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 2020

The Current Transcript for June 24, 2020

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: These accusations are groundless. They are baseless. Their detention was arbitrary since day one. That is what our government and that's what many other governments around the world have clearly stated.

MATT GALLOWAY: 562 days into his detention in a Chinese jail, the family of Michael Kovrig has had enough. As espionage charges against Kovrig and Michael Spavor move forward, the family's calling for a more forceful response from the Canadian government. And they're making the case that releasing a Chinese business executive here could help free their loved one over there. A legal resolution or paying ransom to the Chinese government. We'll discuss in 30 minutes. Also this morning, as this pandemic drags on, why kids in foster care have been left in limbo. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I walk into the office and our broadcasting studios, I am wearing high heeled boots. Your morning news anchor, Wil Fundal, wears boots.

MG: It's Pride Month and as celebrations go virtual and parades are cancelled, a new CBC podcast explores the pronouns we use to identify ourselves and what it means to be non-binary. We start, though, with a case study in systemic racism, a canadian school board that knows it's got a big problem and is struggling with how to solve it. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

[Music: theme]

Amid reckoning over systemic racism at Ontario school board, trustee seeks accountability

Guests: Benjamin McDonald, Kathy McDonald, Carl James

MG: It's been a week of big news for the Peel District School Board just outside Toronto. Yesterday, the director of education was fired. Earlier in the week, a supervisor was appointed by the province to take over that board. And these moves come after years of criticism that the board hasn't been dealing with issues of systemic racism and dysfunction. This spring, an independent investigation found that black students were singled out for suspensions and expulsions more than most, sometimes for wearing hoodies or even hoop earrings. One of the people who's been fighting for change in the Peel District School Board is Kathy McDonald. She's both a school trustee and a mother of kids in Peel schools. And when I spoke with Kathy and her son Benjamin yesterday, he'd just graduated with distinction from the University of Toronto. Benjamin, congratulations.

BENJAMIN MCDONALD: Thank you. Thank you.

MG: Paint me a picture, Benjamin, of what your experience was like as a black student going to school in the Peel District School Board.

BENJAMIN MCDONALD: I have to say that school was a pretty negative experience. Starting off from you know day one, I just wasn't receiving the support a student should be receiving from teachers. You know, I was always made to feel like I was less than. When I was in grade 5, my teacher, my white teacher — I was in a primarily black class — he told me, 'Oh, your kind, you know, they don't go to university. So you don't have to worry about university.' And, you know, here I am, I graduated from university, so I proved them wrong. He said things to a white student in the class like, oh, don't hang out with the black students in the class because one day you'll end up seeing life behind bars. So a lot of negative treatment from teachers, you know psychologically that I think was really damaging to see a young kid growing up.

MG: I want to bring your mom in on this in a minute, but I mean, as a student, what is it like to hear that? What is it like to hear that you shouldn't worry about going to university because that's not something as a black kid that's going to be in your frame? Benjamin, what would go through your mind when you heard that?

BENJAMIN MCDONALD: First, I was very confused. I mean, the initial reaction was probably like, oh, yeah, I don't have to go to university. But then, you know, you kind of, I always call my mom and my dad when I come home, how the day went or whatever. So then, you know, I explained to my parents, 'Oh, my teacher said I don't have to go to university, and I'm kind of happy about it,' but, of course, they were not pleased because I mean I come from a line of university achievers. And so now to hear that your teacher is telling your kids, that was pretty upsetting for my parents.

MG: Kathy, tell me more about that. What went through your mind when Benjamin started coming home with these sorts of stories?

KATHY MCDONALD: Oh, I was livid. And it was building on what was happening to him before because he was being bullied. He was very short as a kid. He didn't mean he grew until like grade 10. So now, you know, he's nice and tall and handsome as always, but going to the school, he was always very short. So he was bullied constantly. And he was very smart, so he was bullied for that, too. And a lot of the times when you would report incidents of bullying, it was ignored. I was told things like this student, I say student, Pam, we need to understand his mother is going on dialysis. And I said, well, what is that a concern for me? If a black boy was beating up a white kid for three weeks, would you tell the white parent to have the same level of understanding?

MG: This wasn't just individual occurrences, an independent investigator, as I mentioned, looked into the ongoing problems with racism in schools. What did they find in that report?

KATHY MCDONALD: So they found things that all black people knew that our kids were being targeted and learning environments were a hostile environments for black students. They were disproportionately represented in locally applied courses or in a locally developed courses, sorry, or applied courses. They were overly represented in suspensions and expulsion.

MG: I mentioned that in the introduction, kids being suspended or expelled for things like wearing a hoodie or wearing hoop earrings. What's going on there?

KATHY MCDONALD: We used to have this category called other and literally if a kid breathing, you didn't like it, you could just other them and then suspend them. The reason for a lot of these suspensions were ridiculous. We even had in school suspensions where they were withholding black students from learning. Education is huge in terms of your social mobility, so why are we keeping black children out of the classroom? For example, one black student said to me he was on his way to school, he was carded three times. So he was late to school. Then he goes, he's walking in the hallway and to have a principal yelling and screaming at him. So then, of course, he now gets angry. So he gets suspended. But before we start yelling and screaming at our kids, we should find out why they are late, because if I am held up three times for no reason on my way to work.

MG: Stoppped by the police asking for I.D. because you're just walking down the street.

KATHY MCDONALD: Absolutely. I remember, for example, when Benjamin who was a first time minister at his school, was having a career fair and he got 19 professionals. I got a black emergency room physician, I got a justice of the peace. I got engineers, aeronautical engineers. My girlfriend has her PhD in medicine. She does research at Nova Farm. My husband works in pathology. So we had a whole slew of black professionals and the guidance teacher called all these individuals and cancelled them and said, we have too high expectations for these kids. They need more barbers and hairdressers. And I was appalled because I'm not knocking the barber or hairdresser because I use a hairdresser. But we don't need to produce a thousand hairdressers.

MG: Benjamin, what for you? What about for you? Was there anyone that you could go to or that you felt you could go to in the midst of this?

BENJAMIN MCDONALD: No, I didn't have any support within the school when I was on the Peel board. Maybe I had one or two teachers during my time, but overall, no. I always relied on parents or guidance and just coming home to parents who will big you up and shoot some positivity into your day, you know?

MG: What would have made a change for you in that system? Because what we're learning about through this report and the fact that the government has appointed a supervisor is that this is a longstanding, systemic issue. So I'll start with you, Benjamin. What sort of changes would have made a difference for you and other black students in that board?

BENJAMIN MCDONALD: If I was just hearing more positivity, just more 'Oh, you can do this,' or 'Good job' — more encouragement from our teachers, I think that would make a difference. Respect from the teachers, they want to see you succeed.

MG: What about for you, Kathy? What sort of you've been pushing for this and part of this is as a parent, but also as a trustee. What sort of changes would you like to see happen in the board?

b: So for me the big pieee is accountability. And I would say he had a, there was a maths teacher, Joshua Goldenthal, that was a good advocate for him. And I think that saved in and really helped him through middle school. And Mrs. Francis, two teachers he felt like whenever he was feeling frustrated he could speak to those teachers. But ultimately, it was eating away at him. So we had to take him out of the school, because even when you look at the curriculum, are you seeing yourself reflected? If you're only learning about black people in a negative deficit kind of lens, they don't realize that black people have made wonderful contributions to this country. A lot of the rights that other immigrants have come here have been on the backs of black people. The Dudley Laws, the child roaches. There are a lot of individuals that have contributed to country, you know, Jean Augustine. As black kids, they don't really have a strong sense of self and pride a lot of them and I we started and Benjamin got a lot of his friends involved in a steel pan group to teach him about the rich Trinidadian heritage and culture of the steel pan. The music, there's so much that we can help black kids feel good and other kids cause it's very important to the kids who are not black to see black people in a positive light. And to understand that black people, we are not what a lot of times we are portrayed as like, you know, these thugs or these people dependent on welfare. In Brampton, 90 percent, the 2016 census said 90 percent of black families own our own homes. We pay taxes. We are contributing members of society.

MG: Benjamin, you were fortunate in that you had, as you said, you come from a family that is high achieving. They have expectations. They demand expectations. Your mom got involved with the board as a trustee. If you didn't have those advocates, do you worry what would have happened to you in school?

BENJAMIN MCDONALD: Honestly, I think I would have probably given up. For example, I remember one time I came home and I said, I'm bad at math. I can't stand math. And, you know, if I had parents who just said, 'OK, you're bad at math,' and then you know left it at that, then I wouldn't have been able to go and write the Gallup Math Contest in Grade 8 and get a perfect score. So I think sometimes you just need these positive influences as a student and that will really drive you forward.

MG: What do you think of the fact that your mom has been instrumental in this work at the board?

BENJAMIN MCDONALD: Yeah, I'm really proud of my mom and I definitely see the hard work that she puts in every day, and I'm glad that she's passionate about it, seeing how we've been experiencing this for a long time. You know what I mean?

MG: Kathy, just finally, there's a large conversation that's happening in various sectors, whether it's in media, whether it's in policing, whether it's in government, around systemic racism. What does this story tell you about how difficult it is to address systemic racism in Canada?

KATHY MCDONALD: Well, I say this journey started six years ago and you realize I understand the root, I would say of the systemic nature of the discrimination. It starts with our lawyers because corporations are huge. They think they have a bottomless pit. So when they take on individual parent, because there are lots of cases of human rights cases that are filed against organizations like school boards, but they get silenced. So they eventually frustrate people out of the process or they drag it out to the end and they pay them off. And by paying them off, you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. So they silenced actually, the stories that are happening in the board. You look at roadblocks and a lot of the kinds of people that are moving up, you move up because you are willing to sort of go along with the system. When you speak up, you look at the people that speak out about injustice or racial discrimination, what happens to them? Where are they now? And it's easier you know, when you talk to staff about anti-black racism, oh they're uncomfortable. Well, I say to you, you know, this is not about your comfort level, it's about what's happening to our kids. And I'm strongly strongly believe that education is the only way that people can change their circumstances and the only hope they have of getting out of poverty. You know, I look at what happened to indigenous students. We have to make sure that they feel proud of their heritage. We have to be able to understand and change a narrative of how people see indigenous kids, how people see black students. That's what school should be about, enhancing and promoting kids to dream big.

MG: Kathy, it's great to talk to you about this. Thank you for your time this morning.

KATHY MCDONALD: Thank you.

MG: And Benjamin, congratulations on graduating and good luck in whatever you're gonna do in the future. I'm sure it's going to be dynamic and important. Thank you.

KATHY MCDONALD: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

MG: Kathy McDonald is a trustee for the Peel District School Board. Benjamin McDonald is her son. We asked the Peel District School Board for comment, and they sent us a statement from the director of education, Peter Joshua. He was fired yesterday after we spoke with Kathy and Benjamin. That statement in part reads, "The problems in the Peel Board are undeniable. They go back generations. These are big societal problems that are systemic in nature and require fundamental change here at the Peel School Board. We are not alone. We have identified many parts of the solution, but have not moved fast enough to make the necessary changes and that is why the board asked for help." Well the stories coming out of the Peel Board are troubling, certainly, but they're not unique. Carl James is a professor of education at York University and he holds the Jean Augustine Chair in Education, Community and Diaspora. Carl, good morning to you.

CARL JAMES: Good morning, Matt. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thank you for joining us. What do you make of what you've heard from from Kathy and Benjamin McDonald?

CARL JAMES: It's very typical. And it's one of the stories that we keep hearing about students in the Toronto area. But I'd also draw attention to there's evidence of similar kinds of experiences, like, for example, we have known of the same thing happen in Montreal. We have similar issues coming out of Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. Many had similar experiences with black students.

MG: Both Kathy and Benjamin talked about specific examples in their own lives of examples of systemic racism. If you step back and look at the school boards more broadly, what does that look like? What is anti-black racism look like in a school setting?

CARL JAMES: It's the stereotype and assumptions, and Benjamin pointed out some of this. These stereotypes and assumptions that the student is not going to do well, the streaming of black students into low level programs, that the idea of hearing the N word and therefore from other students as well as. It's teachers, yes, it's principals, but also even their peers have understood and got into the program of understanding what to expect from black students. So it's a whole system here that we need to talk about.

MG: The statement that we got from the director of education at Peel outlined some of the changes that they're already making. Moving away from streaming that you mentioned, where black students end up in applied programs, not academic programs. They are looking at eliminating suspensions and expulsions for kids from kindergarten through grade three to try to deal with that discipline imbalance, if I can put it that way. What do you make of those initiatives and the steps that Peel has taken so far?

CARL JAMES: They're good. I'm not sure how much the culture itself of schooling will have changed in order to adapt and take on some of those words. I'm not sure.

MG: What do you mean the culture of schooling?

CARL JAMES: Are teachers really changed their practices and start thinking differently of black students? Are teachers started thinking that they must engage students in ways that the students will feel a sense of belonging in the school. So it's not simply the policies, we need teachers also. We need principals as well. So what this is Matt is a whole culture change, a cultural shift.

MG: Do you have to change the complexion of who's in the school? In Peel something like 83 percent of secondary students in Peel are racialized, compared to staffing ratios that apparently show that two thirds of the teachers are white? Do you need to change who the teachers are?

CARL JAMES: Of course. We need to see all kinds of teachers and the research shows that black students and black male students especially are more likely to graduate if they have black teachers. But we're not talking about black teachers for only black students, because white students need to see black teachers as well. And so that the concept of the black successful person, so we need all different races of teachers in the classroom, teaching students. And not only in the classroom as principals and superintendents. If there's going to be this cultural shift because everyone brings his or her experiences into the classroom and into the teaching. That's why it's so important to expose all students to all kinds of teachers.

MATT GALLOWAY: I spoke with Jonatan Fuentes earlier this week on the program. He is a graduation coach. Works specifically with black students and has been doing some work in Peel as well. Listen to what Jonatan Fuentes said.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: The role of a graduation coach is to really act as a mentor and advisor to black students, working with black students to identify and address individual barriers to engagement, learning and well-being.

MG: Carl James, you could change the culture, but in the process of that, what do you make of initiative like that and having a graduation coach?

CARL JAMES: The graduation coach, I think is a good idea. But that graduation coach, is the person has to work with the teachers as well, and the teachers must also see the graduation coach as complimenting their work. So we do not have the teacher and the graduation compete competing with with authority over the student. So I think it's a very useful approach, but at the same time, we're going to have teachers respecting and acknowledging that help that the graduation coach provides would be in the interests of the students and in the interests of the teacher, because that graduation coach will enable the students to think of how much he or she can be able to succeed through the courses that the teachers provide.

MG: We've been talking about this one instance in Peel in this one school board, but to a lot of people, this is a case study of what systemic racism can look like in education. We're in this moment now where this robust conversation, this awkward and uncomfortable for a lot of people, conversation about systemic racism across many sectors is happening. Is this the moment when education starts to change?

CARL JAMES: You know, I think many of us are hopeful that it will be the moment and others will say we've been here before. We've seen this. We have seen parents demonstrate. We have seen communities demonstrate and argue that for things to be done differently. Let's hope that this point, you see, we everyone's using the word anti-black racism now. Everybody's hearing and saying the words systemic racism. Hopefully they understand what that really means — those two terms mean — will eventually click and we will see changes. So it's let's see this as a movement and hopefully in time we'll be able to see changes not only in education system, but all of the systems who are contributing to the welfare of black students.

MG: Carl James, it's great to talk to you, as always. Thank you.

CARL JAMES: Thank you very much, Matt.

MG: Take care. Bye bye.

CARL JAMES: Thanks for having me. Bye.

MG: Carl James is a professor of education at York University. He holds the Jean Augustine Chair in Education, Community and Diaspora. As I mentioned, a lot of people say that what's happening in the Peel District School Board is a case study in systemic racism and how difficult it can be to dismantle that. Your thoughts on what you've heard in terms of the individual experiences of students like Benjamin and the work that his mother is doing. But also from Carl, how difficult it is to try and dismantle that and reform education? Welcome your feedback on that. And you can reach us through the website at cbc.ca/thecurrent. You can find us on Facebook or Twitter. Just look for The Current CBC or send us an email thecurrent@cbc.ca. The CBC News is next. And then it's been more than 560 days since Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were taken into Chinese custody. When we come back, a family's struggle and the international wranglings involved in efforts to free them. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current CBC Radio One. We're back in six minutes. Stay with us.

[Music]

Should Canada swap Meng Wanzhou for two Canadians in China?

Guests: Adrienne Arsenault, Allan Rock, Charles Burton

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

MG: Still to come, the impact this pandemic is having on kids in foster care and their families. But first, the fight to bring two Canadians home.

[Music: theme]

MG: After he was detained by the Chinese government a year and a half ago, Canadian Michael Kovrig was allowed to send letters home, usually about once a month, including this one last July to his wife, Vina Nadjibulla.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: If there is one faint silver lining to this hell, it's this: trauma carved caverns of psychological pain through my mind. As I strive to heal and recoverm I find myself filling those gulfs with a love for you and for life that is vast, deep and more profound and comforting than what I've ever experienced before. So as I sit here, tonight it's ringing in the silence as I walk in circles, pollution clogging my nose. Come sit with me and walk with me in spirit. Help me feel less isolated. Let me share the love I have for you and we'll get through this together. Love, Michael.

MG: Vina Nadjibulla reading a letter that Michael Kovrig sent her last July. During the entire time that Kovrig has been detained in China, along with fellow Canadian Michael Spavor, their families have been silent for 562 days, working behind the scenes to try to get their release. Now, Vina Nadjibulla has decided it's time for everyone to hear her voice. And this week she sat down with the Nationals Adrienne Arsenault. Adrienne, good morning.

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Why did Vina Nadjibulla decide that now was the time to speak out?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Well, you know, she certainly didn't wake up suddenly and decide, you know, this is what I'm going to do today. She has been holding tight and weighing this decision for a very long time. She and I have been talking about the prospect of an interview for three or four months now and always. For her, the calculation has been, what is the risk if I say something how will it affect Michael? If I don't say something, how will it affect Michael? Will the family. Michael's father, his sister, be cut off from communication with the government. And always there were these pauses where she'd say, you know, wait a minute, I have a little bit of hope. Maybe the court case will go Meng Wanzhou's way. Maybe that as a gesture the Chinese will release the Micheals and then that didn't happen. Or maybe they won't be charged and they'll come home. That didn't happen. They were charged. And I think what it came down to is that it came to a point where Vina and Michael's dad, his sister, said, look, we've respected this process enough. The government had, I suppose, suggested they keep it out of the media and they did that for a really long time. And the effect of that in their minds was that in the end, there was no urgency. No one was realising the agony these families are under. And to hear people occasionally refer casually to the two Michaels just kept becoming so dehumanizing, they had to do something.

MG: We've talked about these two men for 562 days. Let's have a listen to some of your conversation with Vina Nadjibulla. Here she is describing the kind of person that Michael Kovrig is.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I mean, he is one of the strongest, most determined people I've ever met. And for the last five hundred sixty days, and especially in the last few months before the consulate visits stopped, his letters were a testament to that. Like his character was coming through very, very clearly. His resilience, his determination, his sense of purpose in life. He's someone who's devoted his life to public service. He wants to make the world a better place and that's why, unfortunately, he is in the situation. That's why he was in China.

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: So Matt, Vina is, I have to say, a remarkable woman. She says she and Michael are best friends. You know, they've known each other for 20 years. She's she's a lovely way of phrasing. She says, you know, I'm his person. He's my person. They met at Columbia. He proposed to her on the floor of the U.N. She says it was, you know, a Canadian proposal at the U.N. and they were separated just before he was detained. So they're not romantically linked now. But, you know, to me, there's no doubt that there's love there and so she's determined to give everything she has at freeing him and Michael Spavor. And, you know, she's got a lot to offer. She speaks English, Farsi, Mandarin, Russian. She has experience in war zones. They've always pledged that if something went wrong with either one of them, the other would come and get them and have each other's back.

MG: And she's been deeply involved in this, involved and you mentioned amongst Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei CFO who had an extradition hearing in Vancouver and Vina Nadjibulla was there?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: She did. You know, Vina was there. No one knew who she was, what she looked like. She walked past all those cameras every day and went and sat and listened to everything she could. She has read every letter of the Extradition Act. She has read every document in the Meng case. She, you know, when she arrived here Monday to do the interview out came spilling notebook after notebook with meticulous details about conversations she's had. People she's contacted, the halls of power she's been barging through. She has been meticulous.

MG: One of the things that I think a lot of people in this country, and perhaps it's compared to the mansion that Meng Wanzhou is currently living in in house detention. But people have been asking about the conditions that Michael Kovrig has been living under in China. She talked to you about that. Let's hear some of that.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Basically, he has been confined to a single cell for this entire time. He has not gone outside. He has not seen a tree or had fresh air to breathe for 560 days. In one of his letters, he says that it really weighs on the soul when you can't see more than 10 feet in any direction.

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: And that's something that, you know, that's really hard to fathom. She says basically what's happened is he's living a very monastic life. Now, when the family writes letters, he's allowed to see the letters, but he can't keep them. And so he tries to sort of capture all the words and all the love in them and then hold them to memory. And he doesn't have access to pen and paper until, you know, sort of they suddenly and without notice appear. And he has to write fast. And these letters are beautiful. You know, they're detailed. They're lyrical. She thinks he's just spending a lot of time composing them in his head and waiting and waiting until he sees a pen and paper and then getting it all down really, really fast. Food's in issue. Matt, there's little to no protein. Everyone's very worried about how sparse the nutrition is. His letters have stopped coming. Since March, they haven't seen any letters. They're very worried about that. He hasn't had a consular visit since January, arguably the Chinese seem to say, because of the pandemic. Poor Vina had to try to explain what the pandemic was to him. He must have thought it was a hoax. But one thing she's learnt is that he's strong. He has been planking every day, apparently. He can now plank for 20 minutes. You know, I can barely get past 20 seconds. I don't know how he's done that.

MG: We have heard from the Chinese government over the last year and a half that these two men, the government believes are spies. And the Chinese government has denied that they are being held in retaliation for the Canadian extradition case against Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei executive. How does Vina Nadjibulla respond to that?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Well, firstly, forcefully, they are not spies. She says they're pawns. Be very clear. They are pawns. She says, you know, reminds us all this has happened before. This is a pattern with China that even in documents released about conversations that were held before Meng Wanzhou was detained at that Vancouver airport in 2018, the Canadian government was reminded, do this and remember, Canadians could be taken out of retaliation. So she also points out that China may tend to overtly deny a connexion. But then we'll always say, when asked about two men, what needs to happen to have them released, that Canada needs to correct its mistake. So in an elaborate way, China routinely makes the link too, but she says, you know, pawns. Just remember they are pawns.

MG: Let's hear another bit of the conversation which picks up on that very point.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: So I think it is very important for all of us to be clear on the fact that we can end the extradition process that is within the rule of law in accordance with the rule of law. It is not in any way judicial interference that the minister can act. Whether the minister should act is a second question, and that is a conversation we should be having instead of hiding behind as suppose it independence of judiciary and so forth. Let's have that conversation. Should the minister do that? And how would the minister do that? That then becomes a matter of political discretion.

MG: Adrienne, just before I let you go, the Canadian government has said that it can't get involved in judicial proceedings. Why is she making the argument against that?

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Because she says the government does have an option to consider. That it isn't. And that while she appreciates it may decide it's on in Canada's interest to exercise that option, she wants to know why the door's been closed. She asked Bryan Greenspan, the lawyer, to look at the extradition act. He did. He says, you're right. Vina, 1999, there was a shift in the language of the Extradition Act that says the minister of justice could stop a proceeding like this at parts of the process and could have done so early on. That's a legal safety valve in case arguably there's an extradition underway that could be considered not good for Canada for a range of reasons, I suppose. This is my layperson's understanding of this. But, you know, she's taken it to Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice, taking it to Allan Rock. And Arbour says, yes, the minister can and should step in that this request to detain and then extradite Meng Wanzhou was a problem from the very beginning for Canada. Lots of people are going to argue it's a bad idea. Vina herself acknowledges maybe it is a bad idea. Just have the conversation.

MG: We're going to pick this up with Allan Rock right now. Adrienne, thank you.

ADRIENNE ARSENAULT: Certainly.

MG: Adrienne Arsenault, the co-host of The National. As you heard, two of Canada's pre-eminent legal voices agree with Vina Nadjibulla. Former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour and former Justice Minister Allan Rock recently prevent presented to the government with a legal opinion, saying that the government can, as you heard, stop that extradition process against Meng Wanzhou. Allan Rock. Good morning.

ALLAN ROCK: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Why did you and Louise Arbour feel that you needed to seek out legal opinion with regards to the case of, the cases, I suppose, of Michael Spavor and Kovrig and the case amongst Wanzhou.

ALLAN ROCK: Well, because Louise, I believe very much that the government is pre-empting any discussion of options in this case by insisting that extradition is like a criminal prosecution. And their response when when ministers or the prime minister are asked about this case is that when the matter's before the court, we cannot comment. The rule of law is engaged. It's improper to try to influence an independent judiciary. But our fundamental point is that that is wrong. This is nothing like a criminal prosecution. It's an administrative process. And Parliament has made it clear that the minister of justice who manages the process may step into to terminate the extradition proceeding at any time during the judicial phase. And one might ask, well, why did parliament include that section twenty three three in the extradition act? I believe and if you look at the parliamentary debates at the time, that it's clear that they weren't an exceptional case to be provided for. There can be unusual cases in which the government might decide it's not in Canada's best interest to continue with an extradition. So the most important objective that we have in putting this before the public is to demonstrate that the minister of justice does have that option and let's have a discussion about what what those options are.

MG: CBC contacted the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada. It sent us a statement which in part reads, "With respect to the extradition process in Canada, extraditions are conducted in conformity with the Extradition Act. We're well aware of the laws and processes governing this important regime as Ms. Meng's case remains before the courts and the minister of Justice has a direct role in the extradition process. It would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter."You were in cabinet. If you were sitting in cabinet now and this were presented, what essentially is being framed as a trade between Meng Wanzhou and Michael Spavor and Kovrig, would you approve that?

ALLAN ROCK: Well, let's look at that option. I think right now we cannot have that public discussion for the very reason that you just read out from the Justice Department's press release. They say we can't even talk about that. Right? Because the minister of justice has a role. He eventually has to decide in the ministerial phase. So we cannot even talk about any options. So that's point number one. Point number two, I understand that reasonable minds can differ on the question of whether we should have the minister terminate the proceeding now, send Meng back to China and secure the return of the two Canadians. I understand it's controversial. There are those who say it'll be giving into blackmail and into a bully and setting a bad precedent, but this is an unusual case in unusual times. It's a very different case now than it was in 2018 when it started. Who could have known that a pandemic would delay court proceedings considerably resulting in longer detention for the two Michaels?

MG: So if you were sitting in the cabinet now, would you approve this?

ALLAN ROCK: I would debate it fully. I'd look at all the merits. My own inclination would be that I don't style it as an exchange of prisoners on the bridge. I style it as a decision made by a sovereign country and its own interests, not the interests of China or the United States, but our own interest to end the proceeding. And I would be inclined to end the proceeding and to say it's in our interest to do that because our citizens are at grave risk, because the virus is, again, live in China. They're having another outbreak. The pandemic has delayed court proceedings so that their detention is going to be prolonged. The Chinese now have laid criminal charges and proposed a show trial for two Canadians on a show trial and frankly, our entire foreign policy is hostage to this situation.

MG: But that leads to other questions about the foreign policy. One is our relationship with the United States. Canada stuck between these two enormous countries and in the United States and in China. How do you think that is being weighed by the Trudeau government, particularly when it comes to our ally south of the border?

ALLAN ROCK: I fully recognze that the prime minister and the government are in a very difficult situation with China on the one hand and the U.S. on the other. And ordinarily, in a case like this, you would side with your ally and your biggest trading partner and your friend, but this is not an ordinary case. And I think, you know, let's remember, our bilateral relationship with the United States has survived controversies and differences in the past. I was in cabinet when we decided not to join the Americans in Iraq. But they got over that and we moved on. And they'll get over this. I think that it's a weighing of what is most important to Canada. Well, what would we say if one of those Canadians in custody became ill with the virus during this period? What would happen if something worse occurred.

MG: Or what would happen if this were to happen in future? The concern from a lot of people and just in the final minute or so that we have is that you're paying ransom in some ways to a government, a otalitarian government. What happens if that government sees this as appeasement and it makes a similar play in in years in future? Do you not worry that this sets a precedent?

ALLAN ROCK: I say two things very quickly. First of all, China has engaged in hostage diplomacy for many, many years. And Canada is looking to change that Chinese policy no matter how we manage this situation. Second, it's the way of the world. Last week, we read the Americans made a deal to get one of their citizens back from Iran through an exchange. This is the way the world works. It's cynical. It's difficult. But let's face the reality. And let's think of those two Canadians and let's put this in perspective. The Americans will get over this and we can we can do what China with a foreign policy policy that's effective in the longer term, but let's deal with this case and not worry so much about precedence.

MG: Allan Rock, great to speak with you. Thank you.

ALLAN ROCK: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Allan Rock, former ambassador to the United Nations. He also served as justice minister in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Charles Burton is a senior fellow with the MacDonald Laurier Institute, former counsellor at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing. He's been listening in. Charles Burton, good morning to you.

CHARLES BURTON: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Allan Rock says this is the way of the world in some ways. Do you believe that the justice minister, David Lametti, should use his authority to intervene in the extradition case of Meng Wanzhou and ultimately, presumably help free Michaels Spavor and Kovrig?

CHARLES BURTON: No, I'm afraid I don't. My heart goes out to the family of Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor, and I quite understand that Mr. Kovrig's family feels that the priority is to do anything that can be done to return their their loved one to safety in Canada, but we can not give in to China's kidnapping and menacing of Canada to pressure on an extradition case.

MG: Why not? Allan Rock says this is about the health and well-being of two Canadians.

CHARLES BURTON: Well, I think that we have to think about the precedent that this would set in emboldening the Chinese regime to engage in more of these kind of outrages. If they feel that Canada is doing something that they don't like. And so from that point of view and all the humanitarian factors, certainly there, I think that there could have been a possibility for the justice minister to intervene under Section 23.3 if the Chinese had not actually done this hostage diplomacy and and put us in a position where intervening under that article would, in fact be giving tacit consent to the outrageous violations of the international rules-based order and diplomacy and trade that the Chinese government has been implementing to attempt to get Ms. Meng back to Beijing so that she won't go to the United States and presumably possibly give the United States government information about the relationship between her firm, Huawei and Chinese intelligence and military elements.

MG: What else could Canada do then? The prime minister has taken some criticism for initially saying when these charges were brought forward against these two men, that he was disappointed. People wanted stronger language and the family and we'll hear more of this in a moment, wants stronger action. What else could the Canadian government do?

CHARLES BURTON: I think we should take action. We should have taken action early on. You know, I think that the priority of the government has been to maintain the economic relationship with China. And so they've probably not done Kovrig and Spavor families the service by telling them to keep quiet and trust us, we'll try and deal with this matter as best we can, because I think that mostly we've been appeasing the Chinese regime, hoping that if we gave in to what they wanted, that we would not have our economic investment and trade with China affected, and that maybe they would take, you know, take to our logic, but there's absolutely no justification whatsoever to take in Kovrig and Spavor. I think it's time to show some backbone.

MG: What does that mean? Show some backbone? What are the specific things that the Canadian government could do?

CHARLES BURTON: I think, first of all, we have to start putting Chinese officials on our Magnitsky list under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. And this would include those who are complicit with the human rights abuse towards Uyghur Muslims in northwestern China. I think that we ought to start to actually, you know, distress the Chinese regime by cracking down on their agents in Canada, engaged in cyber espionage and influence operations and harassment.

MG: What about things like international students? People say that you could, you know, raise the drawbridge to put it that way, so that international students aren't able to come here. There are many international students from China who study here in Canada, perhaps not now during the pandemic, but when this is done, that will be a big part of life here. That's something that the Canadian government should consider.

CHARLES BURTON: Well, I don't see the students as complicit in the actions of the Chinese government. I mean, after all, the Chinese communist regime and the Chinese people are two completely different things. And so denying students educational opportunities is certainly not something I'm going to do. But I think we should be looking much more closely at researchers who have Chinese military backgrounds that we have recently heard have hidden their backgrounds and engaged in research in sensitive areas, and then transfer that technology to serve the interests of the Chinese military. I think we need to be a lot more open eyed about the nature of that regime and make sure that all our interactions with China serve Canadian values and the Canadian interests, and we have to put those before our economic imperatives.

MG: Bennett Kovrig is Michael Kovrig's father. Listen to what he wants from the Canadian government.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I think that Canada must not be seen by Canadians through a first place to have betrayed him. And I think that at this stage, the government is opened itself to the charge of having betrayed the cause of Michael and that there are means that had not taken which were there for the taking. And maybe from their broader perspective, we will have failed canada and Canadian commitment to human rights and especially for Canadian citizens.

MG: Charles Burton, that strong language. Do you believe there's a case to be made that the Canadian government has betrayed the cause of these two men?

CHARLES BURTON: Yes, I don't think that we put their case in the forefront of our relations with China. I think there's been a hope on the part of the Canadian government and the Chinese government that interest in Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor would fade over time and that we could go about the business of negotiating free trade and Canadian corporate interests, getting more access to the Chinese market if we make the kinds of concessions to the Chinese regime that they want, which is that we accept their outrageous violations of of fairness and reciprocity and the normal protocols of diplomacy. And I really feel that our government has to rethink this policy and recognise that the government is supposed to be serving the interests of the people and not necessarily the interests of powerful corporate elements.

MG: I guess just in the last few seconds that we have, there's a desperation to this situation, which is why family members are now speaking out. These two men are sitting in a prison. No one knows when they're going to get out. Nobody knows whether the pandemic will arrive on the doorstep of the prison or it has already. Do you understand the desperation that the family feels?

CHARLES BURTON: I certainly fully understand that. And, you know, as someone who writes about these matters in Canadian Press quite a bit, I spend a lot of time angst ing about what is the effect of my words, which will help or hinder the situation. I really cannot imagine the suffering that Kovrig and Spavor are going through and the suffering that this leaves their families. And, you know, I think that the behaviour of the Chinese government in this matter has been completely inhuman and appalling. And one hopes that, you know, better days are ahead. But under the current regime in China, I really can't be optimistic that we'll see any positive outcome anytime soon, if ever.

MG: Charles, good to speak with you. Thank you.

CHARLES BURTON: Good to speak with you again. Bye.

MG: Charles Burton, senior fellow with the MacDonald Lauria Institute and a former counsellor at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing. Today, China's foreign ministry responded to what Michael Kovrig's family said. They called Meng Wanzhou's detention a serious political incident and said that the Canadian minister of justice ending her extradition case would be in line with the rule of law and also help solve the problem of the two Canadian citizens. We're back in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. Stay with us.

[Music]

New CBC podcast They and Us

Guests: Wil Fundal

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. It was this time last year CBC journalist Wil Fundal was working away in the Prince George B.C. newsroom when they heard this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Can you describe what it means to be non-binary?

VOICE 2: Yeah, sure. It's a great question. So to me.

VOICE 3: This interview takes place in June 2019 on the CBC Morning Show I work for. I prepare my newscast in the background and suddenly my mind is blown.

VOICE 2: And so when people refer to me with like they them pronouns, it just makes more sense to how I see myself and how I see the world.

MG: That's a scene from Wil's new podcast put out by CBC. It's called They and Us. Wil is in Prince George. Wil, good morning.

WIL FUNDAL: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Take me back to that moment. What's going on in that interview? What are we hearing?

WIL FUNDAL: I was listening to that. And it just it really brought me back to that moment. We were interviewing and a non binary medical student and Harper Perren, and they were talking about how they're accidental coming out in the faculty and in school, precipitating changes. The school started looking at how it looked at students differently, how it taught students. And part of that included creating gender neutral washrooms. But it was, as Harper was describing their lived experiences, that there was just a light in my brain that said everything that they're saying is so relatable to some of the things that were so confusing to me when I was growing up. And then that thought process of weight and my non binary started and it was it was a roller coaster after that.

MG: And that's what is explored in this great podcast. Tell me a little, what does non-binary mean for you?

WIL FUNDAL: Well, and here's the thing. Gender identity is so diverse. And so when I talk about my experiences, these are just my experiences and I don't speak for any other non binary person. For me, what non binary means is I'm somewhere in between the male and female spectrum. So deep down inside I don't identify as a man, nor do I identify as a woman. And for me, that umbrella term non binary means I'm somewhere in between. Probably closer to female, but that may also mean something completely different for someone else. As I was asking people and I'm talking about the podcast that some people told me, you know what? What about people who are outside of that spectrum? Because it is a spectrum. And I hadn't thought about that. So it is such a diverse place out there.

MG: First episode is about pronouns in a pandemic. Tell me a little bit about that and the story that's told there.

WIL FUNDAL: Yeah. When you start the podcast, you will hear. The scene is essentially I'm in an ICU in the ICU department of a hospital. And I've gone there because my dad had tested positive for the coronavirus. And was was in the ICU struggling to breathe. I flew down from Prince George so that I could see him and to make sure that everything was going to be okay, my family had to be isolated at home. So I walked through the ICU entrance and the nurse waved to me and I said, hello, I'm here for for Mr. Fundal, my dad. And the nurse said, oh okay, so you're the son. And then sort of walks away and grabs information. In that moment, I was so conflicted. I was so hurt and it made me think, I mean, here I am thinking about my pronouns, they and them, and there's my dad in the corner isolation room, struggling to breathe and he could die. Is it really that important? Is it really such a thing? And so I wanted to explore that. And that's what allowed me to tell a bit about the story and include the update to two. I mean, we were we were working on this a few months ago, but we had to stop because of the coronavirus. And so that's sort of where where we're coming from, or at least the frame that I'm coming from.

MG: And your dad?

WIL FUNDAL: Fortunately, he's OK.

MG: Fantastic.

WIL FUNDAL: And he was quite I mean, he was very, very. And there's a lot of hate associated or potential hate associated with with the illness. And so he didn't really want anyone to know, but as as I had conversations with him when he got better, he said, you know what, this is important. Please go ahead and use it for the story.

MG: Well, one of the things you raise I don't wanna focus too much on this, but one of the things you raised in that moment in that scene is what happens if doctors get pronouns wrong? For you, you talked about the pain that you felt. Can you tell me more about that pain?

WIL FUNDAL: A couple of weeks ago, maybe we can have to go. I had had some quite severe stomach pains and I tried to sleep it off. And when I woke up, it just it was so bad that even on the maximum amount of medications that I could find around me, I was still in pain. And so I went to the emergency room. I showed them my I.D. They brought me in. And from the moment that I was brought in, I was described as that man will or that male will. And every single time, anyone, any time I heard that it was just as if I was being I was not being acknowledged as a person. But again, I was there for pain. So should I mentioned something? Would it change the way they treat me? I don't know. I just wanted to deal with the pain and I was also dealing with this conflict.

MG: So much of this is a learning process for so many people. How much of of doing this has been a learning process for yourself in putting this podcast together?

WIL FUNDAL: Yeah. When we started this podcast, it had come up and we consulted with a bunch of people and different different groups and we had created this logo. So you know that male and female sign on bathrooms?

MG: Yeah.

WIL FUNDAL: So we cut it in half, put it together as an illustration of one of the ways that people see non binary people. And I knew from looking online and from speaking to people that it had been a problem before. But what I didn't expect was just how just how hurtful it still is. We'd released the podcast, that was the logo and I suddenly got all of these tweets and messages and some phone calls and e-mails saying, what is wrong with you? Why are you doing this? This is tone deaf. How could the CBC, the national broadcaster, with this mandate to represent Canada, be putting something out there that was so hateful? And it really created a conversation with my managers, with the team, because this is a team effort. And it just became clear to me that that image had been used in such a derogatory way. And even though it may had not been a time had passed that it was still so hurtful and that would detract from the purpose of the podcast, which is to help people better appreciate non-binary trans and queer folk.

MG: And is that what you're hoping this podcast will do? I mean, we're in this moment of big societal gut cheques where we're we're examining blind spots and we're correcting some of the mistakes that we made not just in past, but in present behaviours that what you're hoping that podcast like this will do?

WIL FUNDAL: Yeah, and that is part of it. I mean, I someone on Apple podcast commented about how they after listening to the first three episodes, they now have a better appreciation for their child who had now been using he him pronouns. Language is so important. I mean, even when we think about the words that we use, you know, like, for example, the term blind spot, I mean, I never had a problem with that until a friend of mine who said, you know, that's actually a blessed language. Well, is that really maybe you should consider using other language are enough. And that's sort of the thing is we're in this place where people are open to hearing more about other people and how that language, the words are the way we act can affect other people. And and as you keep listening to more and more people talk about their experiences. I mean, for me, it became so clear that I was transphobic. I had a lot of my mind was programmed to feel a certain way. And when I when I think about in the past, when I've been attracted to other people, trans people, I felt so much shame. But it wasn't until not long ago that I figured out, well, because I was only taught that if you have a penis, you're a man. If you have a vagina, you're a woman. But that's not true. It is a spectrum and it's such a layered thing.

MG: Congratulations on the podcast. The timing of it is I mean, I know, as you said, you're working on it for a long time and it comes through some difficult things. But it lands in a really important moment. Well done.

WIL FUNDAL: Thank you very much and it's such a pleasure to speak with you about this.

MG: It's great to have you on.

WIL FUNDAL: Wil Fundal is the host of the new CBC podcast, They and Us. You can listen and subscribe now at CBC Listen, on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts and through Spotify.

[Music]

Visits between foster kids and birth parents during pandemic should be considered essential service: lawyer

Guests: David Miller, Kevin Harris, Cheyanne Ratnam

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway. There's some of our most vulnerable children, kids in foster care and for many of them and their families, the physical distancing restrictions of this pandemic are making life even harder. David Miller is a child protection lawyer in Toronto. David, good morning.

DAVID MILLER: Good morning.

MG: This pandemic, as I mentioned, has been difficult on all of us. Tell us a little bit about what kids in care are going through. How much access have those children had with birth families during this difficult time?

DAVID MILLER: So in mid-March, when the pandemic was really taking hold and the state of emergency was declared in Ontario, most children's aid societies across the province suspended all in-person family access for children in care. And it was a blanket suspension. It was for all families and for all children, no exceptions. So most children in foster care, they didn't see their parents face to face through the end of March, through April, through May. This month, it started to open up with some in-person access, but there are still many children who have yet to see their parents in person since this started. So we're talking about two or three months.

MG: What's the effect of that in the short term, but also in the long term?

DAVID MILLER: So this causes harm. When we stop children from having meaningful relationships with their parents, it's a trauma to them. That's the parent child attachment. If that's where they get their source of safety and security. And when they lose that, that's a trauma. Definitely short term, but there can even be long term permanent effects. So they have been providing virtual access for children, so that that can be helpful for older children, so through face time, Skype or WhatsApp, those kinds of programmes. As older children, they often maintain their connections through texting and video calls. Theylive online. They live in social media. But for young children, for babies, for infants, they need in-person contact to form and maintain attachments with their parents. The video access is virtually meaningless.

MG: These restrictions were put in in the midst of a public health crisis and we've seen the effect of them across the spectrum. You have older people who are unable to see their family. We have people who are reaching the end of life and they're being kept apart from from loved ones. All of this is done to prevent the virus from spreading. Why should these cases that you're talking about and the work that you do in child protection, why should that be any different?

DAVID MILLER: So I might be less troubled by how the foster kids are being treated, the children in foster care if all Ontario children were being treated that way. But they're not. For children of divorced and separated families, the presumption has been children should see both parents because we recognise the importance of child relationships with both parents and especially in a time of crisis. There's there's every time you see someone else, yes, there is extra risk. What I advocate for involves extra risk to maintain that fundamental parent child relationship. But there's also extra risk to go to the grocery store. There's extra risk with respect to everyone who was going to work at what were deemed essential services. And in my view, parenting, a parent child relationship, that should be an essential service.

MG: You have also raised some concerns about what's been happening when it comes to changes at the Ontario government made around foster homes in the midst of this pandemic. Just briefly outline those concerns.

DAVID MILLER: So the concerns about the foster homes is that there was, when this all started, there were concerns some foster parents did not keep the children that they had. They did not want the children to be there due to the extra risk. Perhaps they had their own health problems or someone older in their home. Most would not take new children in. And probably more most importantly, many foster parents said if there's access to the parents by the child, they wouldn't keep the child. So that the government loosen the standards to have foster homes take in children. They allowed foster homes to take in more children than before. They allowed inspections to be done virtually. So through the telephone by video and not having not having not going to the foster home, they allowed health assessments of people who were foster parents or people who worked in the foster homes that they wouldn't need those those health assessments because there were some difficulty to get them during that period of time. So standards were loosened, which led to it being a less safe environment for children.

MG: The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services in the province of Ontario sent us a statement that reads, in part, "Children's aid societies and residential licensees are still required to meet all legislative, regulatory and policy requirements that protect the safety and well-being of children." That includes things like safety assessments for places of safety and physical inspections of the home conducted in person. Are you confident that as society starts to open up, some of those cheques will be put back in place?

DAVID MILLER: I certainly hope so. I certainly hope so. Things are opening up now. I'm seeing it. I am seeing it in access, the in-person access is starting. So I'm hoping the same opening up will apply to the foster homes as well. As we go into phase two, I guess Ialso concerned. What if there's another wave? All this starts again. So there's that concern.

MG: David Miller, good to speak with you about this. Thank you.

DAVID MILLER: Thanks, Matt.

MG: David Miller, child protection lawyer in Toronto. He's on the board of the Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers. Kevin Harris has been listening in. He's a foster parent and president of the Canadian Foster Family Association. Kevin, good morning to you.

KEVIN HARRIS: Good morning.

MG: What is this experience in this pandemic been like for your foster child?

KEVIN HARRIS: Well, I think some of what David had shared is very relevant for all kids in care. The the opportunity and the need for kids to have that relationship with the with their biological family is important as far as as just keeping them connected and helping them through their life experiences. And so for us are our children, our long term with us. But we so try to maintain family connexions and so not being able to allow that in person. It does create a little bit of angst and anxiety for four kids. And I think, you know, when we make decisions based upon fear, as David kind of was alluding to, maybe not always are the the best decisions made for those poor kids that are are going through this life situation.

MG: There's a cultural imperative to that connexion. I mean, you want to stay obviously connected to birth parents, but for many kids and we know that indigenous children, black children are overrepresented in the larger picture of foster children. And there is an importance in keeping those cultural connections alive. Can those be disrupted in a moment like this?

KEVIN HARRIS: Oh, absolutely. We we found that with our children and one of them being indigenous and being able, not able to go into the community with all of the suspension of the various cultural celebrations and gatherings does create that disconnection. So for us, it was important for our or our child to be able to participate in powwows and those types of cultural activities that take place because it's important for understanding that roots and making that connexion with family in those instances. And so, yes, it's difficult because we're missing out on those things, which were for us, it was an important part of life experiences. And so we're hoping some of that might come back later on. But at this point in time, even transporting or being going into the communities are restricted. So if you're not living in the community, then you again, for health reasons, they're not allowing anybody to come in. So that creates a little bit of, again, anxiety for I wish I could see my grandfathers or my aunties or my uncles, kind of thing.

MG: And again, the fear that David raised is that this could come back. We could be in for a second wave of this. So in the last minute or so that we have, what would you recommend governments do differently if we have to go back into lockdown?

KEVIN HARRIS: So that's a good question. I think it's trying to find ways to keep our kids connected to the virtual but, you know, providing personal protective equipment for four families I think is important. I'm not sure that that was done throughout all of the jurisdictions, whether that was provided. And again, giving giving factors that for the children in the foster care system, but also for the foster parents as well. And and then trying to encourage safe ways of connecting to them. Physical touch, visual touch is really important for building relationships.

MG: Kevin, good to speak with you about this. Good luck. Thank you.

KEVIN HARRIS: Thank you.

MG: Kevin Harris is a foster parent and the president of the Canadian Foster Family Association. He was in White City, Saskatchewan. There have been hardships, as you heard, for many foster children during the pandemic, but this might have actually presented an opportunity for others. You may have heard the term ageing out. It means that kids in care get to an age where they stop being able to access the same resources they used to rely on. Quite suddenly, they are left without a support system. The pandemic has changed some of that. Cheyanne Ratnam is a child advocate and the co-founder and executive lead of the Ontario Children's Advancement Coalition. Cheyanne, good morning to you.

CHEYANNE RATNAM: Hi, Matt. Thank you for having me today.

MG: Thanks for joining us. Tell me just briefly about aging out and from your own experience, what that's like.

CHEYANNE RATNAM: Yeah. So aging out basically means that the at the age of 18, you are cut off from the system. So even the terminology of aging out is problematic because we're not voluntarily aging out into adulthood or back into the community. And so, you know, and just to clarify as well, before I go further into this, I heard, you know, the other speaker is utilise and also just the segment utilize the term foster care. And I think that that needs to be addressed as well. We shouldn't be utilising foster care as an umbrella term for the child welfare system because it erases the inequities and differences, some realities and young people from treatment facilities, group homes, et cetera. And, you know, in my experience of ageing out, I was so scared when I was turning 18 because I had created such amazing relationships with people and staff within my group home. So I grew up in group homes and so ageing out was such an anxiety filled phase for me. But even still, like, you know, when we're talking about the current pandemic for COVID-19. Before this pandemic even began, there has been a pandemic in the province of Ontario and across the nation and that pandemic is that these age indicators of age cut off by the systems of forcing young people at the age of 18 to grow a cape or wings and go out into the community by themselves has been a pandemic because they enter the flood gates into pipelines such as homelessness, poverty, mental health system, hospitalisation, the adult prison system, etc.. And we also know that, statistically speaking, in southern Ontario, black young people and families are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system. And in northern Ontario, for example, indigenous young people are overrepresented in the system.

MG: And so, I was going to say, given that what happens in the pandemic, because there was a big change and the change could actually benefit. It seems strange to say, but the change in this pandemic could actually benefit some of these young people.

CHEYANNE RATNAM: Yes. So the moratorium was actually a very important step. And people who say that the moratorium is useless, they are completely wrong because they're not looking at it from a critical lens. The moratorium stopped age cut-off at 18, but also for the extended care and maintenance benefits that you get after the age of 21 as well. And so because the freezing happen, young people are still able to access the benefits that they were actively before. And also, they were in safe spaces and around people that they trusted during a pandemic instead of being by themselves and navigating the system and the community by themselves amid a pandemic.

MG: Is there the possibility that that could continue after the pandemic?

CHEYANNE RATNAM: Pardon me?

MG: Is there the possibility that that could continue after the pandemic, that it's not just a temporary moratorium, but that this leads to a change in that aging out process?

CHEYANNE RATNAM: This is something that we're hoping for. However, the problem is, is that right now the system is based on eight indicators and we cannot go back to that system. We need to dismantle that system, deconstruct that system and do a reset. And so what does a reset really mean? What can it look like to us and other advocates as well? The reset looks like a whole new system that is not based on each indicators. It should be based on readiness indicators. And so what is a real indicator? Readiness indicator is based on whether the young person at the point of turning 18 is ready to be independent. And if they're not. What are some indicators to show us that they're being prepared to be able to go into the community by themselves to be independent and successful? Some of the indicators can be having a better source of support. And this is not just about the number of people around them. It's about the quality of people around them as well. For indigenous young people, for example, one of the things that I've heard from indigenous young people specifically is that when they're in the child welfare system, they seldom are connected to elders who are able to provide eldership and knowledge keepers. And so are our indigenous young people connected before the age as well. Another thing is, have they been, you know, assisted with documentation that's important. Not every young person within the child welfare system is a Canadian citizen and we often forget that. There are people without status, refugee status and so we do not want to cut off people from the child welfare system and have them go to community without status. So how are we supporting people in terms of getting that documentation done.

MG: And you see this as a moment.You see this as an opportunity.

CHEYANNE RATNAM: This is a crucial, vital moment where we can really make impactful, meaningful change and not just go back to the system that was never working. This has been an ongoing issue. People have been homeless after ageing out of the system. I know people who have died ageing out of the system. We need change right now. And we cannot afford to go back to a system in terms of there in terms of supporting young people. Ontario's children. We need something different. We need something based on readiness and not age indicators. And we need something that really legislates and really incorporates kindness and, you know, quote unquote, love what we're doing when we treat people like family. We do not feel them.

MG: You know, through this moment, it feels as though some things are being revealed and we're learning about parts of society that perhaps people were not aware of or they took some of those systems for granted. And now, whether it comes to income, whether it comes to how we treat people who are temporary foreign workers or who is in the child welfare system and how they're treated as they age. This is one of those learning opportunities. We'll see whether it seized upon. Cheyanne, it's good to speak with you about this. Thank you.

CHEYANNE RATNAM: Thank you.

MG: Cheyanne Ratnam is a child advocate. She's also the co-founder of the Ontario Children's Advancement Coalition. And she was in Scarborough, Ontario. That is The Current for today. Coming up next on your CBC Radio One, it's Q. The host is Tom Power. Hello, Tom.

TOM POWER: You sounded like you were trying to remind yourself of that for a second.

MG: I was going to say, Mr. Tom Power, but I just thought, I dropped the honorific Dr. Tom Power.

TOM POWER: You know, one of these days, Matt, you know, when I want to get back to med school. Nice to talk to you. How are you?

MG: Everything is all right. Yourself? You've been away for a couple of days?

TOM POWER: Yeah, I went over and swam in a lake and all that stuff.

MG: Good for you.

TOM POWER: Yes, I know. And and I ate the stuff off a barbecue. Not my own barbecue, mind you, but ate off a barbecue. And I had a lovely little bit of a relaxing time. It's nice to be back. And we got Jim Cuddy on the show today. You a big Blue Rodeo fan?

MG: You know what? Somebody once described him as having a voice that is instantly recognisable in this country when he starts to sing, you know exactly who it is and you know where you are.

TOM POWER: I couldn't agree more. And he's been off the road for the longest he's ever been off the road in his professional career. And he has this really interesting perspective on like what it's actually taught him. And he might be a little bit better for it. So we're gonna talk about that.

MG: We'll listen for that this morning. Thank you, Tom.

TOM POWER: See ya, Matt.

MG: Tom Power, the host of Q, coming up after your CBC News. I'm Matt Galloway. That's The Current for today. Thanks for listening. Take care. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Music: theme]

June 24, 2020 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode