Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for June 15, 2018

Hosts: Ioanna Roumeliotis

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Do you remember another staff member ever referring to Miss Wettlaufer as an “Angel of Death”?

SPEAKER: Yes, she had been overheard saying to a palliative resident that it was okay to die.

IOANNA ROUMELIOTIS: A former colleague of Nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer, with some chilling testimony at this week's inquiry into how the so-called “Angel of Death” got away with it again, and again, and again. It's been a difficult week at the inquiry for family members of the nurse's eight victims. We'll hear from one of them today, for her reaction to what's come out so far the inquiry. And will take up some of the questions it's raising about how nursing and long term care homes are staffed and run. That's first up today. Then, the remarkable real life story of the women who risked their lives and more to turn on their husbands, brothers, and sons in the Italian mafia.

SOUNDCLIP

ALEX PERRY: She knew her husband was trying to kill her. And the only way she could see a survival for herself and her daughter was state protection.

IR: Author Alex Perry joins me in about half-an-hour from now to talk about his new book, “The Good Mothers”. It's about the women who dared to take on the mob, and the prosecutor who knew it was the only way she'd take down the mafia. Also today, you may have heard about the growing number of migrant children being detained away from their parents as the United States implements a zero tolerance immigration policy. Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley wanted to see the conditions for himself, dropping by a former Wal-Mart super centre that's been converted to a facility for fifteen hundred boys.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF MERKLEY: Hello, yes. Can I go in with you please?

WOMAN: No sir, you’re not going with me.

JM: My team contacted this facility, and asked for permission for me to come and see what is going on inside with these children.

IR: Access denied for the senator. But in an hour from now, I'll speak with a reporter who's just been inside. I'm Ioanna Roumeliotis, and this is the Friday edition of “The Current”.

Part one: Wettlaufer hearing

Guests: Kate Dubinski, Susan Horvath, Candace Chartier

SOUNDCLIP

HELEN CROMBEZ: I've always tried to do a good job. I've loved my residents. And to know that there was that murderer there is just so very, very difficult.

IR: Helen Crombez is the former director of nursing at Caressant Care. That's the Woodstock, Ontario long-term care facility where former nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer killed seven of the eight people who died at her hands. All this week there has been emotional testimony from people who supervised her, and worked alongside her. During an inquiry that is trying to determine how Wettlaufer’s crimes went undetected for so long. The probe is also shining a spotlight on problems in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The CBC's Kate Dubinsky has been covering the inquiry since it began last week. She joins me from our London, Ontario studio. Hello.

KATE DUBINSKY: Good morning.

IR: There's been a lot of questions and some very emotional and difficult testimony so far. What stuck with you?

KD: What’s stuck with me I think is that these are real people who were doing their jobs. We've heard from the Elizabeth Wettlaufer’s bosses and co-workers. And they were going along, doing their jobs, thinking that they were doing a good job, thinking that they were meeting their requirements under the law under different regulations. In some instances the minimum requirements, but they were meeting them. And then they got this phone call about Wettlaufer that she had confessed to eight murders.

IR: There are a lot of people also shocked in the inquiry room family members. And we've heard a lot of their feedback through their lawyer. What's it been like for them?

KD: Well, I think for everyone sitting in that room it's like I was thinking about this it like a tangled ball of yarn. And with every question, and with every person that testifies, you're pulling a little bit on this ball of yarn. But it's tangled, and so things become more clear, but then they become more muddled because I think the instinct is to want to place blame. And, of course, you blame Elizabeth Wettlaufer for the serial killing. But it was so much killing over so many years under the supervision of so many people and so many regulatory bodies. So I think sitting there, they're frustrated that not a single person knew that this was happening. You know there were red flags, but there were small red flags all over the place. Small yellow flags all over the place, and no one put it all together until she confessed herself.

IR: And speaking of all those flags, what have we learned so far about how Wettlaufer was able to harm so many patients without anyone noticing?

KD: It really came down to a puzzle piece of institutions not really working together, and each working a little bit in silos. So she was fired from her first job. She had stolen narcotics, got so high that she couldn't walk, she was found by a fellow nurse. This was back in 1995 right after she graduated she was working at a hospital. She was fired. But her union grieved that. And she was able to get that expunged from her record. It was noted as a termination as opposed to a firing. She was able to get another job at a long-term care home — at Caressant Care — where she did most of her killing; where she killed seven of the eight people that she killed. When she made medication errors there, over and over, and over again, her bosses were reluctant to report her because they were afraid that they would have to face grievances from her union. That would cost them money. The College of Nurses doesn't note terminations on records, or at least it didn't in this case. So there were all these pieces that did what they were supposed to do, but it wasn't enough to catch her. And quite frankly she was a nurse working alone — one nurse on night shift for 99 residents, with easy access to all kinds of medication. So for her, it was like you know letting loose a killer with all these vulnerable patients.

IR: It's still early, but are we getting a sense of what changes we might see being recommended as a result of this inquiry?

KD: Some of the witnesses have been asked what changes they want to see. I think what will really make an impact is systemic changes. And I think we're going to have to have a hard conversation about money because really people are trying to save money. The care homes are for-profit, or care homes in which she worked are for-profit. They're trying to make money. So they're trying to keep their costs down. The small company that she worked for that sort of hires out nurses for hire was not paying their nurses a lot, so it's hard to recruit these nurses; it's hard to put them into these homes. And so we have to figure out how much value we're placing on the care that these nurses are providing. So that we can pay the money to make good nurses worthwhile.

IR: So, Kate, who are we going to see on the stand going forward?

KD: Well, next week, we're going to hear from more co-workers from Caressant care home in Woodstock. And then we're going to start to hear from bosses and co-workers at Meadow Park in London, Ontario. That was the last place that Wettlaufer worked. That's the last place she worked where she killed somebody. And then we're going to hear from some of the overarching regulatory bodies. So the coroner's office, which should have investigated some of those deaths and didn't. The Ontario Nurses Association — the union and the College of Nurses — which regulates the profession.

IR: OK, thanks so much, Kate.

KD: Thank you.

IR: Kate Dubinsky is a reporter with CBC at the Wettlaufer inquiry in St. Thomas. She was in our London, Ontario studio. Family members of Wettlaufer’s victims are keeping a close eye on the inquiry. Susan Horvath is the daughter of Arpad Horvath, the last of Wettlaufer’s victims. He was murdered in 2014. We've reached Susan Horvath in London, Ontario. Hello.

SUSAN HORVATH: Good morning.

IR: Susan, what's it been like for you to watch this inquiry unfold?

SH: It's very painful. I haven't had any closure on any of this, and it's just affecting my health in every which way. It's ruined my life. It's very bad.

IR: What have you found most troubling?

SH: The troubling is a lot of politics is involved in my dad's death. And you know just at this age that I'm at I can see the game. And it's just very sad that human lives that go into nursing homes want care. They put their faith on the line. They put their money on the line. And, at the end of the day, we have politics where budgets are tight, and staffing is very short because there's money to be saved from the conglomerates that own all these nursing homes — the profit ones as well. So it's just really sad that this is in the system. I mean you know we think at the end of our life we're going to be taking care of. It's not going to be easy, you know? We're going to have a lot of problems. And as we're deteriorating — as we all do when we're older — but it's just horrible the treatment my dad had. It's just beyond words. And I visualized everything till the day he was in Victoria Hospital on the slab there. I call it the slab, but to the gurney, and he was in the coma for five days. And I lifted both his eyelids to see what was going on, and he was gone; he was just on a machine. And I thought you know what? That man worked so hard in this country, and this is where it gets: a kick in the butt. And it's just very sad. So I've lost all faith. I really have.

IR: Must be heartbreaking to lose your dad and under such circumstances. How confident are you that this inquiry will lead to improvements in care?

SH: I'm not going to say that I'm too confident. And I'll tell you why. I've also been researching a lot while this is going on. And there's not a lot of transparency in the nursing homes, for starters. You've got family members that do come in to see. You know everything is the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act. So that's one political loophole right there. And then the other is the budgeting. You know there's budgets, so they don't want to hire too many people. They're trying to keep like with Wettlaufer, she did several, several, several errors and everything like that. Instead of the management stepping in saying listen here's the deal. You know everything had to be forgiven, or covered up, or we'll try again, or we'll give you a chance. And meanwhile, you know I hold Wettlaufer accountable for this. But I'm holding a lot of other people accountable too. I'm holding this system, I'm holding the union, the corner for sure that they don't have to take any autopsies any further unless it's an investigation. Or if the coroner is the one who authorizes it. Like this is getting really serious. So you've got a separation between the family, what they want, their concerns, information needs, and then you have another separation here, you know? Which is the conglomerates, and that's the nursing home business. And it's just very sad.

IR: watching this inquiry and the death of your dad, how has that changed your view of long-term care and healthcare in Canada?

SH: As you can hear in my voice with what I'm saying, I've lost faith in the system. When I first walked in — the very first minute I walked — and I seen him, and how fast he was declining, and the drugs that they had him on that some are actually restricted drugs, meaning they are what they call a black box warning drug, which means that a certain age with certain illness you're not even to give this drug out to people. And it was given, and it was prescribed to my dad. And the side effects are stroke, heart attack, whatever, violent behaviour, you name it .They had him on I think seven drugs, and I wish I could bring him back from the grave and apologize that he had to come into this world over here to be treated like this. That's what I wish.

IR: How do you want us to remember your father, Arpad?

SH: He was a very hard worker. He was a family man. He loved our family. Like you know everybody's father who is very you know compassionate and loving. He was a very caring, loving, worked very hard, and you know he wanted the best and happiness in life just like everybody else, you know? And he just got short-changed because he got old, and he got ill. And I guess when you get old and when you get ill, you become a bothersome. And hey, you get treated and put aside in another category by the looks of it. And it's not the first time this has happened in nursing homes. I've got studies back to 2008 to 1995. This is going on. So you're asking me do I think the system will change? It's going to be a recommendation to the current government, and what they do with it is out of our hands.

IR: Do you have a lot of faith that something will change? That your father's death won't be for nothing?

SH: Well, I think lots have changed already just because the media, and getting the word out there. So I do believe a lot has just changed just by people's eyes opening up to this. But as far as the government's situation, and the way that they spend their money, I can't see them putting in a ton of money all over the place to create infrastructure. I can't. And number two, these for-profit nursing homes are businesses, you know? They are corporations. They run the show, and they pay their taxes. So I can't really see the government being able to say now this is how it's going to go. Because I can't see it.

IR: Susan, I know it's a difficult subject. And I appreciate you talking to us about it. Thank you.

SH: Thank you.

IR: Susan Horvath is the daughter of Arpad Horvath. Arpad was a victim of Elizabeth Wettlaufer. Susan is in London, Ontario. The inquiry is also shedding light and raising questions on the issues of staffing in these homes. It's heard that Wettlaufer worked alone overnight, responsible for close to 100 patients. And workers from Caressant Care have talked about the constant challenge of staff turnover, and the urgency of keeping registered nurses on staff. Candace Chartier is the CEO of the Ontario Long Term Care Association. It's the largest association of long-term care providers in Canada. And represents 70 of Ontario's long-term care homes. We reached her in Fenelon Falls, Ontario. Hi, Candace.

CANDACE CHARTIER: Hi, good morning.

IR: Hi. What strikes you about the testimony we've been hearing at the inquiry over the past two weeks?

CC: Well, honestly, as an advocate that you know deals with you know pushing the political agenda and public policy agenda, I need to start by saying that my heart goes out to everybody that has been impacted, including the families, the victims, and staff. I’m an RN myself, and you come into this profession to care and protect. And something like this just sets in place the mechanism to decrease public confidence and for various reasons. I do have to make a comment though. I do believe that we have to take a systemic perspective by listening to both speakers. But I do have to clarify that it's not a for-profit versus not-for-profit issue. That is the farthest thing from here. I think as the association who represents every type of long-term care home, you can't make money off of the way we're funded with within nursing envelope. And that's where your nursing staff comes out of. So I just wanted to clarify that piece.

IR: Well, one of the striking pieces that came out in the testimony was that Wettlaufer was working alone overnight, responsible sometimes for close to 100 patients. Is that a reasonable ratio of nurses to patients?

CC: Well, unfortunately, it's a few things. So we're actually only in the beginning of a labour shortage. And on top of that, we have the most stringent inspection system. And actually the most transparent sector in healthcare when it comes to regulations. And one of the facts is that we are mandated by the long term-care homes act to have a 24/7 RN in the building. But the issue is that in Ontario — as well as every other Western economy — we're staring down the barrel of a demographic crunch. And if you look at the College of Nurses Membership Report in 2017, Since 2008, RNs have experienced the slowest growth in employment — four per cent vs. 59 per cent increase in employment of RPNs. And a 230 per cent increase in the employment of nurse practitioners. So if the greatest employment opportunities lie in jobs for RPNs and nurse practitioners, what's the impact on the supply of RNs? So for a sector like long-term care, the implications are clear that this mandated requirement will only become more difficult to meet over time. And when you're panicked about getting an RN in the home, then you know all of a sudden you can't fill a shift, and you've got people working overtime. So we do need to readdress how we're staffed. And we need to have the flexibility as operators to be able to staff the home accordingly.

IR: You know staffers at Caressant Care told the inquiry that one of the reasons it's difficult to attract staff is because they don't pay as well as hospitals. Is that part of the problem too?

CC: Well, I wouldn't just put it on pay. I mean most of the sector is in the central bargaining process, where collective agreements are basically negotiated centrally. And so I mean I worked in the sector in various levels. And I mean six years ago, we were pretty close to parity in some contract with hospitals. I think it's once you get into the higher brackets or the higher levels that you see some disparity. But I think it's more the sector itself needs an infusion of funding to be able to increase the whole multi-disciplinary team.

IR: You know last week we also heard that the union that represented Wettlaufer helped stop her from being fired. When there are problems with a registered nurse, how difficult is it for your members to do something about them?

CC: Well, following the collective agreements, it's a long process to successfully terminate somebody. You've got to be able to — especially a registered staff that is giving medications and has more of a supervisory role — you have to be able to demonstrate that you're working with them. I mean I've had instances where I've had registered staff that continued to make med errors, and that's where you have to you know maybe they need a medication refresh, maybe they need to have peer-to-peer mentoring, maybe they need to spend extra orientation time. But I mean it is a verbal, written suspension, suspension, larger suspension, and then, hopefully, termination if there's no hope of that person being able to cope. But there's instances where the union does fight to the point where you have to go into mediation or arbitration. And it's a huge amount of dollars. And there's no guarantee you're going to successfully have that person not coming back to your home.

IR: OK. Candice, thank you. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much.

CC: OK, thank you.

IR: Candice Chartier is the CEO of the Ontario Long Term Care Association. We reached her in Fenelon Falls, Ontario. The CBC News is next. Then the amazing story of the Italian prosecutor who took on the mob in a way that had never been tried before: she turned the women of the mob against the men. I'm Ioanna Roumeliotis ,and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Part two: Alex Perry book

Guest: Alex Perry

Hello, I'm Ioanna Roumelio, and you're listening to the Friday edition of “The Current”. Still to come, we'll speak with one of the few reporters who's been inside “Casa Padre” — that's the converted Wal-Mart in Texas that's being used to shelter nearly fifteen hundred migrant boys. The children have been separated from their parents under the Trump Administration's new zero tolerance policy on migrants. And that has some questioning whether Canada's safe third party agreement with the U.S. is now unconstitutional. That story coming up in about half-an-hour from now. But first, married to the mob,

[Music: The Godfather theme]

IR: The theme to The Godfather. The classic movie glamorized and romanticized what it meant to be a member of the Italian mafia. And for those very reasons, Alessandra Cerreti never did like it. Because growing up in Sicily, she knew the reality of the mob. Alessandra Cerreti grew up to be a prosecutor in Italy. And she specialized in taking on the Mafia — a notoriously difficult group to bring to justice. But applying lessons she'd learned from Sicily’s Cosa Nostra mafia, she found a way to take on the Ndrangheta — the neighbouring mob in Calabria. It was something Italian police and prosecutors had overlooked for years: the women of the Mafia. Author Alex Perry has documented Alessandro Cerreti’ work in his new book “Good Mothers: The True Story of the Women who Took on The World's Most Powerful Mafia”. Alex Perry joins me from Guildford, England. Hello.

ALEX PERRY: Hi, Ioanna.

IR: Well, take us through what exactly is the Ndrangheta?

AP: So the Ndrangheta, as you said, there's more than one Italian mafia. There's three big ones; one in Sicily, the Cosa Nostra, which you've heard of — that's the Godfather. There's the Camorra in Naples. The Ndrangheta is the youngest, and based in Calabria, which is the toe Italy. It's the one actually you've never heard of, and it's no coincidence that it's also by far the most powerful. It makes somewhere between 50 to 100 billion dollars a year, runs 70 per cent of the cocaine in Europe. It has an arms smuggling network. It embezzles tens of billions from the European Union and the Italian state. It has an extortion racket. And it has one of the biggest money laundering industries in the world. It launders money on its own behalf, but on the behalf of other crime syndicates around the world as well.

IR: If it's so huge how come we've never heard of it?

AP: Because it's very good at what it does. Secrecy is the secret to its success, actually. And that is based on this incredibly tight, claustrophobic cult-like family structure, which it hasn't changed since the late 19th century when it was founded. And what comes with that very tight family structure comes 19th century customs and mores really; the women are treated as they were more than a hundred years ago. So not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied, beating is routine, the girls are married off as young as 13 or 14 to seal kind of clan alliances. And if you're unfaithful, you're dead. And it will be your father, or your brother, or your son that kills you. And quite likely dissolves your body in acid to erase the family shame.

IR: Now your story focuses on the efforts of a group of dedicated prosecutors — particularly the Alessandra Cerreti. Can you tell us a bit about her?

AP: So Alessandra is a fairly extraordinary individual. She was brought up in Sicily when the Cosa Nostra was at the height of its power. And, in fact, most of her childhood was spent during a time known as La Matanza, which is when the Cosa Nostra actually fought a war with the Italian state, and more than 1500 people died. So instead of either being intimidated by the mafia — or indeed as many Sicilian Sicilians did — falling under the thrall of its myth, Alessandra rejected it from a really early age. I mean aged eight-years-old she wrote a school essay you know when you asked for that classic essay what do you want to be when you grow up? She said she wanted to be an anti-Mafia prosecutor. She wanted to put gangsters behind bars. And she has adhered to that purpose throughout her life. She's never veered.

IR: Well, we have a clip from Ms. Cerreti from a conference in 2014 about the study of Mafia women. Let's listen to that

SOUNDCLIP

ALESSANDRA CERRETI: [Speaking Itialian]

TRANSLATION: Until a few years ago, there were very few women magistrates working on anti-mafia matters. There were a few women investigators who dealt with anti-mafia matters. This meant the study of the Mafia was given exclusively to men. They undervalued the contributions of the women in the mafia. I remember discussions only a few years ago with colleagues who believed that women in the Ndrangheta couldn't do any more than prepare a plate of pasta.

IR: Alex, any prosecutor has to be brave to take on the Mafia. But how unusual is it for a woman to take on the Mafia in Italy?

AP: Well, for Alessandra, there were two battles to fight, which she alludes to then. You know the first one taking on the Mafia you are taking your life in your hands. But Alessandra was also taking on the kind of ingrained misogyny in her own judiciary. The men considered the women of the Ndrangheta to be just victims, but not any use in fighting the Mafia. And it was Alessandra's mission essentially to convince them that these women were sentient beings, who were in the rooms when a lot of the discussions about what the Mafia was up to were taking place. They knew the bosses, they knew the structure, they knew about murders and killings, and bunkers, and cocaine smuggling, and arms smuggling. And because of the way they were treated, they had a real motivation and a genuine motivation to speak out.

IR: You talked earlier about how these women were oppressed. The misogyny they faced. Given all that, how willing were they to come forward to expose the inner workings of this mafia?

AP: Well, a lot of the book concerns Alessandra's attempt to coax a couple of women out. But before that, there had been at least one woman one in particular who independently had gone to the prosecutors by herself and said she wanted to testify. That was partly because she knew her husband was trying to kill her. And the only way that she could see any kind of surviving actually — the only way she could see of survival for herself and her daughter was state protection. Alessandra tried to persuade two more women to testify. And that was a long and drawn out process. Because I mean it's essentially deprogramming someone from a cult. They have to leave behind everyone and everything they've ever known. It's a huge step. And in one case in particular, Alexandria realized she had to be a mother figure to these women. She had to be their new family.

IR: And the women that you mentioned you mentioned tell us a little bit about her?

AP: She was only the second woman to ever testify against the Ndrangheta, and the first to really give comprehensive testimony. She she'd been born into a kind of mafia aristocracy on the east coast of Calabria, in a little village. She was born into violence. Her father was killed when she was eight month old. Her uncle was killed when she was about 11. A cousin was killed right in front of her. In the town where she was born, there had been 35 murders in 30 years. And you know the village where she was born actually has a population of about 400 people. So you can imagine. You know it's an extraordinary closed off place. But she was different. From the moment she was conscious essentially she rejected the mafia culture. She was always going to try and escape. The great the great irony was that she married a man who'd come from the village but had moved to Milan as her way to escape and move with him to Milan. It turned out he was marrying into her family because he was a small-time cocaine smuggler, and marrying her was a promotion for him. We hear a lot about him in your book. When she gives testimony to the Italian police, and she goes into protective custody with her daughter, Denise. What did she tell investigators? How much insight did she give them into this incredibly secretive organization?

AP: Well until that point, you have to understand the Ndrangheta was largely a secret even to the Italian state. They knew it existed, but they never understood its internal structures, or really its business models. How many people worked for it? You know how much money it made? It was all fairly vague. She gave them really detailed information — two days of testimony. Up until that point when an Ndranghetista had testified, he tended to give as little as possible in return for perhaps a reduction in sentence or something. Her attitude was completely different. She told them everything she knew, everything she'd ever heard about. And I think it was a revelation. And it was the beginning of the moment that the Italian state understood that it had a serious new mafia on its hands — far, far bigger and more powerful than it understood.

IR: And on a personal level, what impact did speaking to that extent to authorities have her and her daughter, Denise.

AP: Well, they went immediately into protective custody. But if she had suspected she was living under a death sentence before, she knew she was after that. And she understandably became incredibly paranoid. She took self-defence classes. She used to stay awake all night and sleep during the day. She kept a knife under her pillow. Once you're inside witness protection it's a very isolating experience. You get moved sometimes every few months, but definitely at least once a year. So you never really get to put down any roots or make any friends. You're not allowed to get a job because that would kind of reveal you to outsiders. Well until she died, you know for seven years, she tried to maintain this life for the sake of her daughter because that was her motivation was to give Denise a better life. In the end, the state kind of messed up. It decided her evidence they couldn't corroborate it. So then they decided the evidence was no use. And they tried to kick around out of the program.

IR: Tell us about what happens when she agrees to meet up with her husband in Milan after years of being away with him? He was in prison for a long time while she was in protective custody. And then she agrees to meet up with him. How soon after that did she go missing? Paint that picture for us.

AP: She felt that she couldn't trust the state. That she had to take matters into their own hands. And that meant what she told Denise they had two choices: They could either flee to Australia and try and start a new life. But that would require money. All she had to make peace with him. She sent a message to him saying you know let's forgive and forget and get on with our lives. The prosecutors aren't using my evidence anymore. I'm no threat to you. We have a daughter we need to bring up. And he essentially pretended for the best part of a year that he was amenable to that suggestion. And that even that the pair of them might restart their relationship. She I think it probably is always been in love with this man. So when he asked mother and daughter — his wife and his daughter — to Milan for a four day holiday, she, against her better judgment, accepted. And they went on dates. They went out for dinner. They walked around Milan. You know he took Mother and daughter to a beauty salon. And it was as though a reconciliation was taking place. And perhaps the start of a second chance really.

IR: She must have exhausted from simply hiding out for that long.

AP: She was definitely very nervy at that stage. And she used to smoke hashish fairly habitually. And her intake was definitely rising during those days. But she was maintaining all this for the sake of Denise. And she thought she could see a way to a life where they weren't on the run. They'd been on the run for 13 years by this stage. And maybe things could be better in the future. And you know so tragically it wasn't to be. He was faking. he was faking everything. Those entire four days, he was directing his crew to kill her. Every day they were trying to kill her. They kept messing up. But that's why she was there.

IR: Well, how soon after that reconciliation — that family vacation — did she go missing? And can you describe to us what he and his men were plotting?

AP: She goes missing on the last night, just before her and Denise are due to catch the night train back to Calabria. She just disappears. Denise actually guesses immediately what's happened to her mother, but also understands immediately that she can't let on. She can't let on to any of her immediate family that she knows they've just killed the mother. So she has to pretend. And for a year, Denise walks this nightmare tightrope of pretense. She's back living with her father; she's still a minor. And she has to pretend that she loves her father. She has to pretend that she agrees with her father when her father says your mother must have run off to Australia as she'd been talking about. And the entire time she's holding this terrible secret that she knows her father killed him mother.

IR: In 2013 her burnt remains were found just outside of Milan. Do you do we know what happened to her?

AP: We do. We do. I mean this story has so many unbelievable twists and turns. When Denise was living with her father, she fell in love with one of her father's crew, and it seems that that affair was genuine on both sides. Come 2012-2013 — three-and-a-half years after she disappeared — he confesses. Actually the husband strangled her in a flat with a curtain cord. And he was tasked with driving the body outside Milan to a warehouse where they spent several days incinerating it. And eventually shoveling what remained into a drain. Amazingly, after his confession, the authorities went to that drain and found more than 2,800 bone fragments. And this bracelet that's he had had given to her back when they were dating.

IR: What impact did her murder have in Italy?

AP: Initially, none. And this goes to a real darkness actually at the heart of Italy sometimes a mafia woman goes missing. It didn't make headlines. The assumption is oh, well, these are these backward families from the south. They're all always all killing each other. By the time the trial happened, however, and the full story of what she had tried to do in terms of turning against her family and her criminal upbringing, she’d become an icon. To this day, her face is on sort of posters and placards that are held up at anti-mafia demonstrations. There are bridges, and parks, and university named after her. She is she is an icon.

IR: And speaking to that shift in public awareness about these women, there was a public funeral held for her in 2013 — four years after she was killed. And Denise addressed the crowd. Have a listen to what she told those gathered in Milan.

SOUNDCLIP

DENISE: [Speaking: Italian]

TRANSLATION: Today is a very difficult day for me. Moma, thank you for all you did for me. Thank you for giving me a better life. Everything that happened, everything you did, I know that you did it all for me. And I will never stop thanking you for it. Chow, mama.

IR: Alex, what kind of life does Denise lead now?

AP: She's in witness protection, so it's this horrible kind of half-life. That's you know another part of the tragedy this story is that after all this sacrifice, there's no great reward.

IR: They were certainly not alone in taking on the Mafia. Tell us about this other woman.

AP: She was — like many mafia women — an abused wife. She'd been married off or paired up when she was as young as 12 or 13. She had her first child when she was 14. By the time she was 21 or 22, she had three kids, and her maffia husband was in jail. And that's a very normal pattern. She absolutely was not a rebel. She seemed to make her peace with her life by almost pretending to be a kind of happy socialite. Although her family more or less confined to the house — on the rare occasions they did let her out, she would emerge looking quite glamorous. One of the things that she was doing when she was in the house when she was on the internet — this is actually one of the great cracks in the Italian mafia’s trying to isolate themselves from the world is the internet. She was on Facebook. She became friends with a couple of men. And other people saw that and went to her father and said you know your daughter's flirting, she's being unfaithful. Her father and her brother beat her so severely that they cracked her ribs. Then refused to let it go to a hospital, but rather got a mafia doctor to come to the house and treat her. It was actually 11 months before she was allowed to leave the house again. And then only because one of her sons had gotten into trouble with the police with his moped and she needed to go and pay a fine. When she walked into the police station, she demanded to see an officer, and she said I'm in real trouble. I think they're going to kill me. And over the next few days, she summoned up the courage actually to say that she wanted to testify, she wanted to go in witness protection, she wanted a different life.

IR: But she was killed. And what role did her mother play in her death?

AP: Well, her story is it is a Greek tragedy. One of the prosecutors that I interviewed actually describes it as that she makes a decision not to take her children with her into witness protection. Having left her children behind in the care of her mother, whom she trusted, her mother promptly used the children to blackmail her. And said You'll never see your kids again unless you come back to us. You must retract your statements. And she knew that if she went back to her family that she'd be killed. She goes back. It turns out she's miscalculated. She has 10 days 11 days before they kill her.

IR: Are you surprised that her mom was the one who lured her back?

AP: You know when you listen to these wiretaps it is jaw dropping for a mother to blackmail her daughter, and in the full knowledge that her daughter if she returns will be killed. It's monstrous. The two prosecutors both of them more or less broke down when they were telling me this story. And these are very, very tough people.

IR: It's what makes this story so nuanced because you have women like that. Then you have the women who are trying to escape. And given that women in this mafia are now willing or at least to a certain extent are willing to expose the inner workings. Has there been a shift in men's attitudes within the organization?

AP: There's very definitely been a shift. I don't think out of any great enlightenment, but more out of sort of pragmatic business concern. The betrayal by the three women that I feature in the book of the family was an earthquake. It had never happened. And it was it was almost unthinkable. But the but the Ndrangheta is nothing if not flexible and adaptable. You know it quickly worked out well we need to treat the women better. Perhaps we should also promote some of them. After all you know if the prosecutors are only going after the men that would be kind of clever. But the legacy actually of these three women is that the Ndrangheta is still shaken. The events that we're talking about only happened pretty recently. Their result was to expose this very secret, very powerful mafia to the world really for the first time. And the appalling kind of murderous misogyny that it employs now in 21st century Europe.

IR: What impact has the evidence these women provided to authorities had on the Ndrangheta’s criminal activities?

AP: The most powerful family actually did fall as a result of this evidence. It was completely wrapped up. Sixty four members of that family in jail, and 260 million euros confiscated — including two soccer teams. But when one family falls, another moves in and takes its place. When one business becomes too hot, another business is dreamt up. I mean the latest thing that's come to light in a court case in London actually is the Ndrangheta’s new growth businesses is smuggling wine, which is kind of clever in a way because it's a lot more innocent. It's a lot less controversial. All they're doing is avoiding tax. The point is they're doing it on such an enormous scale that it's still a very profitable business. First and foremost, that this organization that was so secret and so hidden for so long is now exposed to the world. The Italians are very alive to it. And that awareness is creeping out across the world. Now I know in Canada you guys have been aware for it for a while, you've had your own Ndrangheta mob war over there. But the FBI is definitely taking interest. The Ndrangheta is all over the big volume cocaine shipments across the east coast. In Europe there's an increasing awareness there was a massive bust in Germany earlier this year. The U.K. I have to say my home country is perhaps the slowest to catch up. And that's a real tragedy because the Ndrangheta launders hundreds of billions of years through the city of London. And that's a real flaw in the fight against the Ndrangheta if the financial engine is still running.

IR: How have the deaths resonated with Italians?

AP: You know I think they resonated very powerfully with Italian women. And I don't think their iconography will ever go away. It felt at the time in 2012-2013 that it happened like a sea change, and it has sustained since. Every month now there are mass anti-mafia demonstrations across Italy. You also sense a response from the more intelligent ends of the mafia that they have to leave that kind of old-style, brutish, sometimes kind of almost romantic legend of you know 19th century mafia behind. It's time to ditch that. What you do see is them becoming much more sophisticated in the financial markets. And that's perhaps where the new fight against them lies.

IR: Alex, It was fascinating talking to you. Thank you so much for your time.

AP: Thank you so much for having me.

IR: Alex Perry is the author of “The Good Mothers: The True Story of the Women Who Took on the World's Most Powerful Mafia. He is in Guildford, England. Coming up in our next half-hour, America's new zero tolerance migrant policy is causing children to be separated from their parents by the thousands. And some are being housed in a former Wal-Mart super centre, near the Texas-Mexico border. After the break, I'll speak with a reporter who's been inside the detention center they call “Casa Padre”. I’m Ioanna Roumeliotis, and you're listening to the Friday edition of “The Current”.

[Music: Theme]

Part three: Inside Casa Padre

Guests: Molly Hennessey-Fiske, Antar Davidson, Sean Rehaag

Hi I'm Ioanna Roumeliotis, and you're listening to the Friday edition of “The Current”. In just a moment we're going to be heading to Texas to hear about the controversy over child migrants being detained. But first, I want to let you know about a special documentary we have coming up Monday on the program. Toronto's Fang Sheng is trying to solve a mystery that started more than 70 years ago. His father was living in a Chinese orphanage at the start of World War II, when an Austrian musician came to teach some of the children how to play classical violin. And those orphans — including Fang Sheng’s father — went on to become the founding members of the Chinese National Symphony Orchestra. Here's some of Sharon Wu's documentary “Finding Adler”, about one man's search for the mysterious man named Adler.

SOUNDCLIP

SHARON WU: The story of how Mr. Adler became such a big part of his family's history starts in the late 1930s.

SPEAKER: Already there are over 100,000 war refugees in Shanghai.

SW: They were known as the Shanghai Jews.

SPEAKER: Jewish refugees from Germany are swelling their numbers — 4,000 have landed. And more are on the way.

SW: About 20,000 European Jews fled to Shanghai; one of the few cities in the world where a landing visa was not required. Mr. Adler was among them. A professional musician from Austria, he soon became the concertmaster of the Shanghai Municipal Orchestra. But more importantly, to Fang, he would also teach orphans like his father how to play classical music.

TRANSLATOR: In China, there have been movies made and the books written about these war orphans, and how they became the backbone of Chinese classic music. But their Jewish teachers were hardly ever mentioned.

FANG SHENG: Well, at first, I couldn't even find Mr. Adler's first name. It was only after a long and deep research did I find out that his first name was Ferdinand.

IR: Fang Sheng’s journey to find out more about Ferdinand Adler, and his own father's past, takes him halfway around the world. Hear the whole documentary Monday on “The Current” Next, children in detention. And heated words yesterday at a White House press briefing.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: It’s a serious question. These people have nothing. They come to the border with nothing. And you throw children in cages. You’re a parent. You’re a parent of young children. Don’t you have any empathy for what they go through?

IR: Reporters asking about the U.S. government's zero tolerance policy that allows it to separate migrant children from their parents. The children are sheltered in facilities throughout the U.S. And the largest of those shelters is currently in Brownsville, Texas. Known as the “Casa Padre”, or “Father's House”, the shelter is inside an old Wal-Mart super centre. The facility drew attention last week when Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley tried, unsuccessfully, to enter it.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF MERKLEY: Hello, yes. Can I go in with you please?

WOMAN: No sir, you’re not going with me.

JM: My team contacted this facility, and asked for permission for me to come and see what is going on inside with these children.

WOMAN: Well, we don’t have any permission on that. So I’m going to have to ask you to go away, sir.

JM: And can I talk to the supervisor who is here?

WOMAN: I can give you her number, but you can’t come in.

IR: The senator from Oregon broadcast himself live on Facebook as he attempted to enter the 250,000 square foot complex, and was denied. This week, however, some reporters were allowed to enter the shelter. One of them was Molly Hennessey-Fiske. She is the Los Angeles Times national reporter based in Houston, Texas. We've reached her in McAllen, Texas. Hello, Molly.

MOLLY HENNESSEY-FISKE: Hi, how are you?

IR: Good thanks. So what did you see inside the shelter?

MHF: Well, it was a guided tour, so we didn't have a lot of time to stop. We were not allowed to take photographs, or to ask questions of staff, or the youth who were there. So it's, as you mentioned, a former Wal-Mart super centre, so it's 250,000 square feet. There are dorm living spaces; rooms with sort of single beds. There were about four beds in the rooms that I saw, plus an added cot because they've received a variance from the state to be over capacity. They have about 1,469 youth there; boys ages 10 to 17. But they had to get this permission from the state to have that because they were originally the license for 1,200. So there were recreation areas, as a cafeteria. But the facility it was clear had been a store. It had a cement floor, exposed ducts, and you know the ceiling of that warehouse look to it.

IR: Molly, I know you didn't get a chance to talk to the children yourself, but were you able to learn much about their lives there based on what you were told?

MHF: Yes, they took us around some of the supervisors and showed us the process that they follow when children arrive in terms of the intake, the screening, there's a medical area in what used to be the vision centre in the Wal-Mart that's now got sort of a waiting area. It has a clinic feel to it. They said they have 48 medical staff, plus three doctors who are on call — including a pediatrician who is sort of up the road and available if they have an emergency, or need them to come over. They said they screen the youth when they arrive. And then if they have issues they can also take them out for doctor and dental appointments. And we saw the vans that they use to do that. And then, like I said, we saw the living quarters, the classrooms where I could look through a window and a door and see the youth you know sitting at desks, and there was an instructor. But, like I said, I didn't have time. And I also wasn't allowed to go up and ask you know are you actually getting the instruction that they're saying you are? They said that they receive about six hours of instruction a day, and that they get a minimum of two hours outside in this recreation area where there are basketball courts, a soccer field, and volleyball nets?

IR: Who runs the facility?

MHF: It's run by a non-profit called Southwest Key that's based here in Texas in the capitol in Austin. And it's among the largest providers of shelter services in the country. They have 27 shelters across the Southwest in Texas, Arizona, and California.

IR: And did you get a chance to talk to the staff at all?

MHF: I did not talk to the staff at this facility, except for the supervisors who were doing the tour. And a couple of staff along the way, like for instance, as a staffer in the medical area who explained to us what they do. But I did talk to a worker at a Southwest Key facility in Tucson in Arizona who resigned this week because of what he described as understaffing and poor conditions there that he thought were not serving the children.

IR: Yeah, we'll be speaking to him next. In terms of the concerns that the staff raised at this facility, and the others that you've talked to, what are what are the issues that they're dealing with in terms of the concerns they have about the kids?

MHF: Well, I had talked to that staffer in Tucson before I took the tour. And so at the end of the tour, I did ask specifically about some of the issues that he had raised — which were, like I said, the overcrowding, the fact that they’re are over capacity, and they did admit that they that they were, but they said it was still within the guidelines that were set by the state licensing for childcare. And it appeared that there were a lot of youth there obviously. But the bedrooms didn't look crowded. There was no one sleeping on the floor. But they did say that they don't know what they're going to do if more youth come. I mean they're going to have to stop at some point because they can't take many more.

IR: Where are the parents, Molly? These kid’s parents.

MHF: So there's been a change in the process for families. Right now, the population at this facility 70 per cent of them they said are what's called unaccompanied minors, so they arrived at the border without an adult. But about 30 per cent are originally arrived with their parents. And what happens is instead of proceeding immediately to immigration court, which here in the U.S. is an administrative court, it's not criminal. Under a new zero tolerance policy that was implemented last month by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration, these parents are now charged with either a misdemeanor illegal entry into the U.S. or a felony re-entry in federal criminal court. So they're separated from their children, charged in criminal court, and then detained separately.

IR: And how long will the kids be in these detention centers? How long before they see their parents?

MHF: Well, they told me that the average stay was about roughly 50 days. But when we asked you know what's the longest that a child has stayed here? They couldn't — or they didn't — tell us. So that's not exactly clear. But what they said is that when a child arrives, they're assigned a case worker. And that case worker tries to make contact with family in their home country, as well as someone who could potentially sponsor or host them in the U.S. And they immediately start trying to place them. They also said that all of the children are able to make contact with their parents, and they showed us this bank of 16 phone booths where they said they could call and reach their parents. But I also separately have talked to parents who have not been able to reach their children. I also went to the federal criminal court I mentioned earlier, and parents were openly getting up and raising their hand, and asking the judge when will I get to see my child again? So there's a lot of confusion still.

IR: OK well, Molly, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much.

MHF: Thank you.

IR: Molly Hennessey-Fiske is the Los Angeles Times national reporter. She's in McAllen, Texas. My next guest knows detention centres like these from the inside out. He's a former youth worker at a similar centre that was run by the same organization Known as “Estrella del Norte”, it’s and Arizona shelter for unaccompanied minors, housing children who have been separated from their parents. Unlike reporters on tour, Antar Davidson got to know the children. He quit because of what he saw. We have reached and Antar Davidson in Tucson, Arizona. Hi, Antar.

ANTAR DAVIDSON: Good morning, how are you?

IR: I'm good. Molly just mentioned that she spoke to you as well. So, firsthand, tell us what goes on inside the shelter when there isn't a media tour?

AD: Definitely real quick, I want to just thank Molly for all the work she's done in getting this story out. Inside the shelter, it was very hectic. At the time that I quit, they had just received seven Brazilian minors. It was the first time they had had that happen in their shelter. They were also the three minors from India. So it was a very hectic time. Recently, three minors ran away; one additional attempted. And so it was very hectic and chaotic as people were trying to also adjust to the zero tolerance policy and the additional trauma of the new intakes coming in based on that policy.

IR: What was your job with the children?

AD: I was the youth worker. So I provided care services to the youth. I also taught a Brazilian martial art, and English and vocational classes.

IR: What made you realize you didn't want to work there anymore?

AD: Essentially, when the first group of Brazilians came. It was a brother who was 16, a sister who was ten, and a younger brother who was eight. And they had not been given beds. I was told to ask them to sleep on the floor in a classroom. And having to sweep the floor and asking him to sleep there was the beginning of one of the most morally questionable days I've had. And then in the evening, a shift leader had called me over the radio and told me Antar, we need you to come here and translate for us. You need to tell them not to hug. So now I come to the scene and these are kids who were separated from their mother yesterday, and through their ICE detention, through their medical, until they came to me a day later, I was the only one that actually spoke in their language — which is Portuguese. And they were being told in Spanish and English that they now we're going to be each separated and put into a different room. The siblings they were hugging each other, and just weeping, and holding on desperately to each other. And the shift leader goes very aggressively to me tell them they can't hug.

IR: Why? Why can’t they hug?

AD: Well, the shelter has a no touch policy between the minors. And so that was like that was a policy that was enforced quite often that they weren't allowed to touch. I guess it's meant to avoid any sort of problems. So she wanted me to enforce their rule at this most inappropriate of times. And I told her I'm sorry, as a human being I can't do that. And that prompted me to start taking action.

IR: After quitting, why did you decide to speak out?

AD: Well that was why I quit in the first place. While I was there, I worked extremely hard for these minors, and I made a lot of very positive connections with them. I connected with them in a unique way through teaching martial arts and giving them something that the shelter had really been lacking, which were essentially quality English classes, quality vocational classes, and real advice to prepare them for what they were going into. So I had developed a very strong personal connection with these minors. So when I felt the necessity to be a conscientious objector... I put it this way: I slept very well last night because I did right for those kids when I was in the shelter. And I'm doing right for them having left, and that's in large part thanks to Molly Hennessy-Fiske and her work.

IR: You know the scene you described about the siblings hugging and weeping. That must have been heartbreaking. Are there other moments like that that you still think about?

AD: Oh, on a daily basis. You know as a youth worker, the youth care workers are the meat and bones of this industry. And they're the ones that are really on the floor every day with the minors. So you imagine a social worker will see maybe four or five different cases a day and have to deal with those. Me personally, I was teaching my Brazilian martial art. I had between 20 to 60 kids in the class. So you multiply these kind of social worker interactions a 100 times a day-200 times a day. You're just shuffling through where kids who are having a lot of trauma who are in a shelter which is not fully meeting their needs. And it came to a point that I realized internally I couldn't bring enough change as I felt that I could outside of the shelter.

IR: So it was the emotional needs that weren't being met?

AD: Well, emotional and social needs. They are not being prepared to get work. They’re not prepared really well enough to speak English or even to go into high schools. We got to remember that these shelters are essentially pipelines to the American public school system. These kids are actively being reunified and placed into schools and communities all over the country. So if this if this sort of facility takes a more prison like turn, or in the case of this company again, short changes the services so that the CEO and his wife can make a million plus dollars a year, that's going to be a problem because again, these kids are being pipelined directly into the U.S. public school system.

IR: Do the kids know where their parents are? Do they understand why they're being kept there?

AD Well, here's where it gets more complicated. So this program was established about four or five years ago under the Obama administration. And so the kids before this zero tolerance policy law — the kids that came mostly from Guatemala — they had been used to this process. They knew the drill. They come to the border, they speak to a border patrol agent, they tell them they’re a minor, they have their documents, they have a sponsor in the United States, they are told before they come that they'll be spend some time in a shelter like Southwest Key, and then they keep your head down. And then they're sent on a flight with papers like a green card and they're placed in schools. That was how it used to be. So that that population of minors was much more compliant, much more relaxed. After the zero tolerance policy law turned, basically the kids that were coming didn't know the drill. These were kids that were essentially ripped away from their parents at the border. And so these kids were experiencing much more trauma. They didn't know where they were. They didn't know where their parents were. The caseworkers didn't know where their parents were. You know it was rumoured that they might be going to jail their parents. So, at that point, the entire system changed, and what once a transience facility for compliant kids became a more permanent facility for much more traumatized and diverse kids.

IR: OK, Antar, thank you so much. We're going to have to leave it there.

AD: My pleasure. Thank you for having me on.

IR: Antar Davidson is a former youth worker at the “Estra De Norte” shelter for unaccompanied minors. We reached him in Tucson, Arizona. We reached out to the organization that runs these shelters, Southwest Key, but we have not heard back. The issue of how the U.S. treats migrant children could be triggering more than empathy here or north of the border. My next guest says it's raising concerns about Canada's own refugee agreement with the U.S. Sean Rehaag is an associate professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, and he's with me in Toronto. Hi, Sean.

SEAN REHAAG: Hello.

IR: First off, what's your reaction to what we've just heard?

SR: Well, it's troubling, it's tragic. The idea of taking kids away from their families is really disturbing. It's particularly disturbing because of the rationale that's been offered by the U.S. government for this move, and specifically explicitly the purpose it's a penalty designed to deter other people from coming to the country. So punishing asylum seekers, punishing refugees, in order to deter other people from coming to the country by taking away their kids you know it's just atrocious.

IR: You know we're talking about the Canada-USA third party agreement. Can you explain briefly what it is?

SR: Right. So Canada has entered into an international agreement with the United States. And that agreement, if a refugee comes to the border, comes to an official port of entry, and asks for refugee protection in Canada. Unless they fall within a set of limited exceptions, they will be sent back to the United States instead of having their refugee claim processed here.

IR: So what's the problem with an agreement within the context of these migrant children that we're seeing now?

SR: Right. Well, there are several problems. But I think the main one in connection with the zero tolerance policy in the United States is that the preface of the agreement is that both Canada and the United States are safe for refugees. That's why it's OK for Canada to send refugees to the United States, instead of hearing their claims here. The problem with a zero tolerance policy, as well as a more recent announcement by the United States about domestic violence claims, the problem is that the United States is just no longer safe for refugees. So if a person comes to the border with their kid, wants to make a refugee claim, what's going to happen right now under the agreement is that they're going to be sent back to the United States, where they're going to be detained under this zero tolerance policy. Separated from their children in order to deter other asylum seekers. And potentially as I mentioned with a domestic violence announcement the other day, potentially they'll be deported to face persecution in their home country. So I think it's clear that the United States at least for some groups of refugees, including families with children, it's just no longer safe.

IR: So what do you want Canada to do?

SR: Well, I think advocates for refugees have a sense that the Trump election been arguing that it's time for Canada to suspend or to scrap the safe third country agreement. The rationale being if the United States is no longer safe for refugees, it's not appropriate for Canada to be sending refugees to the United States. That process is built right into the agreement. The agreement specifically says that Canada can suspend the safe third country agreement in times where the is not working anyway. As we've seen in the news, there are thousands of people who are circumventing the agreement because you can get around the agreement if you don't go to an official port of entry. The agreement is just not working. And the United States is not safe. I think it's time to suspend the agreement.

IR: OK, I want you to hear another opinion on this. Shuvaloy Majumdar is a Monk a senior fellow for foreign policy with the MacDonald Laurier Institute. Listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

SHUVALOY MAJUMDAR: There are obviously imperfections in how the American system is capable of responding to that kind of huge pressure of humanity. But at the same time, it is a country of due process that affords the rule of law. And so as they grapple with these issues, there are going to be problems. But, at the same time, none of it is at the scale which would deem it to be unsafe for refugee claimants.

IR: How do you respond to that?

SR: Well, I mean I understand the point. When people stand up and say the United States is not a safe country, it's understandable that we would look to the great constitutional traditions in the United States, the court system in the United States, the fact that the United States is one of the most important democracies in the world. So I understand the concern. The question about whether the United States is safe though is specific to the individual refugees who are going to be sent back to the United States. And I just think that sending a person to a country where they're going to be detained, separated from their children, and potentially deported to face persecution. I just think that country cannot be considered safe. It's clear under international law that this is not permissible. It's clear under Canadian constitutional law that we can do this so. So I certainly respect the concerns. But I think when one looks at the specific circumstances those concerns just don't bear out.

IR: OK. And before we let you go. Our guests did mention this is not a new policy. So what makes the safe third country agreement unconstitutional now?

SR: Well, advocates for refugees have argued that the Safe third country agreement has been constitutional for a long time. But what has changed now is that the U.S. policies are now much more explicit. The government is actually saying you know not only is there a practice of detaining some asylum seekers they're going to detain all asylum seekers. Not only is there a practice of separating some children they're going to separate all children. When you combine that with the announcement that the United States will no longer protect women who are facing domestic violence, I think these announcements are game changers. Because now no one I think can reasonably argue that the United States is safe for these groups of refugees.

IR: OK, Sean, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much.

SR: Thank you.

IR: Sean Rehaag is an associate professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School. He is in Toronto.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 15, 2018

Social Sharing

More from this episode