up, or my grandma used to have these. And I just I love that so much. And I think that it's really nice to be able to come together and with a common love of vintage.

MATT GALLOWAY: And again, I mean, it's not to say that there's a silver lining in something as awful as this pandemic, but it took this moment, something cataclysmic for you to have the opportunity to reinvent yourself and see a different path forward.

JAMIE RAJF: It's true. I mean, I think that.... I think that if the pandemic hadn't happened. I probably would have eventually found my way here, but it definitely was the push to to finally get all of those things ready that I had kind of just been waiting to have time for.

MATT GALLOWAY: Good luck. I wish you the best in this. I mean, a year ago, at this point, who knew that this would be the way that you'd be going forward? [both chuckling] I wish you the best of luck, Jamie. Thank you very much.

JAMIE RAJF: Thank you so much, Matt. Thanks for having me on the show.

MATT GALLOWAY: Jamie. Rajf is the owner of Good Day Vintage, an Instagram-based vintage shop, and a passion project that she launched after losing her job in the music industry due to the pandemic. This thing that we're in right now has forced people to make enormous changes. And some of them are good, some of them are bad. It'd be interesting to know whether COVID provided the push that you needed to finally rethink your career. Maybe you have relaunched yourself into a passion project or a new business. You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca, or tweet us: @TheCurrentCBC. And that's it for The Current. Thought we'd leave you with the song that inspired Jamie to name her shop good Day Vintage. It's the Beatles, and "Good Day, Sunshine". I Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current.

[Music: Good Day, Sunshine" by The Beatels"/Pop]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 13, 2020 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This