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 2016

The AIH Transcript for November 25, 2016

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight.

CO: A holy, surprising half measure. a judge reduces an Alberta sex offender’s 12 year sentence by half because the man was allegedly abused by a guard and fellow inmates while awaiting trial.

JD: Bad vibrations, a hamlet and none of it goes to the Supreme Court to stop companies from seismic testing in the Arctic. We're going to speak with a local man who spearheaded the effort.

CO: We get a click out of you and the publisher of the side iPolitics says that's not fair. That CBC is an online predator stealing the ads he needs to make money and the journalists he needs to make journalism.

JD: a new phase requires a new freeze. A report says Indigenous students in Northern Ontario need schools where they can be residents. Our guest explains how these students living centers would work.

CO: Never mind the symbolic. Tomorrow night the son of Punks founding couple will hold a bonfire of the profanities burning millions of dollars’ worth of punk memorabilia to fight anarchy in the UK.

JD: And they couldn't win for oozing. The great molasses flood of 1919 killed 21 people. Now our guest has figured out how that sea of black stuff moves so much faster than molasses in January. As It Happens the Friday edition. Radio that applies the trickle-down economics.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Alberta sentence reduced, CBC online ads, Boston molasses flood

Alberta sentence reduced

Guest: Tom Engel

JEFF DOUGLAS: An Alberta Court convicted David Spencer Adams for luring a dozen high-school aged girls online. Then a judge cut his 12 year prison sentence in half. While awaiting trial in jail, Mr. Adams was allegedly tormented by guards and fellow inmates. And so the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench justice decided to make an example out of the case for the 20 months that Mr. Adams spent behind bars waiting for his day in court. The judge gave him credit for six years of time served, much more than usually granted by the courts. But Mr. Adams lawyer says the credit given to his client was still not enough. We reached lawyer Tom Engle in Edmonton.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Engel, what do you understand happened to your client while he was in jail awaiting trial?

TOM ENGEL: Well, there are a number of things that happened to him. The primary problems that he had were being locked up for 23 hours a day in segregation with very little to stimulate him. And this was combined with being verbally and physically abused by guards and other prisoners. And of course, it was found he’d been assaulted in a cell by a jail guard. So it was basically about 20 months or more I think it was actually more of just being in a living hell for him.

CO: And this was in remand?

TE: Yeah, Edmonton Remand Centre.

CO: Are there problems there?

TE: Well, the problem is that they have a very nice new building which is already full to the rafters, but the personnel in there who are supposed to be caring for the prisoners are of the same ilk as at the old Edmonton remand center. The Edmonton Remand Centre has a long history of being basically a cesspool for the situation where guards abuse prisoners and don't look after them.

CO: It seems that the judge in the case of your client agrees that there is a problem there. What do you understand the justice Claxon means when he cuts that sentence?

TE: Well, what he means is that it's an intolerable for a prisoner to be treated in this fashion and that he found that the treatment breached my client's right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment and that required a remedy under the charter and so that the remedy he granted was to basically give credit on a three to one basis — three days for every one day.

CO: And how common is it for a judge to give that kind of a ratio of credit?

TE: Well, I tell you before the Truth in Sentencing Act which abolished the power of a judge to give more credit more than just the one day for one day credit and making the maximum 1.5 to one. It used to be somewhat commonplace for judges to give three to one and even four to one for bad Remand Centre conditions and the standard was two to one. But then Harper's government brought in this Truth in Sentencing Act which was a terrible piece of legislation. And then it was the maximum you could get as 1.5 to 1 and quite often it was one to one. So now we have a judgment that is three to one. And I can tell you that my client is appealing because we're saying well that's th no better than it used to be before the Truth in Sentencing Act and it does not adequately reflect the breaches of the charter that my client suffered.

CO: It is the Truth in Sentencing Act. It still holds still and it’s still the law?

TE: It still holds, but part of it was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada and it remains to be seen whether the whole of it will be struck down or whether the Trudeau government will just repeal it. Which I hope they will, I know what's on their agenda to have a look at repealing that piece of legislation.

CO: In making that decision justice Claxon said and this is a quote, “There has been and I suspect there remains the notion that prisoners have no rights and deserve whatever ill treatment they may suffer.” Does it indicate to you that justice Claxon is thinking that he is the he wants to challenge or that they that that judges like him are not happy with the Truth in Sentencing Act?

TE: Well no, I don't think so. What he's really signaling is that obviously the court is condemning this kind of behavior which like I say has been a real long standing problem at the Edmonton Remand Centre. I think the Edmonton Remand Centre probably has the worst of the worst in terms of jail guards who treat prisoners like that. And that's the real travesty here because it creates it threatens the integrity of the criminal justice system because there are prisoners now right now at the Edmonton Remand Centre who are thinking about pleading guilty even though they believe they're innocent just to get out of that cesspool.

CO: What are you seeking then what are you going to pursue as an appeal?

TE: Well, I'm handing this appeal over to Nathan Whitling, who we may recognize his name. He is one of the lawyers for Omar Khadr, an excellent appeal lawyer. And he will be arguing that the remedy was insufficient and that the court should have stayed this prosecution or at least dramatically reduced the sentence perhaps to a conditional sentence which would be served in the community.

CO: Your client, Mr. Adams, he pled guilty to charges of luring harassing and abusing underage girls and sharing child pornography. Do you think that the families of those girls and the girls themselves will see that justice has been done?

TE: Well, I don't know. I mean usually when the media goes to family and victims and you know the relatives of victims and they find out that that sentence was reduced they get upset. But I mean so that's understandable that victims would feel that way. But fortunately it's not the victims who run the justice system it's not their wishes that that rule the day. It's taken into account. But what every citizen of Canada has to remember that the charter is the supreme law of Canada. And when Charter rights are breached there must be a remedy if there is no remedy there is really no right. And I hope that the victims and their families will understand that.

CAROL OFF: We will leave it there Mr. Engel. Thank you.

TOM ENGEL: You're very welcome. Bye.

JEFF DOUGLAS Tom Engel is a lawyer who represented David Spencer Adams. We reached him in Edmonton.

[Music: Ambient]

CBC online ads

Guest: James Baxter

JEFF DOUGLAS: In Ottawa the Heritage Committee is winding up hearings on the future of Canadian media and it is considering testimony from among others James Baxter. Mr. Baxter is the publisher of iPolitics and iPolitics is an online outlet. It is an essential source for news and opinion about Canadian politics. But Mr. Baxter told MP that the CBC expansion into online publishing complete with online advertising is pushing journalists like him to the brink of extinction. We reached James Baxter in Ottawa.

COROL OFF: Mr. Baxter, you told members of parliament that the CBC you called it an uber predator. Do you want to expand on that?

JAMES BAXTER: Well, I said that I didn't think it was a benevolent force in it at least in my world. It's a predator in that it operates in its own environment. The analogy I've used is that it's a T-Rex and sometimes us little furry mammals get hit by the tail as it as it moves around and ultimately because there is very little direction to the in the broadcast act for what the CBC can and can't do. We really don't know where its next move is going to be so we can't stay out of the way.

CO: Well how has CBC's internet news services www.cbc.ca and its digital offerings. How has that affected your business?

JB: What we're seeing really in the end at a much accelerating rate that the CBC is dispensing with news and I honestly think the world of As It Happens I was troubled when Dispatches was dispatched and other good radio programming and television programming the weekend news shows have been have been curtailed. You know to me that's what the CBC can do and should do and particularly in areas that are underserved. And instead it is expanding wholesale into directly into text for screen. What would be normally website type traffic.

CO: and again so how does this describe how that affects your business?

JB: Well there's a couple of different ways. The first and foremost the CBC has by far and away the most traffic of any Canadian news site and yet it's digital advertising prices are far below what would be seen as the market and market pricing and that's partly because it starts the year with a $1.2 billion head start on the rest of us. And the ad sales people you know their remuneration is whatever we can get we'll put in. They don't have to meet a certain number in order to thrive. So that's again they're competing with us. We have no hard costs that are not met with government funds. We have to get those funds from advertising and subscription. In my business which is more subscription driven. The problem exists that when the CBC expands its Parliament Hill bureau because it sees an audience there which I had identified five years ago. It's now offering that service free as opposed to allowing me to continue in my business.

CO: In answer to that the president of the CBC, Hubert Lacroix spoke as well to the same standing committee on county and heritage you did. He said this 4.6 billion dollars a year is the total digital advertising revenue in Canada which CBC's digital is taking 25 million and he poses that is it can't be that small amount 25 million out of 4.6 billion that is really the cause of the problems that the newspaper industry are having. So what do you say to Mr. Lacroix?

JB: I say Mr. Lacroix should raise his rates. I agree they're taking a pittance out of the advertising market, but they are taking enormous numbers of eyeballs. The problem is if Ford or Air Canada can buy advertising on a CBC property at a fraction of what a company that has to meet its own expenses like the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail they're going to do it it's natural for a business to take the lowest price it can to reach an audience and the CBC offers advertising without regard to what the market prices are. It goes to undercut them. Why? Because the sales people there who are remunerated on commissions want to make a sale so they'll go as low as they have to make the sale.

CO: Do you think the CBC is deliberately trying to drive you out of business?

JB: I don't think I don't think they notice. It's a large operation that has many many in its own view, many mandates and you know I would argue and I argued this to the committee that I don't think it is fulfilling the mandate of providing as much coverage to Canadians as it should. In the example, I can bring up as this week for a whole morning on the television on CBC News Channel the two top two of the three top stories were Kanye West's meltdown and the Tennessee school bus crash. Neither of which were really Canadian stories or necessarily had much public policy value or community value in Canada. So I had to ask you know why are Canadian resources being used for that? Last night the CBC social media desk was tweeting out to Florence Henderson the mother in the Brady Bunch had died. You know that I know that's news to some people, but it's not really the mandate of the CBC. And so I guess that's what we're asking the members of parliament to do is revisit the mandate of the CBC tell them what they should be. Tell the CBC what it should be doing or what it shouldn't be doing. And then the rest of us can build our businesses around that knowing that when we find an opportunity or an underserved market that at some point two years three years down the road the CBC isn't going to just come in and take it away take it away from us.

CO: The Broadcasting Act requirement it says that the public broadcaster should reflect Canada and its regions to Canadians by the most appropriate and efficient means. And as resources become available for the purpose which would be the Internet would it not?

JB: Well, I'm not arguing that that the medium is the problem, but it also does you know the broadcast Act refers very clearly to programming. And I would not say a story prepared by a journalist in text form with a static picture at the top would to me, does not speak to programming it speaks to what would be traditional print content. And so that again they have the head of the Toronto Star, who spoke at the committee and said the biggest newspaper in Canada is the CBC and yet it spread fast he maintains it's not a newspaper. It has become a newspaper and it has become one with a very large public subsidy.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Baxter, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JAMES BAXTER: Thank you very much, Carol.

JEFF DOUGLAS: James Baxter is the publisher of iPolitics. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Tranquil]

Veteran’s marijuana

Guest: Ryan Edwards

JEFF DOUGLAS: Earlier this week. The federal government announced that it would be dramatically limiting pot coverage for veterans. Veteran Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says that he plans to scale back the reimbursement limit from 10 grams of medical marijuana per day to three grams. And as you can imagine that news has not been warmly received by veterans, who say that marijuana helps treat their PTSD and one of those veterans is Ryan Edwards. Mr. Edwards is the president of Newfoundland's chapter of Marijuana for Trauma. He spoke to Krissy Holmes on the St. John's Morning Show earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

RYAN EDWARDS: My prescription is for 10 grams a day and my use has actually gone down a lot over the last five years. Originally I was prescribed 20 grams a day and I was using 20 grams a day. I'm in a much better spot mentally, physically and in my life right now thanks to therapy and thanks to cannabis allowing me to move forward in my life. Right now I'm averaging about five to seven grams a day.

KRISSY HOLMES: And is that is that what your doctor recommends?

RE: Yup.

KH: OK. So that's really interesting because one of the things that we've heard from Veterans Canada they say that that Health Canada says that anything more than 5 grams a day is a health risk. So what are they factoring into their assessment that your doctor isn't?

RE Well, Health Canada right now doesn't recognize marijuana as a actual therapeutic substance in Canada. It's not a recognized drug as a medicine. The government cannot really doesn't want to be involved in the marijuana industry whatsoever. A lot of their research is negative research. The research has not been brought to the table that shows the benefits of marijuana. Most of the studies show the negative side effects of marijuana.

KH: before marijuana treatments how many prescription pills were you taking?

RE: I was taking 15 different pharmaceuticals every single day for over five years.

KH: So are pills cheaper than marijuana? I mean what do you make of this pushback?

RE: Absolutely not. The cost of pharmaceuticals is millions of millions of dollars in Canada for veterans alone. Majority of veterans that I see may come in anywhere from five to ten to fifteen for long term. You take a pill for a pill for a pill, the side effects keep compounding and you're essentially just a walking zombie.

KH: Have you ever seen the government interfere on issues between patients and medical practitioners like this before?

RE: No never.

KH: Is there a cap on any other kind of medication?

RE: No, there's 100 per cent coverage with Veterans Affairs if you have an existing condition. And I know there’s never been a cap on any medication. Any treatments they will limit like massage therapists to like 15 visits per year. But other than that medication wise. No I've never seen it.

KH: OK. Let's talk about the big picture quality of life. I mean what impact do you expect this reduction is going to have on users with PTSD and will that new picture mean more pills for a lot of veterans?

RE: Absolutely. A lot of clients right now in High state of distress, they're worried about how they're going to function with the lower dosage. I've got guys that are smoking ten grams not just smoking but eating as well as capsules edibles and some are over that and they knew that every single day to function just to go to the grocery store just to get to the post office to spend time with their children. They’re not stoned just because the like it.

JEFF DOUGLAS: That was Ryan Edwards the president of Newfoundland's chapter of Marijuana for Trauma. He was speaking on the St. John's Morning Show.

[Music: Country]

Boston molasses flood

Guest: Nicole Sharp

JEFF DOUGLAS: Residents in Boston's North End will tell you that on a hot summer day you can still catch a whiff of molasses. And that would make sense because the entire neighborhood was overrun with molasses. One January day in 1919, a large tank of molasses burst open sending waves of sweet, sticky brown liquid crashing through the streets. Buildings collapsed. 21 people were killed. But for nearly 100 years the great molasses flood has remained a great mystery. How on a cold winter day could all that molasses move so quickly and caused so much damage? Nicole Sharp attempt to crack that mystery wide open. She is an aerospace engineer and a science communicator. She recently presented her findings on the molasses flood at a conference in Portland, Oregon. And that is where we reached her.

CAROL OFF: Ms. Sharp, do we need to rethink that old saying slow as molasses in January?

NICOLE SHARP: Well, if you have enough molasses then yes. It turns out that can be wrong if you have close to 9000 cubic meters of molasses.

CO: Let's just talk about this wave of molasses and that this left the tank that day — 1919 we're talking about — so this molasses flood in Boston. How quickly was the molasses traveling as far as your calculations show?

NS: Actually according to historical accounts, the molasses moved at a speed of 35 miles per hour which was about 15 and a half meters per second. Which is really quite fast. Initially I actually thought that how in the world could it really have moved that fast and sort of surprised myself when I started doing the calculations and realized that because the molasses is one and a half times denser than water and there was so much of it in this tank in fact fluid dynamics and the physics equations predict that it would move at speeds that are about 15 to 17 meters per second. Which is totally in line with what the historical record says.

CO: So now did it matter that there was such a huge volume we're talking about millions of liters of this molasses. Was the push of the volume that made it move that fast?

NS: It was the weight of it and the fact that it was piled up more than 15 meters high.

CO: And so just describe as you understand it if you can imagine what was happening when that tank burst. What happened? How did it start to flow into the city?

NS: So for the first 30 seconds to 60 seconds or so according to our calculations that wave would have moved a lot like a tsunami if you could imagine that in that moment what mattered about the molasses was its weight and its heavy density, the fact that it was one and a half times denser than water. And so for that initial minute you just have this massive wave of heavy fluid that's crashing through everything. And after that first minute or so that's when the fact that it's molasses and molasses is incredibly viscous. So it's really thick and it likes to try to resist flow. That's when that starts coming into play. Then you go from being sort of a tsunami to being like a seeping thing that happens. I mean it's a seamless transition between those. But the longer you go after that first minute the more the viscosity of the molasses matters and the more it's going to kind of seep through the neighborhood and crepe. And it seems like that would be the point where it's not as dangerous anymore. Right? You know it's not crashing through buildings after that first minute. It's just kind of oozing. But it turns out that because it was so cold and because in the molasses was cooling that if anything that kind of made the molasses more dangerous. Now people who have been knocked down by that initial wave may have been pinned in wreckage are trapped in places where they have to try to keep this molasses away from their mouth and their nose so that they can breathe while people are trying to come and get them.

CO: 21 people died in that molasses flood — that tsunami — a local newspaper the time described it this way said, “molasses waist-deep covered the street and swirled and bubbled about the wreckage only an upheaval as thrashing about in the sticky mass showed where any life was. There was people, horses everything just struggled to survive and that and died.” Extraordinary!

NS: Absolutely. It's a frightening thought really. I think the group of men that were having lunch is actually one of one of the more striking stories. That was a group of men who were in a firehouse a short ways away from the molasses tank and the initial wave smashed against the firehouse and pushed it almost entirely off of its foundations and that the upper floors of the firehouse collapsed down on them and I believe they were on the first floor and they were trapped there for hours waiting for people to be able to rescue them because they were all pinned in place.

CO: And how many of those men survived that?

NS: All but one of them survived. One of them survived for a couple of hours and then he couldn't continue fighting the molasses anymore and ended up drowning.

CO: I understand that the reason that the tank full of molasses was being distilled into alcohol as it was being fermented and the company was trying to do it quickly because prohibition was coming and so they didn't take many precautions to make sure that tank was secure. Is that the case?

NS: Yes, so their original demand was to have a lot of industrial alcohol that was used for munitions. But by January 1919, the war had ended and peace time meant that companies were switching back into their sort of regular operations. But there was a period between the wartime operations and peacetime operations where this company decided that what they were going to do was switch to fermenting rum. And they were going to try to outrun prohibition in the United States, and so to sell all this rum in the year before it went into effect.

CO: If there had been if it had happened in the summer if it wasn't in January and this tank of molasses had ruptured and all that ensued would it have been as destructive?

NS: It probably would have turned out somewhat differently in that the molasses would have potentially spread further. So maybe you would have more blocks that were affected. Because it would flow more easily. But it also would have been easier to deal with easier to try to rescue people easier for people to continue fighting than the last this long enough to be rescued rather than that happening in the dead of winter.

CO: It's an extraordinary story and it's interesting to hear the science that you have put to it. Ms. Sharp. Thank you.

NICOLE SHARP: Pleasure to be here. Bye.

CAROL OFF: Bye bye.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Nicole Sharp is an aerospace engineer and a science communicator. We reached her today in Portland, Oregon. And for more on Ms. Sharp’s research into the 1919 Boston molasses flood and for photographs of what that looked like. Go to our website www.cbc.ca/aih

Part 2: Clyde River seismic testing

Clyde River seismic testing

Guest: Jerry Natanine

JEFF DOUGLAS: It is an Inuit community's last chance to stop oil and gas exploration in their waters. Next week the hamlet of Clyde River, Nunavut, is headed to the Supreme Court in an attempt to prevent an international group of companies from doing seismic testing. People who live there believe that the high intensity sounds that are used to map the sea floor it will disturb the marine mammals that they rely on for food. Jerry Natanine is part of the group that has brought the case to the court. He's also the former mayor of Clyde River, Nunavut and he joined Carol here in the As It Happens studio.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Natanine, Welcome to the As It Happens studio.

JERRY NATANINE: Thank you.

CAROL OFF: Now you have been fighting this seismic testing in the Arctic for a very long time. What does it mean for you to finally have your day in court in Supreme Court?

JN: Well, it has been a long wait. We've been very anxious and very excited, finally we have a day that is coming in this thing that we've been fearing that might happen with seismic testing. Hopefully the court will go our way and all this business will go.

CO: Now many communities have fought seismic testing they've not wanted it not just in Canada but in the United States they've made many arguments didn't work. The seismic testing continued what are the arguments that you're giving for the Arctic and why Nunavut should not have this?

JN: Our main argument is that United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights. So our fight is based on that. And you know we've been saying that as Inuit, our history has been recorded to 4000 years have been living up there and we've been hunting and gathering hunting of sea mammals. And basically that's what we're trying to protect our way of life.

CO: And why do you think it's a threat to that way of life?

JN: So in the 1970's they did a little bit of seismic testing with dynamite. They didn't have the technology they have now. No air cannons in those days. But with the dynamite even, my father and my uncles they were young men at the time. When they were in seal hunting and they were going towards the seal that is basking on the ice in the spring day you know plus ten weather sort of thing. And usually seals here they're very good. And when you're far away they'll put their head up look around see what's up. But in those days they weren't even bringing their hands up and they were going right up to them. And the seal finally here like less than 10 feet away. And they would go down and they got a few of them that were like that and realized their ears were pus coming out or not right. And that's when my father said to me you know we have to fight this thing we have to stop this thing. So when I was a mayor he said that to me and you know it got to me because at the time I was supporting it.

CO: Was there any investigation as to whether it was the dynamite blasting that had affected the seals?

JN: No there was never any investigation and from my own personal research. Different areas of the world in Russian waters in Mexico waters there were shrimps washing up on shore. Thousands and thousands of dead shrimp were in Russia. There were Bowhead whales that changed migration and they were seismic testing in the area. And so the world is in a situation where we know this is having a devastating effect on wildlife all over the world. But there's no way we can prove it because it's so powerful and affects animals that are so far away that it's hard to put them together.

CO: You said in the 70's they were using dynamite and these as the technology changed at all is it would it be less hard on the animals or the different kinds of methods they have now for the seismic testing?

JN: No not at all. The sound has to reach the sea bottom go into the ground hundreds of meters down and then come back up. So the sound has to be very very powerful in order to penetrate all the sea and all the sea bottom. So they're using these very powerful air guns and firing them into the ocean every 15 seconds. Nonstop 24 hours a day for five months, six months of the year as long as it's ice free and they can move freely. And the noise level you know thousands of times louder than a jet engine.

CO: They've argued that yes this happens it has an effect but it’s temporary it goes away. It's just it's for a brief during the time of the seismic testing. What do you say to that?

JN: Yeah. They might be true. Things might normalize, but over five years if the whale should change their migration and let's say they go to Russia. And from Russia the whales here there's still seismic testing in Baffin Bay so they wouldn't come back for five years and that would have devastating effects on our lives where we do seasonal whale hunting three times a year and our seal hunting our Salmon, Arctic char fishing and all the other birds that the seal get bird on top of the ice but they live in the ocean. You know all these things would be affected. And we live we live off these you know, I personally I eat country food maybe every other day. There are people who eat it every day and I don't know how we would survive.

CO: We have done a number of interviews on this program as to what how climate change is affecting your ability to get food to collect food to hunt. How might this have if the if it does. And as you point out we don't know what the effects there has never been a really comprehensive study on the effects on the animals. What do you fear will happen to your way of life?

JN: We fear that you know so the seismic blasting were to happen, let's say it happened yesterday and then today is the day after. And people go see haunting, there is no sign of anything. They go whaling There is no sign of whales. And then it's going to be like you know what are we going to eat? like $20 steak at the store you know we cannot have that every day! $25 watermelon! I mean it would become like how are we going to eat? How are we going to live? And to go back to where we go our on the land cabin in the camping areas. If we were to go there and our children you know they live there run around and play. And when there's a seal that comes up in the ocean we can shoot it and eat it. And if they were not there. I mean what would be the reason for us to be to be there?

CO: What did the oil companies what to the people who are wanting to do this seismic testing. What do they say. The answer when you ask them that question?

JN: They said we don't know. We're not biologists. We don't know. Well that's a hard question. No one can answer that. You know things like this; these are the type of answers that they gave us in what they called their public consultation. All kinds of non-answers that they gave us made us realize that they're not - they don't want to look for oil to benefit us - you know because we thought it was going to be an answer to our financial woes for our territory. We have poor infrastructure, low housing and we want to figure out a way to make money and we thought this could be the answer to our prayers. But as it turned out the company doesn't want to give anything.

CO: But if they do find if in the exploration they do find a sizable oil and gas reserves and they start to drill. Would that be of benefit? Do you see benefits to your people if they were actually to start actually extracting fossil fuels?

JN: That's one thing we want to know in advance. We were telling them when you finished the seismic data collecting what's going on the data? Because that's our waters. We should own it. And the company said they're going to own it because they collected it. And we asked them what are you going to do with that. Well we'll see after we're done. But the way they do it the seismic company is going to sell it to oil companies who are going to come in and do the actual drilling. But we know how oil companies work you know, they're only in it for themselves.

CO: But they need workers, they need to hire people and you will be there, your people will be there.

JN: Well they already got trained workers where they are. So we want to find out. We want it on paper. OK. When we set up a well we're going to hire 100 Inuit. We'll do an impact benefits agreement of so and so. You know that's the kind of reassurance that we want before something like this happens.

CO: You have an interesting partner in taking this to the Supreme Court because Greenpeace has not been an organization that people in Nunavut have supported. They've they've you've had a lot of differences of opinion shall we say especially over the seal hunt. Why is it that you have decided this is to get into bed with an organization that you have in the past really disagreed with?

JN: Yeah that that's really something. So the company got awarded the license that was 30 days to put in an appeal an the council and the deal I put them together and we had a joint meeting and I just basically asked them do do you want to fight this? You know my father told me to fight it. everyone else is saying we should fight it. And they agreed unanimously. So we found out we need $30,000. We need a lawyer and all these things as a town office that is funded by the government we don't have any kind of spare money. So we were asking around, asking our organizations if they want to help us to put in an appeal, to help finance us, help us find a lawyer. But their lawyers advised them that there is no chance that is ever going to win there's no chance that this case will go anywhere. And this was happening 30 days to appeal was coming to a close. And there was you know we haven't even talked about Greenpeace's at the time yet. And they came out with an apology by themselves. You know the effect that sealing had on Inuit. All the negative effects and they just apologized. And you know they fully support subsistence hunting and traditional cultural practices of the First Peoples of this country. I just read the headline, "Greenpeace Apologizes to Inuit." I didn't read the article I just threw it out on the table. And time went on. We're getting desperate. No one's come answering us. And all that article again maybe I'll read it. So I read it. All my life I really hated them. You know? I wanted to become a lawyer to fight them.

CO: To fight Greenpeace?

JN: Yeah. So as I was reading I got touched in the heart like. Tears started rolling down my eyes and all the stress of wanting to put in an appeal. They were all coming down on me and I just started crying and I just said in my in my heart you know I'm not going keep this. I just said you know I'm going to put this behind me and just forget them. Forgive them and forget it, but put it in my back of me. And then it was only a few hours - 72 hours before the deadline. And I'm thinking well Greenpeace it is, there no one else. Go to my father and my father I'm sure he's going to say Don't even mention Greenpeace. You know I thought he hated them more than me. How that turned out I was so surprised. You know that the seismic testing they did in the past was really bad for the seals. If you can get Greenpeace to help us to fight it, you should do it. And so I got hunters and trappers in the hamlet to a room again. We had a pretty intense meeting. You know we cried. You know it was a healing moment for the council and the board at the time you know looking back. Pretty emotional. They agreed. And so it came to a day so I wrote something. I'm going to send it to Greenpeace you know and I'm having.

CO: This is very emotional for you isn't it?

JN: I'm having second thoughts on it. And you know what. Would happened was unbelievable. All kinds of magic happen after that. Everything just started falling into place. And right now it's just unbelievable. Just a good relationship in my view. I wish had happened earlier for someone and we got to know each other. But this is the time for that.

CO: And now you have your partner?

JN: Yes.

CO: And now you're going to be in court next week?

JN: Absolutely Yeah.

CO: You have lost at the National Energy Board level at the Federal Court of Appeal level. Why do you think you're going to win that Supreme Court?

JN: The reason the National Energy Board the reasons, the facts that they gave and the reasons why we lost don't make sense. You know they're as stupid as the answers the company gave us and we've been saying you know justice is on our side you know we're on the right. We're not out to get anyone we're not being malicious or dishonest to anyone and that's how we're just going to be we're going fight this and just protect our way of life.

CO: And we will be watching.

JERRY NATANINE: Thank you. Thank you very much.

CAROL OFF: Thank you Mr. Natanine.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Jerry Natanine is the former mayor of Clyde River, Nunavut. Next week he will be at the Supreme Court trying to stop seismic testing for oil and gas in the Arctic. He joined Carol in the As It Happens studio.

[Music: Ambient]

Debate on Fisheries spending

JEFF DOUGLAS: It has been a week of repeats for Dominic LeBlanc. Day after day the Fisheries Minister has stood up in Question Period to defend the government against opposition anger over the Liberals cash for access fundraisers and day after day. Mr. LeBlanc has responded with pretty much the same line, the Liberals have followed the law. The laws are good. Case closed. So this morning NDP member, Tracy Ramsey tried to open him up with a little levity. Did it work?

SOUNDCLIP

TRACY RAMSEY: Selling access to government ministers to secure cash for the Liberal Party is the definition of a breach of trust. For days now the Minister of fishy fundraisers has been telling us not to worry. When. Ministers attend these exclusive fifteen hundred dollars he says government business is not discussed. Canadians are tired of this lying and they deserve better. Can the Liberals please tell us. If not government business, what the heck were they talking about during these dinners? Hor d'oeuvres?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The honourable Minister of Fisheries.

DOMINIC LEBLANC: Mr Speaker. Again just because my colleague manufactures a series of outrage across the aisle doesn't change the facts. The facts are Mr. Speaker that Canada's electoral fundraising laws and regulations are amongst the most severe and restrictive in the world. Those are the words of Canada's Chief Electoral Officer. Mr. Speaker we respect all of the fundraising rules at all times. That's what removes any suggestion if in fact it's done sincerely that there's a conflict of interest. I think my colleague on the other side was Mr. Speaker, knows that very well.

JEFF DOUGLAS: That was Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc, responding to NDP MP Tracey Ramsay in question period this very morning.

[Music: Orchestral]

Anniversary of Punk

JEFF DOUGLAS: Punk! The punk movement was transgressive, provocative and political, but also it was frequently gleefully stupid. So you could say that Joe Corre's plan to burn lots of irreplaceable punk memorabilia is genuinely in the spirit of punk. Either because you think it's transgressive and provocative or because you think it's stupid. Mr Corre is the son of the designer Vivienne Westwood and the late provocateur Malcolm McLaren. Well that means he is the son of the very two people who invented it or at least take credit for inventing punk, which means that he has tons of punk stuff. Stuff dating back to the 70's stuff like clothing records etcetera and tommorow in an as yet undisclosed location. Mr. Corre the multimillionaire founder of the fancy underwear brand Agent Provocateur, will burn five million pounds worth of that punk stuff. That's about eight and a half million Canadian dollars worth of punk stuff. Mr. Corre you see is upset about the corporate co-opting of punk and about all the empty nostalgia for its heyday. He said in his statement, "rather than a movement for change. Punk has become like a museum piece or a tribute act." And so he says quote, "It's time we threw it all on a fire and started again." And so on Saturday the 40th anniversary of the release of the Sex Pistols Anarchy in the UK. He will literally throw it all on the fire because donating all of it to charity wouldn't be punk enough. Now if you weren't into punk you don't care about this and if you weren't a punk you might think that a rich lingerie guy is expensive wasteful publicity stunt bonfire is a perfect reflection of punk spirit. Or you think it's stupid and not smart stupid, fun stupid, punk stupid - just stupid.

Part 3: Residential schools, Israel fires, BC cattlemen’s fences

Residential schools

JD:In the year 2016 you would think that the term residential schools had been retired particularly in the context of Indigenous students in Canada. And that may be true but the idea of residential schools for Indigenous students that is schools where Indigenous students will go to live that idea is still around. Most recently it was proposed by a think tank in Northern Ontario in a report on how to help Indigenous students from remote communities. The report comes six months after an inquest into the deaths of seven First Nations students in Thunder Bay Ontario and it contains more than 140 recommendations including that there be high schools in each remote Indigenous community and the Northern Policy Institute also argues that to improve conditions quickly what it calls student living centres have to be considered. In other words residential schools. Paul Bennett is the author of the Northern Policy Institute report. We reached him in Halifax.

CO: Mr. Bennett Why do you call your report after the healing?

Paul Bennett: Because I think there is a perception that no healing goes on and there is a time when you have to say all right. It becomes so overwhelming that you have to focus on things you can achieve. And so the argument in the report and the recommendations speak to a five point action plan which direct the funds and the activity in things that are really going to make a difference. We're in favor of establishing a race relations commissioner in the north and officers in each of the larger cities and towns. We're in favor of doing more and introducing a student's success curriculum which is based on First Nations ways of learning and knowing. And we think that first nations run schools properly run safe and secure places are the best place for the teens and youth to be the centre they inquest into the deaths of those students called for a high school to be built.

CO: Mr. Bennett Why do you call your report after the healing.

PB: Well, first of all these are First Nations run communities and they are actually First Nations lead schools where there is no thought of going back to what was a horrific and terrible experience. But I agree with you Carol. I mean even the mention of the term is enough to bring up those bad memories.

CO: You have also recommended that they have to close the funding gap that this is something that is an ongoing issue for First Nations communities and for students is that they're not funded the same as non-First Nations students non-Indigenous students. Is that going to happen? Is this going to be another round of people like yourself and these communities fighting for those funds?

PB: The first recommendation is to close the funding gap and we give some very specific guidelines there and in particular to invest in the schools that are up and running and that can do the most good. And there's common agreement now that funding lags for First Nations schools lags between 25 and 30 per cent.

CO: Though you know that there are there's a very strong feeling that the schools have to be in the communities. That this would be the answer to that horrible legacy of the residential schools and also be the best for the students that they should be close to their families to their communities and not a thousand kilometers away. You're not recommending that?

PB: Oh yes, we're recommending that they invest you know close to where the children and youth live and we're fully in support of investing in First Nations-based schools on the reserve communities in the reserve communities. What we're talking about here easing the transition and providing lodgings that are supportive. Let's face it the Dennis Cromarty school right now, the way the kids are accommodated is not acceptable that was not acceptable at the in the inquest and many of the parents were arguing that it definitely needs a student living center which is has activities it has round the clock supervision and it also is a safe and supportive and compassionate learning environment. That's what this is all about.

CAROL OFF: We will leave it there. Mr. Bennett, thank you.

PAUL BENNETT: Thanks for the opportunity.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Paul Bennett is the author of the report After the Healing and a senior education fellow with the Northern Policy Institute. We reached him in Halifax.

[Music: Post-rock]

Israel fires

Guest: Eran Singer

JEFF DOUGLAS: For days now emergency crews have been fighting fires across parts of Israel. In Haifa, one of the hardest hit cities at least 60,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes yesterday. Officials have said they believe some of the fires are a result of arson. More than a dozen people have reportedly been arrested. Eran Singer is a reporter with the Israel Broadcasting Authority. We reached him in Haifa earlier today.

CAROL OFF: Eran, what damage are you seeing in and around Haifa today?

ERAN SINGER: Well, it's been more than 24 hours since the fire started here in Haifa. It's been a very hard day for all of us here in Haifa because only this morning we woke up to see the damage of this fire storm that we were witnessing yesterday. The numbers are between seven hundred and eight hundred houses and apartments that were damaged. Dozens of cars were also burnt in this fire on the Carmel Mountain. Haifa is located on the Carmel. We have some forests and many trees surrounding these neighborhoods and this is why so many houses were damaged. The fire — the fire balls — were running from one place to another it was almost impossible to have control on the fire. And this is why it took the firefighters so much time to make this fire go away.

CO: When you say a firestorm and fire balls. What kind of a fire were the firefighters dealing with then?

ES: We don't know yet what were the reasons for this fire. We were told by the prime minister and by the police chief and by other security forces chiefs that the fire was a result of arson. In other words terrorist or terrorists we're responsible for the fire here in Haifa. But up until now we're only talking about suspects. We don't have any let's say any responsibility claimed by any terrorist activity or any terrorist organization. On the one hand, on the other hand, it is a combination. The wind was so strong the air is very dry. No humidity right now. We haven't had rain this November at all. And this is why it is it was so difficult for the firefighters to deal with the fire.

CO: As you pointed out that politics has entered the discussion as to why this happened and who did it? Numbers of Israeli politicians saying it had to have been done by Israeli Arabs or Palestinians. Education Minister Naftali Bennett said that only those to whom the country does not belong are capable of burning it. Does that indicate that the police are already ruling out certain groups of people and narrowing it down to a political motivation?

ES: Some politicians here in Israel claim that this fire had to do it has to do with political motivations. On the one hand, on the other hand, you'll have other politicians saying that it is too soon to claim that Palestinian or other Arab or Israeli Arab were connected to this fire in Haifa. The bad thing that happened here is that some politicians were generalizing and saying that it's all because of the Arab leaders or Arab politicians and they were putting the blame automatically on the Palestinians without letting the security forces or the police to end their investigation. We do know that we have some suspects up until now, but we don't know the official reason. So how can it be that some ministers and some politicians are rushing to say that this is a politically motivated fire? On the other hand, you will see here in Israel some Arab politicians some Israeli Arab politicians saying you cannot put the blame on the Arabs. You cannot put the blame on the Palestinians because we are talking about the Palestinian soil. We don't burn our trees. We don't burn our ground. This is our ground this is our homeland. So you have two major let's say voices right now coming from the Israeli political arena.

CO: Are there not a lot of Arab Israelis who live in that region whose houses could have been or probably were damaged and they were evicted as well is that the case?

ES: Most of the neighborhoods that were evacuated are Jewish neighborhoods, but because of the excitement from some politicians not all of them because of excitement and because of this argument that is taking place right now in Israel between Jews and Arabs between the ones who are for peace and the ones who are against peace with the Palestinians. You will find something that didn't happen here before some Arab organizations some Arab mayors and Arab leaders went on air on the radio on Israeli radio and other channels and said we will welcome everyone. We will host everyone in our houses Jews and Arabs because this is what we have to do. So on the one hand, you have the political arena which is very painful right now. But on the other hand you will see pro peace statements coming from civilizations from Arab politicians from some from some of the Jewish politicians. It's pretty interesting to see what's going on here right now.

CO: If this is determined to be arson and the suspects are Arabs or Palestinians will it be automatically regarded as an act of terrorism?

ES: Yes. But still it is very important to make sure or to know when you say terrorism is it Palestinian terrorism. In the last hour there was a news flash saying one of the Al-Qaeda organizations took responsibility and claimed responsibility and said that this fire in Haifa is an act of Al-Qaeda organization one of the Al-Qaeda affiliated organizations. In other words it's important to emphasize which kind of terror the. One of the one of the most high official Israeli cabinet ministers has said today that this is as we see it right now. It is an act of terrorism but he never said Palestinian terrorism and the government has never claimed it has never said it it's a Palestinian act, but it has indicated that this is an act of terrorism. Yes.

CO: You I know you are among those people who have been evacuated tens of thousands of people are out of their homes. Any indication of when they might be able to go home?

ES: Most of the residents of Haifa have been told that they are now free and are now able to go back to their houses. Many of them don't have places to go back to. The thing is that it's going to take lots of time. Haifa is a beautiful place. And one of the beautiful things here in Haifa is the fact that you have many green spots. We had many green spots and the fire took many of them away and it's going to take lots of time to rebuild Haifa or to let's say to redesign all the beautiful places that were damaged.

CAROL OFF: It is a really beautiful city and this is a great tragedy. I know you're very tired Eran, you've been working around the clock. I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

ERAN SINGER: Thank you.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Eran Singer is a journalist with the Israel Broadcasting Authority. We reached him in Haifa earlier today.

[Music: Orchestral]

BC cattlemen’s fences

Guest: Kevin Boon

JEFF DOUGLAS: If you spend any time flipping through design magazines you are aware of the reclaimed wood phenomenon. Everyone wants a piece of this weathered wood and that is why thieves want it. In British Columbia cattle ranchers are reporting that wood rustlers are stealing their fences and then selling the wood to homebuilders for a pretty penny. Kevin Boon is the general manager of the BC Cattlemen's Association. We reached him in Kamloops.

CAROL OFF: Kevin, could you ever imagine that old wooden fences would be hot property for thieves?

KEVIN BOON: No, it wasn't on my radar that's for sure. I sometimes question the amount of value that I've destroyed over the years. When this comes to light that's for sure.

CO: And where do you think the wood is going? People are saying it's going to this good for decor what went through one of the theories?

KB: Yeah. And right now we have to look at it for that. The only other alternative for a lot of it would be probably firewood but we know it's too valuable for that. And it's my understanding that there were three individuals that have been caught. They were found with a receipt from a operation in the Vancouver area that indicated exactly that, that it was going for decoration and house décor.

CO: how much fencing have you lost?

KB: Well, in this particular case and of concern to us the lumber that has gone missing is on a major highway that we have out here and we estimate that there's about $50,000 in replacement value of wood that has gone on this.

CO: And what are the biggest problems that this is going to create for cattlemen?

KB: Well, these fences were designed when the Coquihalla Highway which is Hhighway 5 which is the main connector between the lower mainland and Vancouver and the interior. It's a four-lane highway for the most part, in some places six. high volume of traffic at a high rate of speed the speed limit on that stretch of freeway is 120 kilometers an hour when the highway was constructed about 30 years ago. Underpasses were made under the highway to allow our cattle to access the rangelands on the other side of the highway. And they were what we call wing fences or board fences that were made to guide the cattle into these underpasses. They're high pressure areas meaning that we will get a number of livestock hitting that at a given time putting pressure on it. Put in your imagination 50 or 100 cows having access and getting up onto that highway with a high volume of traffic at a high speed and the carnage that it would create.

CO: If these fences along the highway and there it's on public land. So who's responsible for repairs that you say are going to be about $50,000?

KB: Yes, so this puts this into a bit of a gray area on this. The fences on the highways here are built by the Ministry of Transportation. They were built when the highway went in. In this case and then we have a deal that the farmers and ranchers maintain those fences for the lifespan of the fence which usually typically lasts between 30 and 35 years if the fence is built right. In this case, this is infrastructure that's been stolen. That can't be maintained any longer because what we were maintaining is gone. We're in discussions with the Ministry of Transportation and they realize that the public safety is their biggest concern so we're working on a solution that's going to be more a permanent fix that doesn't put this into jeopardy for the next band of guys that come along and want some weathered wood for their rumpus room.

CO: Well you can imagine that the demand is going to continue because of some of the prices that are being cited: somewhere between seven and $12 per square foot for you old fence?

KB: Yeah, which is probably more than it's costing us to erect them in some cases. You know and I've also heard talk from people who have old buildings that are out on their property that they may still be using, but on a seasonal basis that they've gone out and discovered one more missing that they can't see directly from their house. So there is some of that going on. There's also a lot going on where the people come up and buy these old structures dismantlement them and stuff. That's the route to go give some value to them but it's as we all know when something is worth money we'll find ways people will find ways of getting it that aren't necessarily the most that most ethical.

CO: Do you think that when people are buying that rustic coffee table or putting up that that wall around the fireplace with old weathered boards that they have any idea where this stuff came from?

KB: For the most part no. Most of them call them barn boards and they think of them as an old barn that's being destroyed and that's what they should and I think that the consumer for the most part isn't buying them suspecting it's stolen. Why would they? Up until now it really didn't appear to have a value. But I think one of the things that we're interested in is making the public aware of where some of this comes from so they can check their sources and make sure that you know they are coming from a reputable source and one that isn't endangering the public. If it was determined that that would from a stolen corral was used in your coffee table or on your back wall and it somehow resulted in the deaths on a highway that I don't think anybody would be too happy about knowing. And so it's a matter of making sure of your sources when they're there and at the end of the day if that criminal doesn't have the opportunity to market it then it's no longer going to become that hot commodity.

CAROL OFF: All right a cautionary tale. Kevin thank you.

KEVIN BOON: You're very welcome anytime.

JEFF DOUGLAS: We reached Kevin Boone in Kamloops.

[Music: Jazz]

Garrison Keillor

Guest: Garrison Keillor

JEFF DOUGLAS: For more than four decades a rumpled lovable man has been America's favorite Prairie Home Companion on the radio. Garrison Keillor was the founder of the program by that name and he hosted it from 1974 till just this past July. Well this week one radio veteran met another on air. When Michael Enright interviewed Mr. Keillor for The Sunday Edition this part of their conversation. Mr. Keillor spoke about the beginnings of his love of radio.

SOUNDCLIP

GARRISON KEILLOR: My mother had six children and she worked so terribly terribly hard and freezing and canning and cleaning and cooking and all the rest. But she would stand in the doorway and listen to Jack Benny and listen to George and Gracie and she would laugh out loud. We weren't laugh out loud people when we were somber people because you know the rapture was expected at any moment and we were to remain separate from the things of the world. But she laughed out loud. And this always intrigued me.

JEFF DOUGLAS: You can hear Garrison Keillor and Michael Enright’s whole conversation this weekend on The Sunday Edition right after the 9:00 a.m. news. 9:30 in Newfoundland.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Heinz beans ad

JEFF DOUGLAS: Something is wrong with this commercial for Heinz baked beans. See if you can hear the problem?

SOUNDCLIP

Sound: People singing

Jeff Douglas: If you guessed that that song is somewhat super gross, you're not incorrect. And if you further guessed that it's ridiculous to sing about how quote” We all need love that simple love and we are whole again” in a commercial for baked beans you are also not incorrect. And I would also accept “ewe.” But the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) went as far as banning that commercial. Not just because it poses a threat to your gag reflex, but because of this serious issue.

SOUNDCLIP

Sound: A can being drummed

JEFF DOUGLAS: Yes that's enough. That is an actor tapping and spinning and tapping an empty can. The song itself is called Can Song and there's even a video tutorial on the Hinz's website to teach excited viewers how to tap out Can Song themselves and before the tutorial even gets to the can tapping it advises you to clean the baked bean can thoroughly then to tape the open end of the can so there are no sharp edges and only then to begin tapping. But that was not good enough for the nine viewers who lodged complaints with the ASA and it wasn't good enough for the ASA, which carefully reviewed the ad and found it posed a risk. The authorities said it was quote, “likely to condone or encourage behavior that could be dangerous for children to emulate. Given the maneuvers required it might still be possible that mistakes could be made with an empty can which might include a hand or fingers being inserted into an open tin with the associated risk of cuts” unquote, commercial banned, children saved and order restored. I guess Hinz really opened, emptied and taped up a can of worms and Can Song is a no can do.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Nov. 25, 2016 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode