Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for March 04, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: A parting of the sunny ways. More heavy weather for the Trudeau government, as Treasury Board President Jane Philpott resigns from cabinet — citing "serious concerns" over the PMO's intervention in the SNC-Lavalin case.

JD: Inside information. An NDP MP calls for an investigation into Facebook, after internal memos reveal the data-harvesting giant pressured Canadian government ministers to cut it some slack.

CO: The operative words. Right after Canada says a Huawei executive's extradition hearing can go ahead, China publicly announces that two Canadians it has in detention are spies.

JD: State of emergency. 23 people in an Alabama community are killed when a tornado touches down —our guest navigates a dangerous obstacle course to find his aunt had miraculously survived.

CO: Cold as ICE. An undocumented immigrant is one of the stars of a new documentary about his time in detention — but he won't make the premiere, because ICE just arrested him again.

JD: And...sub-par amour. A new study shows that we think our romantic partners are substantially smarter than they actually are — which suggests ignorance is wedded bliss.

"As It Happens", the Monday edition. Radio that discovers even the cutest couple is not the acutest couple.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Philpott resignation, China accusations, Alabama tornado

Philpott resignation

Guest: Paul Wells

JD: One of Justin Trudeau's most respected ministers has left cabinet. Today, Treasury Board President Jane Philpott issued her resignation letter, saying she had "lost confidence" in the Liberal government over its handling of the SNC Lavalin affair. Her decision follows stunning testimony last week from former Justice Minister and Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould. She accused several officials within the Prime Minister's Office — including the Prime Minister himself — of pressuring her repeatedly to intervene in a criminal case against SNC Lavalin. Here's how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted to today's news, speaking from a press conference in Toronto.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I want to address something that I'm sure is on some of your minds this evening: Jane Philpotts resignation from Cabinet. I know Ms. Philpott has felt this way for some time. And while I am disappointed, I understand her decision to step down. So I want to thank Jane. I want to thank Jane for her service for making tremendous progress on eliminating boil water advisories on reserve. To working on a next-gen solution for the Phoenix pay system. She worked tirelessly with this team to achieve transformational change. We will continue this crucial work. In a democracy like ours and in a space where we value our diversity so strongly we're allowed to have disagreements and debate. We even encourage it. This matter has generated an important discussion. How democratic institutions, specifically the federal ministry, and the staff and officials that support it, conduct themselves is critical and core to all of our principles. Concerns of this nature must be taken very seriously. And I can assure you that I am. I know and appreciate the hard work that the Justice Committee is doing. I'm listening carefully to the various voices, testimonies, and opinions. There are more questions still to answer, and more to be said in the coming days and weeks.

JD: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking from Toronto today. Here's what Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer had to say, this afternoon.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW SCHEER: Jane Philpott’s resignation from Cabinet clearly demonstrates a government in total chaos, led by a disgraced prime minister, consumed with scandal, and focused only on his political survival. It's time for every Liberal cabinet minister to ask themselves the same question Jane Philpott did: Is this what you've got into politics for? To prop up a prime minister who will subvert the law to win elections and benefit his friends. If not, it's time for them to stand up and be heard. Like Jane Philpott did today. But Canadians will know that if other members of Mr. Trudeau's Cabinet remain silent, they will only be able to conclude that the ethical rot that infects this government. Has consumed the Liberal Party entirely — that it is a government that cannot be redeemed. It can only be defeated.

JD: Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer speaking late this afternoon. Paul Wells is a senior writer at Maclean's. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Paul, just how much damage does Jane Philpott’s resignation do to Trudeau's Liberals?

PAUL WELLS: I think it multiplies the damage that Jody Wilson-Reybould had also done. This is in magnitude it's the biggest thing that's happened in Ottawa since John Chretien fired Paul Martin. And it's different in kind because that was a question of ambition. This is a question of principle.

CO: Right. And she writes in the letter she's lost confidence in the Liberal government in its handling of the SNC Lavalin affair. It’s of note that there is no place where she says thank you or it's been swell. I mean nothing kind of familiar to the prime minister in this letter.

PW: Yeah, I mean to some extent, it would have been disingenuous if she had been courteous. She is asserting that this government is a moral failure and a constitutional menace. And it's hard to say but thanks for the great times at the end of that. The claim is that this government is a poor steward of the rule of law. The only question I would have for Jane Philpott at this point is why in that case does he continue to sit as a Liberal member of Caucus?

CO: As does Jodi Wilson-reybould, who's also declared that she is going to run as a Liberal in the next election. What do you make of that?

PW: Well, I mean you know it's plausible to argue that the values which they bring to politics have not changed. But at some point, you can you can be an exponent of those values as a simple Member of Parliament. When your disagreement with the prime minister is so great that you are invoking the unwritten constitutional heritage of the parliamentary system, then it's awful hard to say but I agree with the Canada Child Benefit. And I suppose that to some extent they’re daring the prime minister to kick them out. Or they're already casting forward to a future, perhaps in the very near future, when Justin Trudeau's staff will no longer be the Prime Minister's Office staff, and perhaps when Justin Trudeau will no longer be the Liberal leader. But I find it hard to reconcile.

CO: You've just published a really damning article about Justin Trudeau. It's calling him an imposter, which is a very strong piece. What responsibility do you think he has for all of this? I mean it seems to be the Prime Minister's Office is, as we've seen in the past, a place of great power. We saw what happened with the Senate scandal under Harper's government. So what do you lay at his feet in this?

PW: He wrote a letter to Jody Wilson-Reybould at the beginning of this government's time in power. He urged her to guarantee the independence of the prosecutorial function as Attorney-General. He sent a handbook to every member of his cabinet in which he clarified that obligation in no uncertain terms. And one of the things that handbook says is that it must not be tainted by partisan considerations. When Jodi Wilson-Reybould testified that wave after wave of PMO emissary came to her and said but don't you understand that Philippe Couillard could lose the election over this. We could lose our election over this. But that directly contravened his own advice to the Attorney-General and to every minister. Unless he's got evidence that Jody Wilson-Reybould is lying, then he needs to cancel the election-style swing of public appearances that he's got in several provinces this week. And he needs to, in some forum, provide a serious explanation for what happened and why it did.

CO: But Paul did Jodi Wilson-Reybould resign because of the pressure that was put on her by that office as she was describing in her testimony? Or did she resign because the prime minister demoted her?

PW: It's possible to come back at her and say hey Ms. Ambition, you were perfectly happy to put up with this as long as you had the job that you wanted. It's possible to, as a matter of conjecture, say when she went home for Christmas on December 18th or 19th and 20^th, she could reasonably have concluded that she had held fast against that wave of pressure that she had sent person after person after person — including in the last instance the prime minister himself, his chief of staff, and the clerk of the Privy Council in an unprecedented three-day volley of meetings where she had sent the packing. Until she is shuffled out of that post in mid-January, she should reasonably have been able to believe that she had won that confrontation. So even if you don't buy the timeline that I've just I've just laid out, and Jody Wilson-Reybould is revealed to be an imperfect person, the questions remain. And I believe that her conduct is not just defensible, it looks laudable.

CO: But both these women — Jody Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott — both of them who are strong, principled women were hired by Justin Trudeau. He chose them to serve in that cabinet. He wanted them there — along with a lot of other women. Seventeen women still remain in the Cabinet. So what does that say to you?

PW: To some extent that optimism is eternal. Every government comes to power believing that it will have to make difficult tradeoffs. And that it will not have to face a hard arbitration between its partisan ambitions and its responsibility. And yet, this one did. It's striking that all the emissaries from the PMO and from Bill Morneau’s office — the cast of characters that Jody Wilso-Reybould described the other day. They represent a kind of a community of thought that was very easy to build within this government. It seemed obvious to these people. A decision about a criminal prosecution of a major Canadian corporation should be taken as a function of the Liberal Party of Canada's electoral prospects. They were astonished when she didn't agree. They're astonished today. That shows that they don't get what they are put in power to preserve and protect. We read every day about the government of Poland, about the government of Hungary running roughshod over independence of the courts and the legal system. And here in Canada, we've got Liberals telling Liberals that the way to help Liberals is to Shanghai a criminal trial. And today, at Queen's Park, we had the deputy commissioner of the OPP fired by a deputy minister that the Premier had installed for the effrontery of refusing to allow the Premier's buddy to become the commissioner of the OPP. That’s a weird detour, but it suggests that this country has a cultural problem with remembering its obligations vis-a-vis the rule of law.

CO: We have also seen within the Trudeau cabinet Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, who took a very strong principled position against Saudi Arabia that had potentially huge consequences — including for SNC Lavalin. That was tolerated within that Cabinet. Why is that then?

PW: I guess because the Liberal Party of Canada was not looking forward to running for re-election in Saudi Arabia. It seems like when these dilemmas strike a little closer to home that the choices are a little harder to make.

CO: Didn't it affect Canadian business and industry, and could have potentially blown up even more. But it certainly affected SNC Lavalin, whose share price dropped after she stood up to them.

PW: Yeah, so if we're talking about the Saudi arms export contract, I note that the prime minister mused in October and December about cancelling that contract outright. And in March, has not yet cancelled it. You know some of these questions are difficult questions, in which you can make an argument on either side. But I cannot think of a justification for going to the Attorney-General and saying exercise your prerogative over the conduct of a criminal trial because votes for us are at stake. And it doesn't really much matter to me if they were very fine and ethically upstanding on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Monday if today, today, they failed on that obligation. I don't give a crap about how many other times they behaved well.

CO: Do you expect more resignations?

PW: Yes, and from those ministers who don't resign. And there's no obligation to resign. Everyone has to conduct themselves in this life by their own lights. But those ministers who do not resign have to explain honestly and without recourse the talking points handed out to them by the PMO. Why the same things that were unacceptable to Jodi Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott are acceptable to them.

CO: Paul, we will be following this story, and following your coverage of it. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

PW: Thanks for taking the time.

JD: Paul Wells is a senior writer at Macleans. We reached him earlier today in Ottawa.

[Music: Electronica]

China accusations

Guest: Joanna Chiu

JD: China claims two Canadians who have been in detention in that country since December were working in lock-step to violate Chinese law. For the first time, Chinese officials claimed the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were linked. Today, they accused Mr. Kovrig of stealing state secrets, with the help of Mr. Spavor, who allegedly supplied him with secretive information. These fresh accusations in China come just days after Canada announced that an extradition hearing against Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou would be going ahead. Joanna Chiu is the managing editor of the Star Vancouver, and a former Beijing correspondent for Agence France Presse. She's also a friend of Mr. Kovrig. We reached her in Vancouver.

CO: Joanna, as you know, your friend Michael Kovrig has been accused now of stealing state secrets. What do you make of that?

JOANNA CHIU: So this is something we had been worrying would be the case because before both Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were you know accused of some sort of vague national security charges. So now there is an escalation because actually saying that Michael stole intelligence from Chinese government, and Michael Spavor was his accomplice, that is very specific. And that could lead to a very lengthy, serious prison sentence in China.

CO: And this is the first time that these two men's names and their cases have been linked together. What does that tell you?

JC: Personally, my initial reaction knowing Michael Kovrig as a friend in Beijing and none of us in Beijing having any what you do is Michael Spavor, it was quite farfetched because Michael Spavor he worked kind of like a tour group like culture exchange between North Korea and China. Michael Spavor was always based on a border like the northeastern border between China and North Korea. So we'd reached out to some experts, former ambassadors, former Canadian ambassadors to China. And they're all kind of saying the same thing. It kind of seems like this is just the same as what we've been seeing where China is kind of saying things that are very alarming to try to put pressure on Canada to somehow release the Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou from custody in Canada.

CO: And that's where this is going isn't it? Because does it seem like it was just a coincidence that we just saw Canada make this decision last week to go ahead with this extradition hearing for this Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. That just happened on Friday. And then on the weekend, we hear that both these men have been accused of stealing state secrets. What do you make of that timing?

JC: It's been consistent with the timing we've seen throughout this whole case. Weeks after Meng was first arrested December 1st in Vancouver, we found out that these two men were detained. In 2014, I don't know if you recall when there the Chinese citizen Su Bin who was detained for extradition to the US and Canada. It seemed in retaliation China then arrested two Canadian Christian aid workers in China and accused them of spying. And it took years for them to get out of jail as far as the diplomatic negotiations were happening. So this has been a pattern that China has been using to put pressure on other countries. And it's not something new that we've seen just in this Huawei incident.

CO: The couple you're referring to we have interviewed them because of the light they could shed on the conditions.

JC: Yeah, so the Garretts, Kevin and Julia.

CO: But it's possible though with the charges of stealing state secrets. I mean this is a possible death penalty. Is it conceivable that two men might be sentenced to death, and maybe even executed in order to try and get this case of Meng Wanzhou reversed?

JC: I mean to be honest, this morning one of my friends in Beijing texted me saying oh did you see news on Michael? This is really upsetting. And like my heart stopped. Like I thought that it was something like a death sentence or maybe one of them even committed suicide. So I was really leaping to all these fears because based on my personal connection to Kovrig, it sound so farfetched here is Canadian thinking about that. But we have to remember in China, it's really hard to predict what they will do because already it's not even hypothetical. A third case, Robert Schellenberg, he was arrested years ago in China on drug charges. And he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. And just after the Meng issue, his sentence was upgraded to a death sentence.

CO: Just to go back to the state secrets accusation here, what could conceivably be a state secret? I mean that could be well almost anything — even the president's birthday is a state secret.

JC: The law in China is very malleable according to how the leadership wants to use it. So bloggers, people who say something not really flattering to Chinese leaders, they could be accused using the law of defamation. And in China, if you say oh but I was just speaking the truth or expressing my opinion, that doesn't really help.

CO: the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he's very concerned about these accusations. But, as people have said, he has to go and speak directly to Xi Jinping. Do you think this is the time to do that?

JC: As a journalist, I can't really say what I hope will happen. But I guess I can't say I do hope that there will be attention on this because I know the Premier's office is very wrapped up in the SNC Lavalin issue right now.

CO: You can't speak as a journalist. But as a friend of Mr. Kovrigs, I guess you haven't heard from him in months?

JC: No, I haven't. No one has. I think his friends and family are trying to make sure that people don't forget about what's happening. But they're also worried about angering the Chinese government further. So it's a difficult balancing act.

CO: And we've seen just over the weekend that Ms. Meng has filed the lawsuit against the Canadian government for how she was treated during her arrest. We know she's out on bail, living at home in her house. Some have commented on the contrast between that and how your friend and Mr. Spavor are being treated. What do you make of that?

JC: Well, we've you know visited the house. We've seen how nice it is. And she has an ankle bracelet, but she's pretty much free to go many places in Vancouver and enjoy other you know the really nice things that people living in Vancouver enjoy like the sunshine and everything. Meanwhile, the Canadians detained in China, we're hearing they're in isolation. They're in cells alone. And frequently interrogated. No access to a lawyer or family members. And that the light is being kept on 24/7.So the contrast is huge.

CO: And we don't even have charges yet.

JC: Yeah, no charges yet. It seems very political. Obviously, all these state media articles from China about what they may be accused of. But we don't have actual court documents in China laying out what these men are accused of. And, honestly, I don't think we want to see that because according to Chinese legal statistics, when a suspect is charged, ninety-nine-point-nine per cent of the time they end up being found guilty.

CO: Joanna, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JC: Thank you.

JD: Joanna Chiu is the managing editor for the Star Vancouver and a friend of Michael Kovrig's. We reached her in Vancouver.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Alabama tornado

Guest: Delrico Eiland

JD: Residents of Beauregard, Alabama had only minutes of warning yesterday before the tornado ripped through their community. It tore off roofs, flattened houses, and killed at least 23 people. 72-year-old Ernestine Reese considered herself lucky to have made it out alive with a broken hip and ankle. Here's what she said after her nephew raced to the scene and found her sitting, surrounded by the rubble of her home.

SOUNDCLIP

ERNESTINE RESSE: I thank the Lord. You tell God thank you. You hear me, boy? You hear me? Tell God thank you.

DELRICO EILAND: That trailer completely gone.

ER: The Lord’s house gone too.

JD: We reached Ernestine Reese's nephew, Delrico Eiland, in Phenix City, Georgia.

CO: Delrico, how is your Aunt Ernestine doing today?

DE: She's doing pretty good today. She's waiting to have surgery on her hip. And she's in good spirits — just like the one on the video you saw yesterday.

CO: We’re just hearing her voice. Our listeners just heard your aunt. She sounds quite extraordinary.

DE: Yeah, she is. She's a great woman.

CO: Where were you when you got the call that Ernestine's house had been destroyed by the tornado?

DE: I say I may have been 10 to 15 miles away. I was in Opelika, Alabama when I got the call. And I immediately rushed to them, but I couldn't get to them. I could get on the road where the house was, but I had to walk and hike, go over trees. And there were trees down, power lines down. So I had to walk maybe a mile-and-a-half to two miles to get to their house to get to them. I arrived before the first responders did.

CO: Did you have any idea before you got there how she was or what the conditions things were in?

DE: I didn't know. My cousin just scared me. She said that my aunt was trapped in the rubble, and they were trying to get her out.

CO: What was the scene when you got there?

DE: It was catastrophic. I mean just total destruction — total destruction. It looked like a Third World country war zone.

CO: And the state of your aunt's house?

DE: Oh, it was demolished.

CO: In that tape where it is listening to, you can hear someone say watch the wires. How dangerous was this situation?

DE: I mean there were hot electrical wires laying all around where they were. You know they were all over the ground.

CO: And where was your aunt when you got there?

DE: They had got her out of the rubble, and she was sitting beside the house. She was sitting on the foundation of the house in a chair. They had covered her up with all kind of the coats and things to keep her warm.

CO: And what did you say to her when you saw her?

DE: Like I said, it was thank you, Jesus. Because it's a blessing that they survived that ordeal. You know all the surrounding neighbours and across the street behind them beside them they lost their lives. and God spared them.

CO: Her neighbours were all killed?

DE: Yes.

CO: Oh, I'm sorry. That's awful. So when you saw her, how did she describe what it was like when the tornado hit?

DE: It sounded like a train coming. This foundation started shaking, and my little cousin was screaming he didn't want to die. He didn't want to die — her grandson. And she said my cousin said it happened within 10 seconds. It was over with.

CO: Well, did they have any warning?

DE: They had warning. They got in the bathroom — all of them huddled together in the bathroom. But I mean it was just before that time. Then the whole house just caved in on them.

CO: How many people were huddled there?

DE: It was my aunt. Her daughter LaShawn, LaShawn’s son, and LaShawn’s husband.

CO: And the son, that's the grandson. He was the one that was saying that he didn't want to die.

DE: Yes.

CO: How did she describe those moments when everyone was in the bathroom?

DE: It was just nerve-wracking. They were frightened. I mean they couldn't do nothing but pray. They were praying the whole time.

CO: And so the bathroom obviously survived. So what was it like when she came out?

DE: The bathroom didn't survive. The walls crumbled on top of them. She was trapped. They had to get her out of the rubble.

CO: And what about the others?

DE: They were able to free themselves and then free her.

CO: I can see it in the video you sent that there's some bricks there, so the house was a fairly substantial house then. It was solid.

DE: It was a brick home. Yes, it was. It wasn't a mobile home. All of her neighbours lived in mobile homes, and they didn't make it.

CO: As we're talking, we know these 23 people who died. And so a large number of them were right there in your aunt's neighbourhood then?

DE: Actually, my aunt is kin to them. They are kin to those people. So I would say it was maybe seven, eight, or nine people died right in the area where she was.

CO: And how is she responding because when you see her in the video, she's looking at the complete rubble of the home.

DE: You know worldly possessions can be replaced, but lives can't.

CO: And now where is she?

DE: She is currently in the hospital in Phenix City, Alabama.

CO: What's her condition?

DE: She's stable. I mean they're just they're waiting to do those surgery. They've got to get clearance from doctors to do the surgery. But she is she is fine — in some pain.

CO: And you get a lot of tornadoes in that area, but this one they're saying is the worst they've had in a long time.

DE: I've never in my life seen destruction like I saw on yesterday in person. I've seen some things on TV, but I've never saw anything like that with my own eyes.

CO: How do you think people will do? Will they be able to rebuild?

DE: Yeah, I think a lot of them will rebuild. But I mean it's gonna take some time. But I think they'll get everything rebuilt.

CO: And how do you think your aunt will do?

DE: She'll be just fine. I'm sure she's going to rebuild. They've been there 30-40 years.

CO: Well, the spirit in her voice at that the tape we heard, she sounds like a fighter.

DE: Oh, I call her a super trooper.

CO: Well, can you give her our best. And Delrico, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DE: All right. Thank you all.

CO: Bye-bye.

JD: Delrico Eiland's aunt, Ernestine Reese, survived the destruction of her home in the deadly tornado that hit Beauregard, Alabama.

[Music: Sombre]

Part two: Facebook pressure, ICE infiltrator

Facebook pressure

Guest: Charlie Angus

JD: Corporate pressure is dominating the news out of Ottawa today. As you've heard earlier on this program, and doubtless as you heard throughout the day, Jane Philpott resigned from cabinet this afternoon, citing the pressure placed on Jody Wilson-Raybould on behalf of SNC Lavalin. But it's pressure from another corporate giant that has Charlie Angus calling for an investigation. The NDP MP is pointing to reports of internal communications at Facebook. Reporters who've seen the memos say they suggest the data-harvesting giant got up-close and personal with top members of Stephen Harper's cabinet. This at a time when Ottawa wanted the company to build a new innovation centre here — while Facebook wanted to limit the effects of Canadian privacy laws. We reached Charlie Angus in Cobalt, Ontario.

CO: Mr. Angus, I wanted to get your reaction to Jane Philipott’s resignation later. But first of all, let's dial back to 2013, what we’ve learned in this memo concerning Facebook lobbying of the Canadian government. What is troubling for you about this?

CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, I think this really shows us the pattern of government manipulation that's been practiced by Facebook — not just in Canada but internationally. This is a company of unprecedented economic power. That uses that power to bully governments at the highest level. And in the case of Canada, just saying hey you know we will think twice about investing in Canada if we're expected to follow Canadian law.

CO: This is a memo from 2013, which was during the time of Stephen Harper's government. And this memo, which has been revealed in the British Parliament in an investigation there, describes how Facebook attempts to get what it wants. What was Facebook after in Canada?

CA: Well, what Facebook is always concerned about is any application of privacy laws that limit their ability to literally misuse the data of citizens. And they were looking at an innovation centre. And they put on the table if they didn't get their way, they weren't coming to Canada. That threat was made to colleagues of mine by Facebook in a separate meeting. So that's how they operate. But what's fascinating is that this is also a company that shows a real disregard for the lobbying rules. And yet, they're like vampires shying away from the sunlight of legislators who ask them to come to meetings. As you know your listeners probably remember Mark Zuckerberg refusing to show up in London when 17 different nations came together to ask him to explain their corporate culture. So there's a strong arm backroom culture, and then an avoidance of scrutiny by legislators that's caused I think many of the problems that we're dealing with Facebook.

CO: And what did they get? I mean how successful were they with the Harper government?

CA: Well, what we learned from the memo is they were given an assurance within one day that they would be exempt from the laws of Canada. That to me is very troubling — particularly now that we've seen the dangers of not having privacy regulation on Facebook, which led to the 600 million people having their information taken around the world. That was used to create the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal. The use of that data is extremely powerful politically and economically, and Facebook plays very fast and loose with it. And the parliament in England has just done a massive report on them. It’s referred to them as international digital gangsters. That's not the kind of corporate handle you want to have when you're a company that's trying to avoid regulation.

CO: What the memo reveals is there were four lobbyists registered in Ottawa to deal with the Canadian government and get what they wanted there. And then there was apparently three others who didn't have direct meetings with ministers. But it appears they were able to meet. And this one very interesting remark that they went to a meeting in order to get phone numbers of the ministers, including Christian Paradis, James Moore, and Jason Kenney. What were they able to do with that contact?

CA: Well, this is about Facebook deciding that they will just circumvent the lobbying register. We saw that with the new government where the Facebook Representative Kevin Chan, who's a former member of the Liberal Party, was meeting with all the senior ministers, and none of it was registered for lobbying because he said he was just there to help them learn really cool tricks about Facebook Live. Well, you don't send your senior policy person to meet with ministers on a regular basis if you're just showing them tricks how to use the platform. That's lobbying. So getting personal phone numbers of ministers allowed them to do what they had to do, to send the message it had to be done without being caught up in the lobbying you know and being even noticed that they were doing the lobbying.

CO: This goes back to one of those Davos, Switzerland encounters. And the interesting thing in this memo indicates that Facebook they were having problems with somebody in Mr. Paradis office who was getting in the way of things. And they were able to get around, quote, that awful staff person to get access to these ministers directly. Is there any record? I mean usually if there’s lobbying efforts, the government has to indicate that happened. Can you find any evidence of these meetings or these counters being registered?

CA: Well, we haven't found any evidence yet. So I've asked a lobbying commissioner to launch an investigation into this — as well as the larger pattern.

CO: Facebook has responded to all this and said that they were making no effort to try and get around laws. They said that we were just trying to understand your country's laws and privacy protections, and this is a quote, this is not a threat to withhold investment, but was part of our duty to protect people's data. They didn't in the end build anything here. They didn't pursue that. They went to Iowa instead. So what came of all this?

CA: Well, Canadians didn't get anything. But the Canadian government made it clear to Facebook whatever Facebook wanted, Facebook would get. So I think this is a disturbing but very relevant window into the corporate practices at Facebook.

CO: I just finally want to get your reaction to what we've just learned this afternoon: Jane Philpott has resigned from the Liberal Cabinet. What's your take on that?

CA: I think this is a very sad day for Canada. It's certainly a milestone. Jane Philpott is as a minister of incredible integrity. And the fact that she could not sit in Cabinet over the accusations of interference in a corruption prosecution case, to me, it's a watershed moment. But I'd also say Canadians should take some comfort that we've seen in the last week two very powerful women ministers put their political careers on the line over the issue of integrity. You know for the prime minister I think he's in deep, deep hot water right now. But I'm just very amazed and proud to see that some people will stand up on matters of principle. And Jane Philpott, if I had to pick someone who would, I knew would be Jane Philpott. And Jody Wilson-Reybould's testimony on last week certainly I think moved a lot of Canadians.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr. Angus, thank you.

CA: Thank you so much.

JD: Charlie Angus is an NDP MP. We reached him in Cobalt, Ontario.

[Music: Indie rock]

Ted Lindsay obit

JD: He was known as "Terrible Ted": one of the greatest left-wingers in the history of hockey, and a member of the Detroit Red Wings' famed "production line" in the 1950s, along with Gordie Howe and Sid Abel. But Ted Lindsay, who was born in northeastern Ontario, was also legendary off the ice: he helped found the first-ever player's association, and was its first president. And, according to sports writer Dave Stubbs, Mr. Lindsay boycotted his own Hall of Fame Induction in 1966 — because wives and children weren't allowed to attend. He said, quote, "The way I saw it, families put up with us when we were temperamental idiots, they should be able to enjoy the benefits of what the League is giving us." Unquote. Ted Lindsay died today. He was 93 years old. Here's part of an interview he did in 1957 with the CBC program "Assignment."

SOUNDCLIP

ANNOUNCER: Holding down the left wing spot for Detroit Red Wings, hockey's Ted Lindsay is pretty close to being the all-time scoring champ for his position. Ted's also the new president of the recently organized NHL Players Association. And here he is talking hockey with Ed Fitkin.

ED FITKIN: Well, Ted, as one of the great middle-men of hockey, you've certainly had a wonderful success in the National Hockey League in your how many years have you been in it now?

TED LINDSAY: I'm in my 13 year now, Ed. As far as being great, I've been playing with not a lot of great hockey players throughout my career. And that’s certainly helped me a lot.

EF: You started up in Kirkland Lake, and Gus Morstson I understand that the two of you sort of decided that you'd better try and get where the NHL scouts would see you?

TL: That's right. So we came down to St. Michael's College and played there. Gus I believe came down with Toronto sponsoring him. But I came down on my own, and was very, very fortunate to catch on with St. Michael’s.

EF: All right. Fine, Ted. That was your beginning. And the luckiest break you ever got I understand was the fact that you wound up with Detroit and not Toronto?

TL: Well, I say it’s a break in this respect, Ed. That who knows what would have got into my future and trying to, but I'm all set in business in Detroit. There's only one Gordie Howe in the National Hockey League, and by my being in Detroit, I've had the honour of playing with them over these last 10 years. And a lot of those goals that I have got I give credit to him.

EF: You really think he’s pretty good, eh?

TL: Well, there’s none better.

EF: Well, what about these names like Scarface that you get, and all the boos that you get in opposing rinks. Does it ever bother you, or do you rather relish it?

TL: Not really. Because I've always said I'm married to a very pretty girl. We have a lovely family. So I don't have to worry about my looks. So Scarface doesn’t bother me. As far as the boos, I've always believed that if you got booed on the road, you must be doing something that the hometown fan doesn't like. And the only thing is as long as you don't get booed at home, you don't have to worry.

JD: Hockey legend Ted Lindsay, speaking to the CBC's Ed Fitkin in 1957. Mr. Lindsay died today. He was 93 years old.

[Music: Sobre]

ICE infiltrator

Guest: Emiliano Rojas

JD: Last week, 53-year-old Claudio Rojas went for a routine check-in with immigration officials near his home in Miami. He did not come back home. It's the third time the undocumented immigrant and activist has been put in detention by American immigration officials. The last time he was detained, his experience wound up a key part of a new documentary called "The Infiltrators". That is a film that's about to premiere at the Miami Film Festival. Emiliano Rojas is the son of Claudio Rojas. We reached Emiliano in Miramar, Florida.

CO: Emiliano, how is your father doing?

EMILIANO ROJAS: He's doing okay. I mean I can tell he’s a little bit upset, and he's a little bit sad that he's not with us. But it's been not even a week, so he's still okay. If it's like three months then his situation can be worse.

CO: Where is he being held?

ER: He's being held in Krome in Miami.

CO: What's the detention facility like there? What are the conditions there?

ER: I've never been there, but I heard that is way worse than BTC — the Broward Transition Center. This is more like a jail. I'm not 100 per cent aware of what is his free time and stuff like that. But I know for a fact that he's with probably more than 80 people in the same roof — like the same room.

CO: Now, why was he detained, and why is he being held?

ER: He has a deportation order, and they want to deport him. But we do have a case. I don't know why on the last visitation he was detained.

CO: But there's also I guess what's interesting about this is the timing of it in relation to this film that he was part of. Can you tell us about that?

ER: Yeah, so I mean we're not a 100 per cent sure, but we think that it was because of that. Because it’s so weird that nothing happened. And then now that the film came out, you know he's being detained.

CO: Can you tell us about the film, and what role your father played in it?

ER: So my dad played a pretty big role in the whole process because he was detained in 2012. He was there inside. He was helping the activists to get information about other cases to help the other detainees there and try to get them out too. And yeah, I mean he was like a leader there.

CO: And the film’s called “The Infiltrators”. And you're father was on the inside, and then these two men got themselves arrested and detained in the same facility to start getting information of people who were being detained and possibly to be deported. But these were people who under a program by President Obama were people who shouldn't have been detained. Can you tell us about that?

ER: So yeah, they were people with no criminal records. So they were trying to help everybody that had no criminal because Obama when he was in power he said that I should be focusing on criminals — actual criminals. And my dad doesn't have any criminal record. And there was a bunch of people inside that detention center that had no criminal record. So they shouldn't be detained and deported, you know?

CO: And the documentary just shows this extraordinary accomplishment with these two men who got themselves arrested, met up with your father — who was an organizer from inside, and they they're able to get I guess dozens of people freed. Is that right?

ER: Yes. Yeah. They were able to help I don't know how many people. But they were able to help a bunch of detainees, yes.

CO: Is it fair to say that ice was that your father was not exactly somebody that that ICE appreciated?

ER: Oh yeah, for sure. Yeah, he was making noise inside.

CO: So why then in seven years have they detained him again? I mean isn’t this publicity even our conversation here? Isn't this not what ICE wants?

ER: Oh, I mean I guess they’re trying to do the same thing to see if we will fight back or not? They probably don’t want my dad to speak because you know we're coming in right now to Miami. So we were going to meet up with my dad tomorrow to watch the movie here in Miami. So imagine if my dad was there. He would to speak to them, and serve as a testimony that that works. If you guys fight for it, it works, you know? So maybe they just try to send a message for other immigrants to stop doing that.

CO: But this visa application he is now in the works, he can't pursue that outside the country. He can only do that inside. Is that right?

ER: Yeah, that's why I'm afraid that they will try to do it as soon as possible. I'm afraid that one day he's gonna be at the airport. That could happen at any anytime.

CO: And what happens to you? I understand your wife just had a baby just a few weeks ago. Are there implications for you?

ER: No, I'm under DACA, so I do have status.

CO: Has your father been able to see your new baby?

ER: Yes. For a few days, yes. Obviously, he was coming to my house regularly to see his grandson — his first grandson. So he was really excited about it.

CO: But you weren't expecting this arrest?

ER: Of course. I don't know what to do. I mean I just want this to finish. This is too much. We came to this country to look for a better future. But it's been a nightmare so far.

CO: But he is decent principled man. He's obviously exposing himself in the course of his activism.

ER: Yes, yes, we're trying to do everything that it takes to keep our family together. And if my dad goes, my Mom we'll go too. So they've been together since they were twelve. So my mom can’t live without my dad. So she's affected by it a lot too. And you know if my mom goes, then they're not going to see my baby often. We'll have to go to Argentina every time. So it's a really sad thing to think about because you never know if that's going to happen tomorrow.

CO: Emiliano, I appreciate speaking with you. And I hope you get some good news.

ER: Thank you. Thank you, Carol.

CO: Bye-bye.

JD: Emiliano Rojas is the son of Claudio Rojas — who was arrested and detained by ICE officials in Florida last week. We reached Emiliano in Miramar, Florida. For more about this story — and on the documentary that shone a spotlight on this case and others like it called “The Infiltrators” — visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Piano]

Smart study

JD: Love is blind. That much we already knew. Not just from literature, but from science: in 2004, researchers from University College London published a study that showed romantic love actually messes with our brain's ability to critically judge other people. The thing is, though, it's starting to seem like love may not be able to smell that well, and it also has some trouble hearing. Plus which, it's not that bright — although it thinks it's a genius. A new paper published in the journal "Intelligence" lays out some disturbing conclusions about you and your partner. Not only do you each think you're smarter than you are, you both also think the other is smarter than he or she is. And you're both way off. The subjects were 218 heterosexual couples, who've been couples for an average of six years. The researchers asked the subjects to rate their own intelligence, and their partners' intelligence, using a simple scale. Now, what wasn't probably particularly surprising was that each individual had a ludicrously inflated sense of their own brilliance: on average, both men and women thought they were about 30 IQ points smarter than their actual IQ. What was surprising was that they were even farther off when it came to assessing their beloved's intelligence. On average, men thought their partners' IQs were 36 higher than they really are — and women were off by 38 IQ points. Ultimately, it seems like love has no idea what's going on. And that's fine. It doesn't mean your own relationship doesn't burn brightly. It just means maybe it's a little...dimmer than you thought.

[Music: Ambient]

Part three: no clouds study, encore: John Candy

Shimima Begum husband

JD: Shamima Begum was 15 years old in 2015, when she fled the UK, flew to Syria, and became the bride of an ISIS fighter. That ISIS fighter was Yago Riedijk — a 23-year-old Dutch man, who had also left his country to fight for ISIS. The UK has now stripped Ms. Begum of her citizenship. She is currently living at a women's internment camp in north-eastern Syria — not very far from her husband, who is being held at a nearby Kurdish detention centre. And that's where the BBC's Quentin Sommerville spoke to Mr. Riedijk about why he wants to return to the Netherlands — with his wife and their newborn son.

SOUNDCLIP

YAGO RIEDIJK: Of course, I would love to go back to my country — which I now understand the privileges that I lived with. You know the privilege of living there as a citizen. And, of course, I understand that many people have a problem with what I did, and I totally understand that. I have to take responsibility for what I did, serve my sentence.

QUENTIN SOMMERVILLE: Shamima moved over when she was 15. You met in Raqqa. She was at the woman's centre in Raqqa. You married her when she was 15 years old.

YE: Correct.

QS: How in any way is that acceptable? You were what… 23?

YE: I think so, yeah. I remember.

QS: And you thought that was okay?

YE: To be honest, when my friend came in and he said he had heard there was a girl she was interested in marriage, I wasn't really interested because of her age. But I accepted the offer anyways.

QS: So it was acceptable for you to marry a 15-year-old girl?

YE: It was her own choice. She was the one who asked.

QS: You know she's been stripped of our British citizenship. She's viewed as a danger, and someone who is undesirable to Britain. So why do you think Holland would welcome her?

YE: I don't understand how she would in any form be a danger? All she did was she sat in the house for three years, took care of me, took care of my children. She never had anything to do.

QS: Do you realize that when you say somebody who joined the Islamic State willingly married someone in Islamic State, fought for the Islamic State, when you say that you're a victim, that's sickening.

YE: Ok. What can I say? I lived a miserable life. I was imprisoned. I was tortured. I lived in fear. How can I see that as it was my own fault for going, yeah. But I didn't come out of it as a winner in any way.

JD: That was Yago Riedijk speaking to BBC correspondent Quentin Sommerville. The Dutch husband of Shamima Begum wants to return to the Netherlands with his wife and their newborn son. Mr. Riedijk still holds his Dutch citizenship, although he faces a six-year jail term for joining a terror organization, if he returns to the Netherlands.

[Music: Ambient]

No clouds study

Guest: Tapio Schneider

JD: Here's the forecast from the California Institute of Technology: cloudy, with a chance of fewer clouds in the future. That is from a study published in Nature Geoscience, used models to show that rising temperatures can break up clouds over our oceans. Fewer clouds means less heat gets reflected away from our planet. And that, of course, becomes a vicious cycle that could, according to experts, end human life on Earth as we know it. But the lead researcher is optimistic we won't reach that point — if we curb our emissions. Tapio Schneider is a professor of environmental science and engineering at CalTech. We reached him in Pasadena, California.

CO: Professor Schneider, when people say there is not a cloud in the sky, it generally means they're happy. So when does that become too much of a good thing?

TAPIO SCHNEIDER: Clouds are a regulator of our earth's temperature. They reflect sunlight back to space and shade the earth — especially these stratocumulus clouds of our tropical oceans. They're very important for keeping Earth's temperature the way we are used to having it. In some ways they’re a thermostat.

CO: How important are they?

TS: They're enormously important for climates if say the stratocumulus clouds, if we would lose all of them, you'll get to about eight degrees centigrade warming. We are used to the climate we have. Eight degrees warmer would be a very different world, and we are not used to living in a world like that — although in Earth's past, we had climates that were that warm.

CO: Well, eight degrees I mean we’re trying to hold the two degrees and predicting some pretty horrible consequences. Eight degrees would be catastrophic.

TS: Well yes, it would be. But keep in mind that this eight degrees warming would only happen once we lose the clouds. And from our study, we wouldn't lose them before CO2 levels are above twelve-hundred parts per million. So that's three times higher than they currently are. And it may well be much higher. So before these strong cloud feedbacks kick in and lead to an additional strong warming, we've had a lot of warming and you would have had a lot of other problems some global warming already. I don't actually think we'll reach that point. The bottom line is you would have plenty of problems to worry about even without losing the clouds.

CO: So we'll be having enough grief we wouldn't even notice that the clouds were gone?

TS: You would notice. But you would definitely notice eight degrees more is a lot extra. But there would be plenty of other problems to worry about.

CO: This is a really cheery conversation. But you can't have a happy conversation about climate change, can you? again.

TS: You know, no. I mean it's a serious problem. And a serious problem that needs to be tackled. That being said, I think it's a problem that can be tackled. Our paper is pointing to blind spots we had in climate modeling. I think it raises interesting questions about past climates. Fifty million years ago it was extremely hot on Earth. And our paper might explain how such hothouse climates might have occurred. But I wouldn't take it as a prediction of the future necessarily. Cloud decks will thin before you lose them altogether. And I would predict that we will lose them if we keep emitting carbon dioxide at insane levels basically.

CO: What is it about climate change that causes the clouds to reduce?

TS: these stratocumulus clouds, they're special. They are cooled by radiating heat radiation upward from the cloud tops. And air masses sink to the bottom, pick up moisture, come back up, and nurture the clouds. And this cooling at the cloud tops that drives the circulation that sustains them that gets weaker as the greenhouse gas concentration increases. And at some point, it gets so weak that feedbacks on the surface kick in and the clouds basically disappear.

CO: How do you know that at some point, the reason why the Earth was so hot was because there wasn't so much cloud coverage?

TS: We know from geological evidence that the Earth was very hot around 60 million years of ago or so. There is a variety of geological evidence — most coming from composition of carbonate shells for example we find in oceans. From that we know that temperatures were high. And we also know that CO2 concentrations at the time were high — perhaps up to two-thousand parts per million or so. The big conundrum in climate modeling has been that if you take a current climate model and put in more CO2 — say two-thousand ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere in a climate model — the climate model doesn't produce as much of warming as a geological record tells us there was at the time. We had crocodiles in the Arctic at the time. And climate models only produce as much warming when you put more CO2 in the atmosphere — say something like four-thousand parts per million. And the disappearance of clouds might be, if you wish, the missing factor here that can account for the missing warming in the past.

CO: You say that your study you don't want to set off an alarm with it. That we're not going to immediately return to set what was like 50 million years ago. But our emissions are not reducing, right? I mean there is no evidence that there is right now going to be any reversal of lifestyle or the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere. So where does that lead as far as the disappearance of that cloud coverage?

TS: Yeah, I mean you can argue that if at perhaps even a few missed decades in which emissions could have been reduced with the right policy incentives and that didn't happen. That being said, I mean technology has advanced tremendously. If you look at the cost of solar power, for example, now compared to even what it was 10 years ago, the cost of producing electricity from solar power in many countries in the world is already lower than from burning fossil fuels. And once it's globally cheaper to use solar power than burning fossil fuels, I think you'll start transforming the economy and start reducing carbon emissions. And I don't think we are that far away from that point. I don't think we'll keep burning oil and coal for another hundred years at the rate we have done that.

CO: Well, you think you're the most optimistic scientist I have spoken to on this subject.

TS: That doesn't mean it's not hard work. And it doesn't mean it requires a serious effort. But I think if you just look at the history of the last hundred years of technological progress of diseases we have conquered and the like, it seems a problem that we can tackle — definitely well before we reach over a thousand parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO: All right. We’ll leave it there. Professor Schneider, thank you.

TS: My pleasure.

KG: Tapio Schneider is a professor of environmental science and engineering at the California Institute of Technology. We reached him in Pasadena.

[Music: Ambient]

Encore: John Candy

Guests: Jen Candy, Chris Candy

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN CANDY: The last thing I want to be remembered is an annoying blabbermouth. You know nothing grinds my gears worse than some chowder-head who doesn't want to keep his big trap shut. You catch me running off at the mouth, just give me a poke in the chops.

JD: If you have met him onscreen, you will not forget him. That was the heart-on-his-sleeve, foot-in-his-mouth Dell Griffith — as embodied by legendary Canadian actor and comedian John Candy, playing opposite Steve Martin in the holiday classic, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. It's absolutely impossible to imagine anyone else playing the overly-earnest shower-curtain-ring salesman — the perfect foil to Steve Martin's tightly-wound marketing exec, trying to make it home in time for Thanksgiving. Equally, it is hard to believe that today marks 25 years since John Candy died, while shooting his final film in Mexico. No one else could have played the many, many roles John Candy brought to life throughout his career, all before his death at just 43. SCTV's hapless TV personality, Johnny LaRue, for example. Or the eponymous host of Dr. Tongue's Evil House of Pancakes, Dr. Tongue. Or Yosh Schmenge, one-half of the polka-king brothers duo from Leutonia:

SOUNDCLIP

JC: Thank you for your support over the years that you stood by two Leutonia boys who came over here with nothing. And now, you give us so much of yourself. We are indeed rich men for that that you stood by us in our bad times.

EUGENE LEVY: I think what Yosh is trying to say I think can be summed up with our last song — our very last song. The last Polka.

JC: It’s for you.

JD: From the mockumentary “The Last Polka”, John Candy with Eugene Levy as the Schmenge brothers. John Candy adapted that character of Yosh Schmenge for the big screen in “Home Alone” as Gus Polansky, polka king of the Midwest. Now whether the role was small or Laura large John Candy himself was always larger than life, shouldering leading man roles in films like “Uncle Buck”, or delivering masterful cameos in movies like Oliver Stone's “JFK”. For two people though, John Candy’s finest performance was as their dad. On Halloween of 2016, on what would have been John Candy’s 66th birthday Carol spoke with his daughter Jennifer and his son Chris. And here once again is that interview.

CO: Jen and Chris, thank you for joining us.

JEN CANDY: Thank you so much for having us.

CHRIS CANDY: Hi, how are you?

CO: Jen, I just wanna start with you. Your father would have been 66 today. What are you thinking about today on his birthday?

JC: Oh, I'm wishing him a happy birthday. And always missing him, but always kind of celebrating and honouring him. And remembering all of the birthday parties that we used to throw for him and all the different Halloween costumes I guess we used to dress up as.

CO: Because it would have been Halloween birthdays.

JC: It would have been Halloween; his pumpkin patch birthday. Unfortunately, my poor dad never got just a regular birthday party. It was always Halloween-themed. So it's like having a birthday on Christmas. Christmas kind of overtakes the birthday. But I think to our dad, he was kind of okay with that. I think I tried to get him to dress up as a werewolf once. So he put on half the costume with the furry arms and the headpiece, and he would give out candy that way. But I think my brother and I were more the ones that like to dress up for Halloween.

CO: Chris, do you remember when you first had a sense of what your dad did for a living?

CC: Yeah, I was younger. I think I was like maybe five or six. He was working on “Harry Crumb”, which is a film he did where he kind of play this quirky sleuth. And I remember going to set one day in Vancouver, where they were filming. And he was dressed up in this incredible blue leather outfit with a bald wig and self-tanner, and he looked like this Eastern European hairdresser. And I just remember looking at this massive man — my father — as this character going ok, this is not normal.

CO: He doesn't work in an office.

CC: This is special. And it absolutely just makes me smile thinking of him. Yeah, at that point, I knew that there was something unique and interesting happening.

CO: Did you have a favorite character that he did?

CC: You know I did. A lot of this character that I loved, but I just loved the Schmenge characters.

CO: The Schmenge brothers.

CC: You know, when he played that character, he was just so funny, and such a nerd. I’m a nerd, so I thought that character was so dorky and funny. So yeah, that one was just so special and funny. And then all of them, you know? They just have all these interesting little characteristics to them, and such depth in other ones. But that one holds a place in my heart. It’s a very funny character.

CO: He played Yosh Schmenge, and I think it's Eugene Levy was his Schmenge brother?

JC: Stan Schmenge, yup.

CO: Stan Schmenge. Jen, did you have a favourite?

JC: Oh boy! Like my brother, there's so many that are favourites. I do have a soft spot for the Schmenges’ but in SCTV, I always loved Dr. Tongue and Johnny LaRue.

CO: Johnny LaRue, of course, was a staple of SCTV, which was so funny. And the Schmenge brothers were there too. But we have a bit of Johnny LaRue here. And just for those who don't remember, or maybe some young enough never to have heard, let's just hear Johnny LaRue.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN CANDY: Now a lot of people criticize me for being in show business. They say that actors should stay out of politics. Others say I lack the educational background to understand complicated issues. If I'm elected, you're not going to find me with my nose buried in any law books or any reports. People are where it's at. It’s people that I love. So remember, this election day, vote for me, Johnny LaRue, if you know what's good for you.

CO: You can you can guess why you wanted to play that clip.

JC: I wonder why! I love it, yes. He should have been running. I did want to make a sweatshirt that said vote for LaRue during this lovely election time. Just to see how many people got it.

CO: So Chris, what memories does it bring back for you when you hear Johnny LaRue?

CC: Oh gosh, what's the best way to explain LaRue? He’s like an entertainer, you know? Just trying to work his way to the top.

CO: What! A politician who's an entertainer, how strange!

CC: Exactly. I’m being political here. But oh yeah, it's a part of my father's genius was his characters. He just he was very in tune with characteristics of people. And he was able to voice them through his own opinion on things.

CO: But Jen, was he political himself, or just really good at being able to lampoon that politician?

JC: Not so much political at home or anything like that. He knew that character. He loved Johnny LaRue. Like he was known amongst his friends in Toronto as Johnny Toronto. Everyone would call him Johnny Toronto. It's like he was the guy that would do anything. Like you walk into a bar, everyone knows him. You walk into the local store, everyone knows him there, everyone knows him on the street. And so I think Johnny LaRue going from you know street beat to then running for office I think is just one of those absurdities that LaRue thinks that he can do anything and everything, and everyone will love it.

CO: John Candy brings to mind, of course, “Uncle Buck” and well Dale Griffith in “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”, and those hilarious characters. But I read elsewhere Jenn that you have said that one of the roles he worked hardest on creating was actually a dramatic role in the movie JFK. Can you tell us what role he played there?

JC: Oh, he played Dean Andrews. And I think it was the first dramatic role in a long time that he had been up for. Earlier in his career, he had done some more serious stuff, and kind of strayed away from that because he liked the comedy more. So when he was talking with Oliver Stone, I think he worked really hard because he wanted to get it right. He wanted to be considered as a serious actor at some point.

CO: This is the lawyer Dean Andrews Junior that he plays in this in this movie “JFK”. I just will play a clip from that. Here he is playing Dean Andrews Junior.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN CANDY: Is this off the record, daddy-o? Good. In that case, let me sum it up for you real quick. If I answer that question you keep asking, if I give you the name of the big enchilada you know, then as Bon voyage, Deano. I mean like a bullet my head, you dig?

CO: Completely different character for him, isn’t it? You can hardly recognize his voice. Chris, how hard did he work at creating that character? Do you know?

CC: Yeah. From what I understand, he worked pretty hard on that one. Like Jen was saying with the dialect coach, which is kind of out of his realm of preparation for a character. You know the tone of that project was different than other ones. And I was a kid, so I was young. It's wasn’t like I was analyzing his work ethic then. But I just know from hearing people talk about it and also just the weight of that character there's no way that you can kind of just go in and you can't wing that. You have to do your work or it won't be believable.

CO: You both grew up with John Candy, but so many of us grew up with him. And just he was such an important person in the lives of a generation who just lived for his next role. But this was your dad, and so when he died very suddenly of a heart attack in 1994. Jen, do you remember much about that time?

JC: Oh, I remember a lot of it. It was you know it's one of those life-changing moments that, unfortunately, you don't want anyone to experience. But a lot of people do experience. And I remember the day. Obviously, things kind of go in and out of what I remember and what sticks out the most. You always remember hearing, but you never remember like five minutes after it. It's sad, but at the same time, it's part of life. And you have to learn how to celebrate people's life — no matter how long or short they have with it.

CO: And Chris, his death that day was just for so many people it was so huge. It was such an enormous loss. In Canada, of course, you know we claim him. And so you know it was a moment for so many people. What do you remember of that time? There was people coming from all over the world to take part and to commemorate his passing. Do you remember that?

CC: Yeah, absolutely. It's a devastating experience you know that we went through. Like Jen was saying, a lot of people go through loss. It's very difficult. And you kind of live with it for the rest of your life — loss of a parent. But you learn a lot growing up with him gone. But I remember the time it was you know very sad, and there was a lot of people — a lot of community had come into town from family to people he worked with. And there is a major support group around the time near Los Angeles, and especially we we notice it in Canada as well because we had family coming down here. And then you could just tell from what was going on in the news. And what was overwhelming for me, and still to this day which is overwhelming, is you know we live in Los Angeles, and there's the 405 freeway and it goes all the way up and down Los Angeles. And off of Sunset down to Jefferson Boulevard, which is a major avenue down in L.A., it's got a couple miles. The LAPD blocked off that section of the southbound highway for the funeral procession to go down. And that was unbelievable because at the time you didn't ever see that happen. And even today when I'm sitting in traffic going I can't believe they blocked this highway off for him. And that very monumental and very important. And it just was overwhelming to kind of experience that.

CO: Jen, are you going to spend Halloween in any special way to commemorate to his passing?

JC: Oh, you know what? Yes and no. The whole month is where I commemorate my dad for his birthday, and Halloween, and celebrating. I spend it with my families on Halloween. So I think this year, I'll go hang out with my mom. And Chris I think he'll be around too. But I think talking about him with people is my kind of homage to him around this time because a lot of people love to hear stories. And a lot of people like to share their story. And I think that that's really good. And so you always just say happy birthday, dad. And that's what I do.

CO: Well, Jen and Chris Candy, I appreciate both of you coming on and talking about your dad on this day. Thank you.

JC: Thank you.

CC: Thank you for having us.

CO: Bye-bye.

JC: Bye-bye.

CC: Take care.

JD: From Halloween of 2016, that was Carol, in conversation with Jennifer and Chris Candy — daughter and son of comedian and actor John Candy. John Candy died 25 years ago today. He was only 43 years old. And you can find some photographs — and hear that interview again, or share should you like to — on the as it happens website. That being: www.cbc.c/aih.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 04, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This