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 28, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

MEGAN WILLIAMS: Hello, I'm Megan Williams, sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

MW: Leap from faith. The Quebec Premier's lieutenant says the province's new law banning teachers and other public employees from wearing religious symbols is about building a society for all.

JD: Flying apart. An asylum seeker says her family is desperate, after Canadian officials prepare to deport her partner to Colombia, while she and their Canadian-born son are flown to Guatemala.

MW: Flight non-attendance. When the Icelandic airline Wow abruptly announces it's shutting down, thousands of passengers find themselves stranded where they landed.

JD: Making a mockery of their concerns. Protesters confront the Prime Minister at a Liberal fundraiser about a long-awaited mercury treatment centre in Grassy Narrows First Nation — only to be sarcastically dismissed.

MW: Oyster egg. A Toronto man unveils his big, shiny family secret: an heirloom "giga-pearl" that's about the size of a baby — and worth considerably more.

JD: And...le shriek — c'est chic. At our request, you shared your shrillest seagull imitations with us — and we're so grateful that you did while also wishing you hadn't.

"As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that has to tell you: it's no day at the beach when your voicemail sounds like one.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Quebec secularism law, Wow airline passenger, Giga Pearl

Quebec secularism law

Guest: Christopher Skeete

JD: The government of Quebec isn't waiting for a judge to find that its new secularism legislation violates the Charter of Rights. The bill it introduced today would to bar public employees from wearing religious symbols. And it invokes the notwithstanding clause — the part of the constitution that allows governments to override rights like equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Prime Minister Trudeau isn't impressed.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU Quite frankly, I expect a large number of Quebeckers to have some serious questions about that. Because Quebeckers, like all Canadians, are proud of living in a free and just society. And I don't think a lot of people feel that in a free society, we should be legitimizing discrimination of our citizens based on religion.

JD: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's response to Quebec's new secularism legislation. Christopher Skeete is the Parliamentary Secretary to Quebec's C-A-Q Premier Francois Legault. We reached Mr. Skeete in Quebec City.

MW: Mr. Skeete, Prime Minister Trudeau says you're legitimizing discrimination. How do you respond?

CHRISTOPHER SKEETE: Well, I think I agree with the Premier that you know we live in a free society. Freedom of religion is very important. So I would disagree that we're interfering with that in any way. What we're doing is we're clarifying the distance that needs to exist between the state and religions in general. So that's what this bill is all about. And it's about confirming the right of religions to exist in the private sphere. And also it's a confirmation that we want to have religious neutrality when the power of the state is being used.

MW: Now Justin Trudeau, of course, isn't alone in this opinion. B'nai Brith is denouncing your law as being at odds with Canadian values. Quebec's Association of Pro-secular Muslims says the bill undermines secular values. What kind of reception were you expecting?

CS: Well, to be honest, when you look at the length of debate that's been going on in Quebec… it's now in its 12th year I believe. What poll after poll tells us — what election after election tells us — is that this is important to Quebeckers in general and we're only acting to confirm what Quebeckers want with regards to really creating a secular state. We're confident that the reception that you know this will be well received.

MW: If the law isn't discriminatory, why do you need to invoke the notwithstanding clause?

CS: Well, for us, the notwithstanding clause let's put that there that the notwithstanding clause in perspective. It's a tool that's been used by numerous governments, numerous provinces. And more often than not it's used directly in the law when it's being passed. So this is nothing new. And what we're saying is we want to put this debate behind us. And I think that's the best way to do it so that we can move on and talk about our real priorities for this government, which is the economy, health, and education.

MW: So what is the problem you're trying to solve with this new la?

CS: What we want to do is confirm that our state is secular. And when people who are persons of authority, who use the power of the state on a day-to-day basis. And then let's not underestimate the power of the state. These people need to be free of any type of association with any type of bias whatsoever. So for us, we're just continuing on the path that we started 50 years ago when we took the lead the church out of our schools. So we're continue on the path of secularization. And that's where we want to go. And I think it's an important thing that we do that because not only is it important to think about freedom of religion, but we need to also think about freedom from religion. And I think that is the scope of our of our current law.

MW: I mean don't you think Canadians are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between someone who works in a government position wearing a hijab just carrying out their job as opposed to the view that somehow they're pushing their religion on to the people they're serving?

CS: Well, it's not enough to be free of bias. It's also important to be free of the appearance of bias. And I think that's what we're in. I trust Canadians and I trust people to be of good faith. This is not what this is about. You have to be free of the illusion of bias. And this is why the state has to be exemplary in its way of doing so.

MW: Okay. So if people don't comply, what's going to happen?

CS: That's speculation. I think that we live in a civilized society, and most people are of good faith. I'm confident that once the bill is passed, people will adhere to the law.

MW: Should teachers be allowed to wear crucifixes?

CS: Well, no. And it would be really a bad shortcut to take to say that this applies to people who are not Christians, or only… or only particularly one religion. This is about being free from all religions — including the Christian religion, including Islam, including the Sikh religion. Nobody should be wearing religious symbols when they are exercising the power of the state. And that includes, as you stated, crosses.

MW: OK. So say you have somebody who's a staunch Catholic, and follows very closely the rules of the Catholic Church, but they don't wear a crucifix. Someone just removes the visible symbolism of their religion, but perhaps tries to impose certain tenets of their religion while they're carrying out their job. I mean how does that solve that problem?

CS: Well, I think if you would take this step of removing your religious symbol in the first place, I think that already tells me that you're a person of good faith that wants to try to obey the law. And then, of course, every individual employer be it the police officers or be at the school boards or whatnot are going to have their own internal processes. What we don't want is these people indoctrinate anybody, right? And that's not allowed now. So I don't see why we would be allowed after the laws passed.

MW: Now why doesn't the law include a definition of the symbols that believers won't be able to wear?

CS: I think it's because we all tend to have a common understanding of what a religious symbol is. I think if we had to list them, I think the list would be kind of long, but we all kind of recognize the religious symbol when we see one. And we are counting on people's good will and good judgment quite frankly when interpreting aspects of this law.

MW: So you're counting on people's good judgment to interpret the law, but you're not counting on people's good judgment when it comes to wearing these symbols?

CS: I think the government has to be exemplary in its capacity of representing secularism. And I think that is why it's important that we state it. And that's one of the reasons why we're changing the Quebec Bill of Rights to impose that condition of secularization in principle. So you can be a secular state, but it's another thing to write it down as an ideal that you want to espouse. And that's where we are with this piece of legislation. So yeah, I think it's important to write it down. I think words matter.

MW: Montreal's English language school board has said that it will not enforce the law as a matter of principle. Are you going to accept that?

CS: Like I said, I think I believe that everybody is going to be following the law once it's passed. I think the English Montreal school board has an interpretation may be that's not clear or they're not sure. But, to be honest, I don't want to get into aspects of people who are not planning on following the law. And once this bill gets ascension, I'm confident that everybody will rally around it. I think everyone's going to get on board. I hope they do.

MW: I think you know though already that not everybody is on board. So why are you making that assumption that there will not be controversy and people deciding not to follow this new law?

CS: Well, it's the same reason that I wish we can go a little bit faster on the highway. But the law says 100, so I go at 100. So you know not everybody is always in agreement with every law. But most people of good faith who are active and considerate citizens will follow the law as enacted by the parliament.

MW: Well, we'll be following to see if that happens. Thanks very much. Mr. skeete for speaking with me.

CS: I appreciate your time. Thank you.

JD: Christopher Skeete is the parliamentary secretary to Quebec's C-A-Q Premier Francois Legault. We reached Mr. Skeete in Quebec City.

[Music: Instrumental]

Wow airline passenger

Guest: Kristen Baldauf

JD: Wow Air is grounded. This morning, the ultra-cheap Icelandic airline abruptly cancelled all flights, and announced it was closing down — which came as a real surprise to thousands of passengers who have now been left stranded, all over the world. Kristen Baldauf is among them. She is from Chicago — but was in Iceland on a trip when she heard the news. She was supposed to fly back home on Sunday with Wow Air. We reached Ms. Baldauf in Reykjavik.

MW: Kristen, how did you find out that your Wow Air flight was cancelled?

KRISTEN BALDAUF: Oh gosh. We had scheduled what's called a lava tunnels tour this morning. It's a day trip. So we get on the bus, and the bus driver is going to take us out to this trip. And he kind of makes a joke because here in Iceland today they were supposed to have a bus strike. So he kind of made a joke. And I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to the effect of haha, at least you know I'm not Wow airlines. And myself and my group, which is me and my friend Katie and our mom, the four of us we all kind of looked at each other, and we were like what do you mean? We flew here on Wow. He said well, they closed. And we're like oh, so they were they on strike too? And he's like no, no, no, they closed — they're done. And we seriously thought it was a joke.

MW: So you found out from an Icelandic bus driver on a way to a lava tunnel. Did you get any notification at all from the airline?

KB: No, we got absolutely nothing. In fact, the last notification that we had from Wow was yesterday at about 5:00 p.m. We got an email saying hey, do you want to upgrade your seats to what they call big seats, which is kind of like first class. And so we actually talked about it. Like hey, should we upgrade? So I’m really glad we didn't do that.

MW: So what are you doing?

KB: So we got back from the lava tours a couple hours later, and we've spent the majority of the rest of our day so far on the phone. We called around to a couple of different airlines. We spent I don't know three, four, five hours on the phone or on hold or on the computer. We did finally just book probably about an hour ago got everything confirmed to book a different flight with a different airline back to the United States on the same day.

MW: And how much is that going to cost you?

KB: So our entire group, it's costing us somewhere between $2,500 and $3,000 U.S. dollars for the total group.

MW: Wow! And how much did your original ticket cost?

KB: Like $400 dollars. But here's the thing: Wow e-mailed us back in January, and they said oh sorry, we're actually not going to fly out of Chicago for the month of March. We're going to need to rebook you to a different like hub — a different city. So we actually had to rebook to Detroit, and then get our own flight to Detroit. So we did end up having to pay an extra $200 dollars. So like the money has kind of started piling on.

MW: Weren't there any other cheaper options than $3,000 dollars to get home? I understand some other airlines are offering discount flights?

KB: Yeah, that's a great question. We looked into that a lot today. So there's a couple airlines that are offering what they're calling rescue fares, which are reduced fares for 60 to 100 dollars. And there's only a couple of airlines that are offering that. So as far as U.S. citizens, go Icelandic Air was the best option. However, I need to get to Chicago, and they only were flying to the east coast. So I would still need to fly from one of those cities back to Chicago. On top of that, when we called to try to schedule one of those rescue fares, they were completely sold out. And so we were all kind of like what? We need rescued! I thought that was the point. But they said no, no, you can get that fare. But you need to wait until like Wednesday. And Iceland is extremely expensive. So it was going to be just as much money to sit in a hotel room for an extra three days, eat food for an extra three days, even if we didn't do any you know vacation type thing.

MW: Right.

KB: We need food and we need a room to stay. And on top of that, we need to work. So my friend Katie is a kindergarten special-ed teacher, so her kids rely on her. It's not like she has a corporate job. She needs to be back on Monday. She's here for spring break.

MW: Right, right.

KB: So we kind of figured price wise, we'd need to get home versus stay here.

MW: Now there are a lot of super cheap airlines popping up, and some of them going under. And there have been a lot in recent years. Does this experience change how you feel about really cheap flights?

KB: That's actually something we talked about today extensively. In the United States, I typically am not a budget airline flyer. I fly on airlines that I know and then I trust. We all said independently like I don't think I'm ever going to fly a budget airline again. It's not worth what we're going through right now.

MW: Right. Now these cheap flights also were bringing a lot of tourism to Iceland. How have people there been reacting to the news?

KB: So I have to say that all week we've heard from Icelanders about how their tourism has been booming in the last few years, and that it's been growing their economy. They're all very, very welcoming and very excited to have us here. In the U.S., I don't even have a good comparison because everyone here is so incredibly nice. With the news coming out today, everyone is genuinely like upset for us. And we'll go out of their way to try to help us. We actually as we were walking along the streets in Reykjavik this afternoon after we finally got everything all situated with the flight we're looking for a place to eat. We saw a sign in a window that said Wow Air travelers 20 per cent off. We're like ok, So we went in. It was a chocolate shop. And it was a local business chocolate shop. And so we were like hey, we're Wow Air travelers. We’d love our 20 per cent off. And the guy kind of laughed. It was his shop. He was the owner. So we all bought some chocolate ‘cause we really needed it.

MW: Well, given the prices in Iceland, will you be living off chocolate for your remaining time there?

KB: Maybe, maybe not. I did buy quite a bit. But it's been a really wonderful experience being here. But this has definitely put an interesting spin on our trip. That's for sure.

MW: Kristen, thanks so much for speaking with me, and good luck getting back home.

KB: Thank you.

MW: Bye-bye.

KB: Thank you. I appreciate it.

JD: Kristen Baldauf was a Wow Air customer — until the Icelandic airline suddenly shut down this morning. We reached Ms. Baldauf in Reykjavik.

[Music: Ambient]

Giga Pearl

Guest: Abraham Reyes

JD: It's iridescent white, shaped like a tooth, weighs nearly 28 kilos, and is the size of a human baby. And, also like a baby, you want to cradle it in your arms. It's the Giga Pearl — one of the largest natural pearls of any kind that anyone's aware of. It's also a family heirloom that was passed down to Abraham Reyes. He has now unveiled this giant nacreous gem to the world. We reached Mr. Reyes in Missisauga.

MW: Mr. Reyes, this giant Pearl sounds really interesting. What does it mean to you?

ABRAHAMM REYES: To me, it means a lot of things. I feel I have a big responsibility, and I want to share it to the public. I want to have it exhibited because I find that you know it has environmental importance, as well as the historical importance.

MW: How so?

AR: Because pearls are indicator and barometers of our oceans health. And they can only grow and thrive in pristine and perfect water temperatures. So if the ocean does not produce pearl anymore, like our world will be in trouble. And the pearls are also a reflection of our delicate ecosystem.

MW: And along with the environmental and historic worth of the pearl, how much is it actually worth in terms of money?

AR: For me, like it's priceless. We've been trying to answer that question because, in terms of the size, there is no comparable. The analysis of authentication — I went to the Gemological Institute of America. But for appraisals, I went to jewelers in New York and as well as in Hong Kong. And it's totally different the valuation they would give me. The most conservative one I got was 60 to 90 million. Hong Kong gave me 150 million. New York did not want to comment because they said that since there is no precedent in size, it's really hard to value.

MW: Now that's a lot of money. How are you keeping it safe? I mean I think you know a lot of people if they had a pearl of that value would be very worried about it being stolen.

AR: At the first leg when I first brought it to Canada, it stayed with me in our home for about a month. And then we decided to put it in the vault.

MW: At home?

AR: Oh no, not at home. So it's an undisclosed area. Unfortunately, I can't disclose it because it's still in that same vault.

MW: How did your family come to possess the pearl in the first place?

AR: So it came from the island of Camiguin, it's a southern island in the Philippines close to Mindanao. The pearl is still attached to its clam. My grandfather gave it to my aunt in Manila. And this was in 1959. And then my aunt, she had it for all these years until 2016 when she bequeathed it to me.

MW: How soon did your family discover that the clam contains such a treasure?

AR: So my family, even my grandfather, were not aware that it's pearl. Because to them like traditionally, like I said, a pearl for them it's round, it's shiny. It's only in 2016 when I brought it to Canada and officially had it tested with the G.I.A. That's when we knew it was officially a pearl.

MW: As a kid visiting your aunt's house in Manila, what do you remember thinking about this enormous clam just sitting there?

AR: Oh, [laughs] when I was younger, I see this clan for the first time. I was 17 years old, and my imagination was very, very wild. I was fascinated by it because of the shape of the clam and the lump within it protruding. In the Philippines, we are Westernised. So the books and cartoons I would watch like such as “The Little Mermaid”, for example, which always portrayed a round pearl and the clam. But now that I'm an adult, I'm more educated about the pearl, those kind of pearls that are round and shiny don't grow inside that kind of clam that we you know we see in television.

MW: That's interesting. I didn't know that. So you've exhibited… you've presented to the world the Giga Pearl. What are your dreams for it now?

AR: My dreams for it is for it to be displayed and exposed is a proper place. You know for everyone to see. You know nature once could produce this. What only things that we could like imagine. I had actually exhibited this pre without telling people what it was for a good cause: Breakfast Club of Canada during the Fashion Shoot Extravaganza. That was the first time it actually came out publicly without people knowing what it was. I just wanted to see like the reaction of people in terms of the artwork you know how they react to it.

MW: Now I understand the pearl has a rather elaborate adornment. Can you tell us about that?

AR: Oh yes. So after like the G.I.A had given me the proper identification of it and I was very confident of what it was, I decided to have an artwork created. And it was created by Ms. Bethany Krull. She is a New York-based artist — a western New York artists. It’s made out of bronze, and it’s been gilded in 22 carat gold. The octopus is embracing the pearl. And the eyes of the octopus are made out of garnet. And the garnets, I believe it was 500 carats per eye. And it's beautiful because it has star effect. So when proper lights hit it, you get that star effect that looks like it's following you around.

MW: It sounds absolutely lovely. Mr. Reyes, thanks so much for speaking with me.

AR: Thank you. Thank you very much.

MW: Bye-bye

JD: Abraham Reyes owns the Giga Pearl. We reached him in Missisauga, Ontario.

[Music: Show tune]

LR: Seagulls

JD: Our hearts are full — and our ears are still ringing. On Tuesday, we told you about the first-ever "European Gull Screeching Championship". We asked you to send us your best seagull impressions. And we were shocked and heartbroken when no one answered our call for calls. So, last night, in an act of utter and unashamed desperation, we asked you again. This time, thankfully, you delivered.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A phone beep]

BOO WATSON: Oh hi, “As It Happens” it's Boo Watson on Manitoulin Island. Ok, here. Here you go.

[Sound: What is that?]

SOUNDCLIP

HEATHER MCKASKEL: My name is Heather McKaskel, I'm calling from Nelson, B.C., and.

[Sound: This one’s real]

SOUNDCLIP

OLIVER: HI, I’m Oliver, I’m five years old. I’m here to do my seagull impersonation.

[Sound: Cute!]

SOUNDCLIP

ROHID SHARMA: Hello, my name is Rohid Sharma, calling from Toronto. So here I go!

[Sound: Wow!]

JD: Brilliant. I close my eyes, and I am on a crowded beach, guarding my French fries with my life. Those were just some of the spot on Seagull and oppressions on Talkback last night. Some of you however took a more abstract or creative approach.

SOUNDCLIP

JIMBO JUMBO: Oh hey, “As It Happens” It’s Jimbo Jumbo, calling from Toronto. Well, I heard that you didn't get any gulls. And I actually I really just won the phone to tell you I love you. But ok, I'll give you a gull. This is about the best I can do. Here goes. Hey, hey kid, give me your French fries. Hey kid, give me your French fries. No, you know what? I want the French fries. No, ok, I'm just going to take the French fries well you look the other way. Ok, I'm a gull.

SOUNDCLIP

ADAM WILDBORN Hey “As It Happens” this is Adam Wildborn from St. John's, Newfoundland. So with gulls in town here in St. John's, you usually find them face, eyes, and ears into a McDonald's bag trying to find the last fry. So this is my impersonation of a gull going head-first into the bag.

[Sound: Yeah…]

AW: Love your show. Jeff, you’re a real cutie too.

JD: My goodness, my goodness. I'm blushing a bit. And once again, I have a hankering for French fries. Honestly, we are overwhelmed by your response. And we truly did not know that so many “As it Happens” listeners could speak gulll. So now for your listening pleasure, here are some of the highlights.

[Sound: Yeah…]

JB: Music to our ears. What an interesting bit of radio that was. Thank you for all your squawks, squeaks, and screeches.

[Music: Ambient]

Part two: Deportation family, Grassy Narrows protestor

Deportation family

Guests: Rosalba Solares, Lorne Waldman

JD: Canadian officials have told Rosalba Solares that, on Sunday, she and her family will have go their separate ways. Ms. Solares is an asylum claimant from Guatemala. She lives in Toronto with her partner Jorge, an asylum claimant from Colombia. They have a 7-year-old son who has lived in Canada his entire life. Ms. Solares and her partner have been denied refugee status. And now they've been told that they are scheduled for deportation to two different countries this weekend. Ms. Solares and her son will go to Guatemala — her partner is flown to Colombia. We reached Rosalba Solares in Toronto at the office of her lawyer, Lorne Waldman.

MW: Ms. Solares, how worried are you about what could happen this Sunday?

ROSALBA SOLARES: I have no idea how we are. We are depressed. I worry about what’s going to happen on Sunday. But mostly, I'm worried about my son Julian. He can’t sleep well now. He's very anxious. And the doctors they are saying that Julian is developing post-traumatic stress disorder, so we are very worried about that because he's a very happy boy. He's good at school. But from this situation, he's going to be away from all that.

MW: How much does he know about what is happening?

RS: He knows. He knows everything. He heard everything on Friday, so he's very worried.

MW: So he has heard that you and he will be going to Guatemala, and his father will be going to Colombia?

RS: Yes, that's true. He knows all about that.

MW: Now I understand that your husband in Colombia is afraid of reprisals from farc guerillas. What do you fear could happen to you in Guatemala?

RS: I have no chance in Guatemala. If I go there, I have no chance to live for a long time in there.

MW: What do you mean?

RS: They're waiting for me. My previous partner is waiting for me if I return there.

MW: And why is that dangerous for you?

RS: Because he is a part of a gang. And they are very powerful. They are everywhere — even in the United States.

MW: And what do you fear could happen to you?

RS: He will kill me.

MW: Your former partner?

RS: Yes.

MW: How do you how this?

RS: When I was leaving the United States, in California, unfortunately, my Cousin is part of the same gang. He lives in California, and he hit me on my face one night when I returned from my work. He came to my house, and hit me on my upper lip. And he said this is a message from Sergio. And he said if you ever come back to Guatemala, he will kill you.

MW: This is the cousin who hit you?

RS: Yes, my cousin.

MW: Now we understand that Canadian officials have told you that your life wouldn't be at risk if you returned to a different part of Guatemala. What do you say to that?

RS: That is not possible because, unfortunately, like I said before, my cousin is part of the same gang. So they talk each other because part of the family are involved with the gangs. They will know no matter where we live, where we are. They’ll know.

MW: Are you worried your son might be at risk?

RS: Of course. Yeah, he is the most important because those people they don't care if they are kids or adults — they just kill them. As soon as he found me and he knows that I have a son, he's going to be there. He's gonna be focused on my son.

MW: Given just how afraid you are for your son, why have you decided to take him with you?

RS: Because he's my son, you know? And as a mother, I like to be with my son. But they never asked me. They decide.

MW: And I'm wondering what reason have Canadian officials given you for sending you aand your son to one country, and your partner — your son's father — to a separate country?

RS: I don't understand. But they said that they cannot send us together to the same country.

MW: Ms. Solares, would it be possible to speak with your lawyer now?

RS: Sure.

MW: Mr. Waldman, how unusual is it for Canada to divide a family and send them to two different countries like this?

LORNE WALDMAN: I've been doing immigration law for a long time, and it's the first time I've ever experienced a situation where they're splitting up a family like this, and separating a very young child from one of the two parents. We were always led to believe that the deportation was going to be to Colombia. And it was only last Friday, at the very last minute, that the officer told our clients that the son and Rosalba were going to be deported to Guatemala, and father to Colombia. We're shocked. And we haven't been provided with any explanation as to why, at the very last minute, they took this sudden decision. As you can imagine, it sort of makes it very difficult for anybody to make plans of any kind.

MW: Would the risk of violence against them have been less in Colombia?

LW: Both countries have very difficult situations. And we're very concerned in either country about the safety of the young Canadian child. There's violence in Colombia, and certainly there's a great deal of violence right now in Guatemala. The difficulty, of course, is that there's really no other alternative. There's no obvious choice for who would care for him other than the parents. There’s no close family over here who could assume that role. So that's the situation we find ourself in right now.

MW: Do you have any indication of why Canadian authorities made this decision?

LW: Absolutely none. We've, of course, filed an application in the Federal Court, and we're seeking an order preventing the deportation. And we've made a request that they cancel the deportation for now based upon health considerations. Julian has had some serious health issues, and we're concerned that they'll be exacerbated by flying. Jorge, the father, also has health issues, and we put them all before the officials. And we're waiting to see whether they will consider them. But in my experience, it's not likely. And I fully expect that tomorrow at 3 o'clock in the afternoon I'll be arguing before a federal court judge asking a judge to prevent the deportation.

MW: And what are the chances of that being successful do you think?

LW: Well, as I said, I think we have a strong case. And I don't think it's part of our Canadian tradition to separate families. I mean you know there might be circumstances where you're dealing with extreme situations and very dangerous people or something like that where you might see why such a measure would be justified. But, in this case, there's none of those elements are present. So I can't for the life of me understand why CBSA officials would make such a cruel decision to separate a young child from his father. So I have no understanding. And, hopefully, between now and tomorrow at least there'll be an explanation. But I certainly will argue forcefully before the Federal Court that it shouldn't be continuous by the court.

MW: Rosalba, what would it mean for you if it were possible for you and Julian and Jorge to stay in Canada?

RS: It was my dream to live in Canada because this is a safe country. You can live in peace here. You can work. To stay — to have the opportunity to live in Canada, to stay in Canada — with my family will be the best for everybody, for Julian's future, for the three of us. So this is this is Canada. I love Canada.

MW: Ms. Solares and Mr. Waldman, best of luck. And thanks very much for speaking with me today.

LW: Thank you.

MW: Bye-bye.

RS: Bye-bye

JD: Rosalba Solares and her son are scheduled to be deported to Guatemala on Sunday, the same day her husband is scheduled for deportation to Colombia. Lorne Waldman is their lawyer. We reached them in Toronto. We have more on that story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

House Intelligence Committee

JD: Things got testy this morning within the U.S. House Intelligence Committee. Every Republican on the committee signed an open letter that called the Chair, Adam Schiff, to resign. Congressman Schiff is a Democrat who has long been suspicious of alleged connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And even after the Attorney-General released his summary of the Mueller report, Mr. Schiff has continued to insist that President Trump's associates colluded with Russia. The Republicans are fed up with it. Here's Republican congressman Mike Conaway speaking this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

MIKE CONAWAY: Your actions both past and present are incompatible with your duties as chairman of this committee, which alone in the House of Representatives has the obligation and authority to provide effective oversight of the U.S. intelligence community. As such, we have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties in a manner consistent with your constitutional responsibility. And urge your immediate resignation as Chairman of the Committee. As Chairman, this letter signed by all nine members of the Republican side of the House of the committee. And I ask this to be entered into the record of today's hearing.

JD: But Congressman Schiff was not open to the idea of resigning. Here's his response.

SOUNDCLIP

ADAM SCHIFF: I'm going to turn to our witnesses who are the sum of the hearing today. But before I do, and as you have chosen instead of addressing the hearing to simply attack me consistent with the president's attacks. I do want to respond in this way. My colleagues may think it's ok that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what was described as the Russian government's effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that's ok. My colleagues might think it's okay that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president's son did not call the FBI. He did not adamantly refuse that foreign help. No, instead, that son said that he would love the help of the Russians. You might think it's ok that he took that meeting. You might think it's ok that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience in running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it's ok that the president's son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it's ok that they concealed it from the public. You might think it's ok that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn't better. You might think that's ok. You might think it's ok that when it was discovered a year later, that they lied about that meeting, and said it was about adoptions. You might think it's ok that the president is reported to have helped dictate that lie. You might think that's ok. I don't. You might think it's ok that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that's ok. I don’t! You might think it's ok that that campaign chairman offered polling data — campaign polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don't think that's ok.

JD: Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat chair of the House Intelligence Committee. He was responding to a letter from Republicans on the committee, which demanded he step down as chair.

[Music: Indie rock]

Grassy Narrows protestor

Guest: Judy Da Silva

JD: It kind of seems the Prime Minister momentarily forgot his "sunny ways" demeanour at a Liberal fundraising event last night in the city of Toronto. Protesters interrupted his speech — unfurling a banner about health issues related to mercury contamination at Ontario's Grassy Narrows First Nation. Here is part of the audio from a video clip of the protest — and how the Prime Minister responded.

SOUNDCLIP

PROTESTOR: People in Grassy Narrows are suffering from mercury poisoning. You committed to addressing this issue…

(crosstalk)

JT: Thank you for being here. Thank you very much for your donation today. I really appreciate.

JD: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sarcastically thanking protesters for their donations to the Liberal Party, as they were being escorted out of a fundraiser last night. The protesters, again, were there to confront the Prime Minister on a promise to fund a mercury treatment facility in Grassy Narrows. Today, a contrite Mr. Trudeau spoke to reporters about the incident.

SOUNDCLIP

JT: As I think you all know, from time to time, I'm in situations where people are you know expressing concerns or protesting a particular thing. And I always try to be respectful, and I always try to engage with them in a positive way. That's how I believe that democracy should function. And I didn't do that last night. Last night, I lacked respect towards them. And I apologize for that. This situation in Grassy Narrows is one that we have been following for quite a while — something that is of real concern, and a real piece of the path of reconciliation we must walk on. The other thing is obviously we will be fully refunding the contributions made by those individuals last night.

JD: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologizing for making sarcastic remarks to protesters who interrupted a Liberal fundraising event last night. Judy Da Silva is a member of the Grassy Narrows First Nation who was protesting outside the fundraiser last night. We reached her in Toronto.

MW: Ms. De Silva, what was your first reaction when you saw the video of the Prime Minister responding to this protester last night.

JUDY DA SILVA: My first reaction was.. well first was shock, and I felt pity for the woman that was escorted away right away by security, where she didn't get a chance to ask a question. And then his immediate reaction was fast when he said thank you for detonation. So, to me, it was very callous and inhumane.

MW: We also hear in the video the crowd starting to cheer at the prime minister's remarks. What do you make of their reaction to those comments?

JDS: Well, I was thinking like the reaction was so fast by his donors or his supporters. I just felt like they are true supporters of Trudeau, and it does feel like the mentality of the, to me, the old boys club they call it. And I thought he would be different because he’s a young man. Because when he first started out as the prime minister, and he went and visit a suicide affected remote community. And I thought maybe he'll be more humane. But as time has gone by, I see his true colours. And last night, it really showed the true colours of the people that he works with.

MW: Justin Trudeau has now apologized. Do you accept his apology?

JDS: I don't accept his apology because I felt like he did that under pressure. If he would have reacted and said you know like I'm going to reach out to the First Nation. I'm going to call the chief of Grassy Narrows, and I'm going to you know go see them, then I would take that as a really legitimate apology. But the way he did it you know being asked on media, like it's not true, it’s not real to me.

MW: Do you know if he's made any effort to reach out to the Grassy Narrows First Nation?

JD: I haven't heard anything back. So when I get home, I'll find out from the chief and council if he has. Let's talk about the actual reason you were at the event yesterday evening. What message did you want to deliver to the prime minister?

JDS: Well, our message mainly was for Justin Trudeau to help us with the mercury crisis. And Minister Philpott was the one who promised us the mercury home, and she's no longer in there. And like her way of mobilizing was really positive and was really good and she was on top of things and she was saying you know get it done. And now she's not in there. And now its Seamus O'Regan, and we've written to him two times, and he's only set us up to meet with his low-level bureaucrats. And all they've done is throw wrenches into our talks.

MW: Is your concern that the promised mercury treatment centre at Grassy Narrows won't be completed?

JDS: yeah, like the time is running out. November 2019 is going to be happening soon, when the federal elections happen. And Minister Philpott and the contractors they said will start work on the building August. She said no, I want to started in June. So she had that drive to push the project forward. And that's the kind of energy we need right now.

MW: And what was the full promise of the mercury treatment centre?

JDS: The way Minister Philpott said was that she’s committing to build the mercury home. That is in November 28, 2017. And that was her promise, and she kept on it. And we were on a roll. And then now things have stopped. So that's why we're worried that it's not going to happen, and we're hoping that that the promise will be fulfilled by the party.

MW: And can you give us an idea of why the treatment centre is so badly needed?

JDS: We have ten tons of mercury in the river system. And our people are poisoned by that. And if in any other community if that were to happen, I'm pretty sure they did understand that the help is needed urgently. I've seen overseas where people had national emergency, and Trudeau sent like 40 million dollars within a week. And like that's the kind of energy we need. And it's taking so long since 1962 you know that we've been on this. And the Japanese were more helpful when they came in you know studied our people and said that our people have the same symptoms. So we need that kind of energy to happen from the Justin Trudeau's party.

MW: And what kind of day-to-day effects do you see from the mercury poisoning?

JDS: Well, I personally suffer from poisoning, and I could feel my deterioration. But dizziness, loss of balance, and loss of feeling in my hands. And it shows that in our community too, like you’ll see people shaking, or they'll show signs of Parkinson's, dementia, or Alzheimer's but it's not; it's mercury poisoning.

MW: Well, do you think you got the attention of the Federal Government last night?

JDS: I'm hoping that he'll hear us — that he will make help us make positive changes in our community.

MW: Ms. De Silva, thank you very much for speaking with me tonight.

JDS: Okay. Thank you so much.

JD: Judy Da Silva is a member of the Grassy Narrows First Nation. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music: Sombre]

Part three: Bangladesh fire, Saudi women trial

BC bare arms

JD: Today in the B.C. legislature, women were choosing to bare their arms. Over the last few days, building security has told several women to cover up their bare arms because they were in violation of a decades-old dress code. So today, they showed up in sleeveless dresses or wearing short sleeves in protest. Finance Minister Carole James spoke to reporters about the controversy.

SOUNDCLIP

CAROLE JAMES: Well, I think it shows once again the need to modernize some of our institutions, and certainly here as well. My understanding is that the clerk is going to be looking at the dress code and looking at how we modernize that. And adjusted, I think it's really quite extraordinary that we're still dealing with that today. I think it's almost always women who are the subject of these discussions. I think you've seen it through school boards and dress codes for students in school. You've seen the modernization of those dress codes over the last number of years. There's been some very progressive work done in school boards, including right here in Victoria. And I certainly think it's well overdue. You know last year we dealt with babies in the chamber. When I was first elected, we're still dealing with we're converting some of the washrooms to women's washroom so there is enough space for women to be able to use the washroom. So I think the dress code is long overdue and needs to be done.

REPORTER: Given some of the other issues happening here, we now have like people who are hired on taxpayer dollars who are judging what is proper business attire for women. Should that be somebody’s job description? Does somebody really need to police that?

CJ: I think we all know this is a professional environment, and people dress for business clothing in the workplace. And I think it's ridiculous that we have people policing that. I think people are adults in this place. They understand it’s a professional environment, and they dress accordingly.

JD: That was BC finance minister Carole James speaking with reporters today. In a statement, the Office of the Clerk said everyone in the legislature should dress in "business attire" — and that the legislature would be reviewing the dress code.

[Music: World music]

Bangladesh fire

Guest: Pinaki Roy

JD There was simply no escape from the flames and smoke for some of those inside a tall office tower in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Fire started around mid-day on one of the lower floors of the 24-story building. People tried to escape through windows. They grabbed onto cables attached to the structure. Some fell to their deaths in the attempt. At least 19 people have been confirmed dead. Pinaki Roy is a reporter with The Daily Star newspaper. We reached him earlier today in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

MW: Pinaki, tell us what you saw when you first arrived at this building this morning?

PINAKI ROY: Actually, I was I was the first journalist to be there because I was passing by. I saw you know people gathered in front of that building, and small smoke was there. And people are trying to escape from that building. So I was riding a motorbike, so I stopped by motorbike, and saw out of curiosity what is going on there. And then I saw that fire broke out. And I found people were trying to climb down that building because they could not use the stairs because of the smoke.

MW: So when you stopped on your motorbike just as the fire was breaking out, did you have any sense at this point that it was going to be as devastating as it turned out to be?

PR: Oh, well you know a few days ago, there was a big fire in Dhaka city. And I know how vulnerable these highrise buildings are. So when I saw people climbing down that building, I saw at least two people climbing down that building, I realized that there must be something big going on. Otherwise, they would not take that risk of their life. They held a table of telephone cable and satellite television cables. And then they went to the next building, and then they were climbing down through that next building. So they were taking that risk. That’s why I understood it was going to be big.

MW: So people were actually crossing… you know holding on by their hands to telephone wires to go from that building to the next?

PR: Yes, yes, yes. They broke that glass wall. You know that there was a glass wall — they broke that with something, and then they came out from there with that cables, and went to the next building, and climbing down that next building. So initially, I saw two or three people, and then I found three or four people. And later, they were doing this when they were working. And when they could not, they were shouting from there waving their hand. And they were at least 13-14 floor. So we could not hear their voice. And you know well doing this, I found like three or Four people fell down from that.

MW: Oh no!

PR: They slipped their hand, and they just fell down.

MW: Oh, that's terribly disturbing. How far up for those people who fell down?

PR: They fell down from like 10th floor. Many other people you know who could not or could not go to the rooftop because the stair was smoking. Smoke was everywhere in the stair, so they could not take breath. So that's why they were in their floor and trying to be there. But still when they smoke interred in their throat also then you know they tried to escape, and they broke that glass, and they tried to escape in this way.

MW: You were you were down on the ground witnessing all of this. How was that for you and the others with you knowing that so many people were trapped inside?

PR: You know hundreds of people were there. And when I saw people were waving their hand and then you know they were requesting fire brigade people to rescue them, and fire brigade people obviously they were trying their best to help them. But you know they could not help many people at the same time. Maybe they were rescuing people from 17th floor with you know lader crane. From other floors, people were crying and seeking for help. And it was heart-wrenching to see when I saw people you know fell down going to that next building, and fell down from the cables. It was heart-wrenching thing. And all the people they were shouting, they were crying, and I saw people who were shouting, crying, and you know asking God crying for mercy, so all these things I saw. And I never witnessed such a thing you know as somebody falling down from such a height, and they could make it. Later I heard they did not make it — they all died.

MW: Now as you mentioned, there was another recent deadly fire in Dhaka. And there have been others. Is there something about how these buildings are constructed that's a problem?

PR: Well, you know before that that incident was a fire in a chemical warehouse. So that was different. But this is in a posh area in a in a downtown area. And it was and office building. But this building did not have proper fire safety measures. You know it did not have fire exit. Then I don't think it had proper fire instrument, so that's why people could not brought down that fire.

MW: I mean how is it possible that these buildings aren't abiding by the regulations?

PR: Well, now we have a tough regulation and you know how to build it. But this building was made following the old regulations. So that’s why there was space between two building, and you know there is no fire exit. So it was basically it was made following the old regulation. Later, our regulation has updated.

MW: Are there building owners though who are not following the regulations, or the updated regulations?

PR: Well now, most of the new buildings, they're following relations. But there are many old buildings. This building, this is an office building. And it was less likely to fire. But it happened. So I think that now the government will look into this matter.

MW: Pinaki, thanks very much for speaking with us today.

PR: Thank you.

JD: Pinaki Roy is a reporter with The Daily Star newspaper. We reached him in Dhaka, Bangladesh, earlier today.

[Music: Ambient]

PA Legislature prayer

JD: It was an important moment when the Pennsylvania legislature swore in its first Muslim state representative this week. But before that happened, another state representative took the floor to do this.

SOUNDCLIP

STEPHANIE BOROWICZ: Jesus, I thank you for this privilege sort of letting me pray God that I, Jesus, am your ambassador here today, standing here representing you — the king of kings the Lord of Lords. The great I am. The one who is coming back again. The one who came, died, and rose again on the third day. And I'm so privileged to stand here today, so thank you for this honour, Jesus.

JD: That went on for nearly two minutes. During that time, Republican state politician Stephanie Borowicz said "Jesus" 13 times, "God" six times, and "Lord" another four. Eventually, the speaker gave her a nudge — and she wrapped it up. Then — with 55 of her guests in attendance — Movita Johnson-Harrell made state history as the first Muslim woman to be sworn into office. After which Ms. Johnson-Harrell spoke with the Pennsylvania Capital-Star about the prayer. Here's part of what she had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

MOVITA JOHNSON HARRELL: So I intentionally came to the House to make friends on both sides of the aisle because we need to work together for everyone in the Commonwealth. And I think it's really important my visual here in the House because I represent a constituency in the Commonwealth, correct? So we need to make sure that we are providing more inclusion as opposed to being divisive. I do not have a problem with religion. I do not have a problem with choice. I do not have a problem with Jesus. I have a problem with using religion as a weapon. That prayer in the beginning is meant to be inclusive and to bring everyone together. We as Republican and Democrat can find many, many things to fight about. Prayer should not be one of them.

JD: That was newly-minted Pennsylvania state representative Movita Johnson-Harrell speaking after being sworn into office.

[Music: Indie rock]

Big Calf

JD: It was by far the largest calf Collin Lawrence had ever delivered. Earlier this week, the veterinarian performed a C-section on a cow near Westlock, Alberta. That's not unusual for him. What was unusual was the sheer bulk of the calf. Mr. Lawrence told Calgary Eyeopener host Rob Brown what happened next.

SOUNDCLIP

COLLIN LAWRENCE: Once we had got the head out, it really became apparent how big the head was when it looked like he was about the size of a ten-pin bowling ball. So once we got the front feat out, one of the producers had also scrubbed up and was sterile, and so they grabbed onto the front legs. And between the two of us, we hoisted this beast out. And once we got it onto the ground, they kind of took over resuscitation and making sure everything was ok. And I went back to taking care of the cow.

ROB BROWN: And you got her on a scale shortly after that. How much did she weigh?

CL: Yeah, so everyone was pretty shocked at the size of it. And so they were sitting around. I was doing my suturing up. And so they had nothing else to do the calf was bright and alert and doing well. So they said ok, let's throw it on a scale. So they had a 200-pound scale that they got set up on a tractor bucket to lift it up. And they went to lift up the calf, and it actually broke the scale well before they actually did a proper measurement of it. So for the night, we knew it was somewhere in that 200 pound range. Didn’t know if it was just an old scale that broke. But the next morning, they went and put it on a digital scale. And that's where it became apparent that this calf was 208 pounds.

JD: That was Collin Lawrence, the veterinarian who helped deliver a 208-pound calf earlier this week, speaking with CBC Calgary.

[Music: Ambient]

Saudi women trial

Guest: Sima Godfrey

JD: There is a glimmer of hope for a group of women imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Eleven women are on trial for unspecified charges related to human rights work. Today, there are reports that three of the activists have been released. The terms are not clear. Loujain al-Hathloul is one of the women still behind bars. She used to study at the University of British Columbia. A year ago, Saudi officials detained her for driving. She was released, but then arrested again in May. Sima Godfrey is one of several people advocating for her release. Ms. Godfrey is a UBC professor who taught Ms. Al-Hathloul. We reached her in Vancouver.

MW: Ms. Godfrey, it's been almost a year now that you're a former student Loujain has been behind bars. How concerned are you for her?

SIMA GODFREY: Well, I've become increasingly concerned with time. Like a lot of people, I didn't think this would last as long. Her previous detainment was for about 70 days. This time there is more secrecy attached to it. And I had suspected, as I think some others did, that once the ban on women driving was formally lifted, she might be released along with the others.

MW: Now you mentioned she fought for the right for women to drive. Can you remind us what other causes she fought for?

SG: The main thing was the male guardianship system in Saudi Arabia, where women are publicly disempowered. If a woman wants to get a passport, if she wants to travel, i think if she wants to open a bank account for that matter, she has to have the permission of a male in her family. Now that's not just a father or a spouse or an older brother. It can be a five-year-old cousin. That was the issue that she was most preoccupied with. And that's the one she told me she was going to go back to Saudi Arabia to fight for.

MW: We've learned from Loujain’s family about the disturbing conditions she's faced in jail. Can you tell us more about that?

SG: Her parents were allowed to see her at one point, and they reported that she was very, very shaky — very, very tearful. She looked quite frightened. She had bruises on her legs. She had trouble walking. And what we've heard was that yes, there have been electrical shocks. And I think that's what they thought the bruises were from. But also, she's been threatened with murder, with rape, and who knows what else.

MW: Now you know her very well. That must be difficult for you to hear all of that?

SG: Of course, it's terrible. And especially when I hear… I mean it sounds like to some extent her spirit has been broken, although I'm sure she's still as determined as ever to fight for these causes. And so thinking about that very strong woman and very proud and determined and fearless and really fearless. And thinking about what she has been undergoing and reduced to based on these reports is of appalling, and very, very upsetting.

MW: Well, I'd like to give listeners a chance to hear those qualities in a clip from 2015. “As It Happens” Spoke with Loujain then because she was running for office in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom had just given women the right to vote and run for politics. But Lou Jane was concerned that the kingdom still wasn't listening to women. Here's the clip.

SOUNDCLIP

LOUJAIN AL-HATHLOUL: Like the other rights we're trying to get for so many years, almost none of them have been given because we're very vocal about it. They want to give us the rights in their own terms without us pushing it. But we have to take the most out of it — just use whatever we have right now to empower women, to teach them how it feels and it is to be equal to men, and be equally, socially, and politically responsible.

MW: What's it like for you to hear her voice talking about advocating for women's rights?

SG: Well, it's very familiar. I’d heard her say things like that in my office when she would come to talk to me. And you can hear her determination there.

MW: Why do you think Saudi Arabia sees women like Loujain as such a threat?

SG: Well, I mean I think you have some very conservative clerics who are unwilling to see the order changed in any way. And there has been a perception there of women as decidedly inferior to men. But I think right now the issue, particularly for the crown prince, has to deal with the idea of anybody challenging his authority or the status quo. And this is one of the reasons I feel conflicted about the various groups who want to nominate Loujain for a Nobel Prize because there's some belief there that this might bring her the attention she needs and the freedom she deserves. But then I worry that given the character of the crown prince, he might just dig his heels in more thinking that this is yet again Western pressure on him.

MW: Now Loujain isn't a Canadian citizen, but she, of course, has studied in Canada. There are suggestions that Canada should do more to advocate for her release. But, of course, Canada is in a tough spot with Saudi Arabia. If they call for tougher measures like canceling the LAV deal, couldn’t that backfire?

SG: My general feeling is it's conflicted. I note Loujain also studied in France. So I know in France, they're coming out with those statements. And in Canada, we've made statements about human rights. But what concerns me is as long as you have these Western countries that have trade deals and arms deals with Saudi Arabia that they're not willing to jeopardize, I don't know how effective those statements are going to be.

MW: Obviously, you would like nothing more than Loujain to be released. In the meantime, do you have a message to send her and the other women who remain behind bars?

SG: Oh gosh. I mean I don't know that any message will get through to them. But just how extraordinarily proud I am of her personally. She should know that she has enormous support all around the world who admire not just the causes she's fighting for and her determination, but how gutsy she is. And she knew the consequences of doing this. She was not naive about taking on some of these issues. And so there's something incredibly admirable about this woman. And I just hope she doesn't feel alone, that she's been isolated, and that anybody out here has forgotten her or her colleagues who have been imprisoned with her.

MW: Ms. Godfrey, we'll be following very closely the plight of Loujain, and thanks very much for talking about her with me today.

SG: Well, thank you for your interest.

MW: Thank you. Bye-bye.

SG: Bye-bye.

JD: Sima Godfrey is a UBC professor who taught Loujain Al-Hathloul — a human rights activist who's been in jail in Saudi Arabia since last May. We have more on that story on our website. Again, that is: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Violin]

Toledo newscasters

JD: It's been a stressful week for students in Toledo, Ohio. They're going through standardized testing that even the Toledo Public School system has called, quote, "nerve-wracking." So local TV station WTOL's morning news team decided to offer some support. And not in some squaresville adult way the kids wouldn't listen to. But by talking to them in a way that's familiar and relatable — in hep slang language that's considered rad by modern youth. Here's a bit of what that sounded like.

SOUNDCLIP

HOST ONE: Good morning TPR students. It is testing week, and it's time to slay all day.

HOST TWO: Yet! Stay woke, be on fleek, and get that Gucci breakfast.

HOST ONE: Goals! Say bye Felicia to that testing stress. Weather’s going to be turnt, right Chris?

HOST THREE: YAAAASSS. Toledo weather going to be V-lit during testing week. A hundo P chance of success. You've got this kids. Steve, How about their traffic. [what?]

HOST FOUR: Better than [No]. We're talking turnt. FOMO. Won't be an issue. No traffic problems around any TPS schools to keep you from taking those tests.

HOST ONE: So get a good night's sleep. Do your best. In fact, be extra extra.

HOST TWO: We here at WTOL are V-proud of you.

ALL HOSTS: Good luck on your test TPS students.

That's the cray, cray team at WTOL in Toledo, Ohio, delivering the news in a language that the students of today can understand and appreciate.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 28, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This