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

The AIH Transcript for September 21, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: Her courage, his conviction. He first raped her when she was 12 years old. And now, almost two decades after police dismissed her allegations, our guest will finally see the man who nearly ruined her life go to prison.

JD: He's Bernier-ed his bridges. And now that he's left the Conservatives to start the People's Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier sits down with Carol to explain what he means by "extreme multiculturalism".

CO: You can't leave us like this. After European Union leaders declare that the British prime minister's Brexit plan simply won't work, a frustrated Theresa May demands the U.K. be treated with greater respect.

JD: Exit strategies. After we spoke with a woman who was worried she'd lose her approval for medically assisted death if she lost her capacity to consent, we had questions about Canada's laws. Tonight, we'll get some answers.

CO: A sneaker suspicion. The latest proof that fancy stores are out of touch is a pair of shoes on sale at Nordstrom, which are fashionably filthy, wrapped in a strip of soiled tape, and they sell for 700 bucks.

JD: And...a one-track mind — that hates tracks. A new study suggests our brains are responsible for our bodies being lazy — because it takes more energy to even think about being active.

JD: "As It Happens", the Friday edition. Radio that suggests you free your mind, and your ass...pirations will follow.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: ‘Unfounded’ assault sentence, assisted death follow-up, laziness study

‘Unfounded’ assault sentence

Guest: L

JD: She was raped when she was just twelve years old. And the assaults continued, until when she was thirteen, she became pregnant. The child was put up for adoption. Now, nearly two decades later, her abuser is going to prison. The long delay in justice is due to the fact that Ottawa Police initially deemed her complaint "unfounded." After an extensive investigation by the Globe and Mail's Robyn Doolittle, police reopened their investigation into her assault. This month, Brian Lance pleaded guilty to sexual interference, and was sentenced to five years in prison. "L" is an alias used because her identity is protected by a publication ban. We reached "L" in Ottawa.

CO: L, it's been 20 years since you were abused and assaulted by this man. What does it mean to you that he will now go to prison?

L: To be honest, it's of very low consequence. I'm happy that he will be on the sex offender registry so that he doesn't have a chance to do this to other kids. But at the same time, I've been suffering from his 20 years, as has my son, with the consequences of this. So the sentence that he'll have to serve is not nearly enough.

CO: You were 12 years old when Brian Lance began to abuse you. He was 26 and married. How did he gain access to you?

L: My mom had just graduated school and started a new job. She was a single parent. These two needed a place to live. And my mom agreed to have him stay with us change for childcare.

CO: And this happened over what period of time? How long did he have this access and he was abusing you?

L: It was the year between when I was 12 and 13, and the last time was when I was 13.

CO: And is that when you found out… how did you find out that you were pregnant?

L: I actually didn't know at first. I had only had my time I think one time before that. And so I didn't really have anything to measure up against of having a regular period or anything like that. When I realized that I was pregnant was when I felt my son kicking me. And after that, I didn't really know what to do. So I just wore bigger and bigger clothes. And then during the summer, when it became more apparent, trying to go back to school is when people realized, and I was taken to the doctor.

CO: And did you tell anybody? Did you out this man? Did you tell your mom?

L: No. So at first, I didn’t tell my Mom. But I did tell another kid. She actually didn't believe me because I was kind of like a nerdy kid. I was really small, a bit of a tomboy, and she said you only wish you had a boyfriend and that kind of thing. And afterwards when it was discovered that I was pregnant, the next question, of course, is who did this to you? And I actually had made up a name of a classmate that just didn't exist. And there was never any investigation by the school into the fact that the child that I made up didn't even exist.

CO: At what point did the police first get involved?

L: So my mom had realized that what I was saying that this kid that didn't exist obviously that's not what happened, right? So when I told her, the realization occurred to her all at once. The abrupt way that they sort of moved away and then just didn’t really come back after, so she contacted the police. I was brought in to do a statement. And the Globe & Mail has access to this video. And the way that I was interviewed was more like a 30-year-old woman who had been caught shoplifting than a child who was coming to disclose sexual trauma.

CO: And how old were you at this point?

L: I had just turned 14.

CO: And so now you were talking to this now retired detective. How did he respond to you, and why did you think you were not credible?

L: So I think that part of the demeanor on my part was that I was giggling like really extremely nervous. I had him on one side of me and another stranger on the other, and a video camera right in front of me. I really, really felt small and not taken seriously to begin with. And the way that he approached me with the questions was these sort of like where did he touch you? Did he touch your vagina, etc.? What I was there to describe was a long-term period of psychological, emotional, sexual, and physical abuse — and so even the questions were not asked in such a way that would facilitate me telling the story the way that it happened. I did also try to reach out to him after. And he couldn't remember who I was, which seemed pretty unusual to me because he had told my mom it didn't happen the way that I said it did, and he didn't believe me. One of the things in the video that I had had mentioned actually was I had a child from this. I know that DNA is something that could probably help. So are you going to follow up with that? And he assured me that he would, and that never happened.

CO: So this detective who thought that you weren't credible because you were giggling and nervous, he filed it as an “unfounded” allegation, and left it as that? Just filed away, that's it in a drawer. What happened to you? How was your life affected over the years that followed?

L: Oh, wow! After that happened, I began to think that I didn't really have a purpose here. I constantly thought about killing myself. I would starve myself thinking that I was just going to disappear, right? Because one of the consequences of this detective not believing me was that you know in the neighbourhood that I lived in like we were a very tight-knit neighbourhood. And that just really served to further isolate me.

CO: The police finally did get back involved. And one of the reasons for her was because Robyn Doolittle of the Globe & Mail Got hold of your story. What effect did that have?

L: After the story was made public, Jamie Dunlop from the Ottawa Police reached out to me through Robyn, and said he was interested in reopening the case. So I agreed to go through the whole interview process again. And from there, Carolyn Boding did a really good job of collecting evidence and putting the case together, and he was charged.

CO: But one of the key things that helped with the case was that your son existed, he had DNA. How did they connect that DNA with Brian Lance?

L: It's been reported that they collected DNA on a cigarette butt to get a judge to sign a warrant for actual DNA samples from Brian Lance to reconfirm that.

CO: So finally it connected him. There was no doubt that he was the father of your child, even though he had denied having any relationship with you at all over all those years?

L: That's correct.

CO: Now that Brian Lance going to prison, I know you say that it doesn't give you much comfort, but does it help at all to know that somebody believed your story and that this man is to be punished?

L: The fact that people have listened and been supportive is the thing that's the positive from this. I think that our ability to come together to bear witness to these types of things and to have discussions around it that's one of the positives from this. The fact that it was like pulling teeth, even throughout the final process, how it feels him going to prison that part does not affect me because I still have to continue picking up the pieces of my life, and my son's life, and my granddaughter's life.

CO: L, I admire your strength and your courage. I'm glad we know your story, and it helps a lot of other people. And thank you for speaking with us.

L: Thanks so much, Carol.

CO: Take care. Bye bye.

L: Bye.

JD: L’s identity — that is letter “L” — is protected under a publication ban. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Cancer patient follow-up

Guest: Jocelyn Downie

JD: Earlier this week, we spoke with Audrey Parker -— a Nova Scotian woman with cancer, who's been approved for a medically-assisted death. Canada's laws ask patients to consent to the assisted-dying procedure twice: once at the time of their request, and again on the day. Ms. Parker is concerned that she'll lose the mental capacity to consent. So, she's chosen to die earlier than she'd wanted to, to avoid the possibility of missing her window. After that interview, Chris Ryerson from Ottawa sent this email: "I was awestruck and inspired by Audrey Parker's composure and good spirits, though her planned death is only 6 weeks away. "My father, as well as his brother, sister, and father, all died with advanced Alzheimer's disease, though not necessarily from it. I witnessed my father's slow death at age 90, after he decided to stop eating and the painkillers which were administered for his prostate pain slowly built up in his body. "My dog died a better death — the drugs our pet was given ended his suffering quickly, while those my father received prolonged it. "The law needs to be amended to allow advance consent, so those who are no longer of sound mind when their suffering becomes intolerable can die mercifully. "As someone who has a slowly advancing chronic lung disease and an elevated risk of Alzheimer's in future, I would welcome this change, as I am sure would many other Canadians. That’s an email from Chris Ryerson in Ottawa, and Mr. Ryerson, thank you very much for writing. Right now, an expert panel, commissioned by the federal government, is reviewing Canada's legislation on medical assistance in dying. Jocelyn Downie is one of the experts on that panel. She's a professor in the faculties of Law and Medicine at Dalhousie University. We reached her in Halifax.

CO: Professor Downie, we heard a description from Audrey Parker, the woman we interviewed earlier this week, about this two-step consent process, which she is quite unhappy with. Maybe you can explain to us what it is?

JOCELYN DOWNIE: So the key piece is that you have to be capable at the time of the provision of the MAID, as well as the time of the request for the MAID. And there's a 10 day waiting period in between the request and the provision. So you have this double moment of capacity assessment.

CO: And “MAID” being “medical assistance in dying”?

JD: Yes.

CO: And so you have been considered to be a candidate for it. This has been approved. You've made all the qualifications, but then right at the moment when you are about to initiate your decision that you have to say yes, I've of sound mind I'm perfectly aware of what I'm doing?

JD: Precisely. And so if you have qualified, met all the criteria, and you're inside that 10 day window, and you unexpectedly lose capacity, you will be trapped, and not be able to access MAID.

CO: trapped is how Audrey Parker feels, because she's having to move up the date of her death to a time much earlier than she wanted to because of that. So how is it that when the law was written, that was considered to be fair?

JD: Well, one thing that's really important for people to understand is that while the law sets this up now, the Parliament didn't take a permanent view on this issue on whether we should be allowed to access assisted dying through advance requests. What they did in June of 2016 is say we're going to take some time to review the evidence and think through this issue of advance requests. There are actually three issues that they're reviewing. And by December of this year, they have to put a report into Parliament that provides an assessment of the evidence around this issue, and then make the public policy decision about whether or not to allow it. We'll have to see whether they change their minds.

CO: What was the thinking behind that? What would be reasons to not have advanced requests?

JD: So I think there's two ways you can look at it. One is they didn't feel ready, they felt rushed, this is a complex issue. And so they wanted to put it off for a time and do some analysis. The other is that they were actually looking at the arguments against allowing advance requests. And typically those arguments are that for instance people say maybe it's a different person — the person at the time when they were capable who made the request, and then the person later when the conditions for the request are met maybe that's a different person. So a personal identity issue. Another would be that how do we know that the person didn't change their mind? You know right now I complete an advance request, I say if these circumstances happen, I want assisted dying, four years from now, those circumstances have been realized, how do we know I didn't change my mind in the middle of that? Or people point to they say you didn't understand what life would be like for instance with dementia. So the decision you made in your advance request it wasn't informed, and so we shouldn't respect it. A final typical argument you'll hear is that there is ambiguity in the request. So how do we know what the person really wanted? Have we met the criteria that they set out, and what they described as what they consider to be for instance intolerable suffering? So those are the major arguments that are made against allowing advance requests.

CO: Some of the concerns, and Audrey Parker raised this, is that she understands that we're in a situation where there's a concern that there may be family members that want to push you out the door. That want you to accelerate the process. Is that possible?

JD: I think that that is raised frequently. And there's just no evidence for that. In fact, what we see is that family members want the individual to stay alive. In the context of assisted dying, the family members are frequently the ones who are saying don't go yet, don't go yet, please don't go yet. They're not pushing people out the door. And another thing you could do if you have a concern about that is you say that it's actually a clinician who makes a determination of whether the conditions that the individual set out are actually met. In which case, there'd be no possibility for that.

CO: How long will it take before we have a decision, and possibly include advance requests within the law?

JD: I need a better crystal ball than I have. We know at least we won't have a decision before December because the panel report is to be delivered to the government in the fall, and the government must — they're obliged under the legislation to — present it in parliament by December. But then you enter into the realm of the election. And at that point, you know pretty much all bets are off because there are many, many, many Canadians — the vast majority of Canadians actually — support assisted dying through advance requests. But it is also a very polarizing issue because it's within the terrain of the pro-life movement. So all I can say is these will be the pressure points and the elements that those who make those political calculations will have to take into account. I don't know which way they will go.

CO: But in the midst of these political calculations, there are many people who are in this trap as we talked about at the beginning the interview.

JD: Absolutely. One of the things I would flag is that the government went into this with a lot of advice from thoughtful groups who recommended to them that they allow advance requests after a diagnosis had been given. So not carte blanche you make an advance request for assisted dying at any point. But rather once you have all the information about your condition, and you have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, which is the criteria, they said you should be allowed to have an advanced request. So I think there is an accountability for the people who are caught in this trap that rests at the doorstep of the government.

CO: Professor Downie, I appreciate speaking with you. thank you. You've given us a lot of insight into this.

JD: My pleasure.

JD: Jocelyn Downie is a professor in the faculties of Medicine and Law at Dalhousie University. She sits on a panel that's currently reviewing Canada's medical-assistance-in-dying laws. We reached Ms. Downie in Halifax. And a week this Sunday, on "The Sunday Edition", you can hear the story of Ron Posno, a retired teacher from London, Ontario. Because he's been diagnosed with cognitive impairment, he sees his future, and it's not pretty. So he wants to do something about it now, while he still can. So catch Alisa Siegel's documentary about assisted dying, advanced directives, dementia, and Ron Posno's one man crusade for change — a week this Sunday, on "The Sunday Edition".

[Music: World music]

Laziness study

Guest: Matt Boisgontier

JD: If you chose the couch over an evening interval session tonight, you can blame your brain. A new study by a group of researchers from around the world found that humans are lazy because our brains are wired to be lazy. We really want to go out for that run, but it's just so exhausting — for our brains. Matt Boisgontier is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of British Columbia, and the senior author of the study. We reached him in Vancouver.

CO: Matt, I have to say that when I get the idea to go to the gym, something like gravity takes over, and sucks me into my chair and holds me there against my will — I can't get up. What's going on?

MATT BOISGONTIER: Maybe it's not gravity. Maybe it's just a result of evolution that has shaped your brain.

CO: I'm lazy?

MB: I don't know if you are lazy, but there is some processes in your brain that are attracting you to sedentary behaviours like being in the couch.

CO: So I'm attracted to sedentary behaviours. And so that sounds like laziness.

MB: You are not trapped. So you have an automatic attraction, but you can decide to go away from this. If you have strong intention, you can try to counteract this automatic attraction.

CO: But I have to do it through an act of will. I have to really will myself to get over this affinity for sedentary behaviour?

MB: So far this is the only solution we have, yes. We plan to try to retrain this automatic attraction, but we don't know if it will work?

CO: What did your test do? You wanted to find out why people have such a hard time exercising, even if they know that it's good for them. What did you discover?

MB: So what we tried to discover is whether the brain was fighting to counteract some attraction to sedentary behaviour? This is what we found out. Actually, we asked participants to come to the lab, and we put them in front of the computer, and they took control of a on-screen mannequin — an avatar. And we asked them to approach or avoid as fast as possible a picture depicting physical activity or inactivity. And what we've found is that they are faster at avoiding sedentary behaviour, and faster approaching physical activity, which is great. But when we look at the result in the brain, we found out that being faster was actually at a cost. And this cost was an increased activity of the brain.

CO: So I understand correctly, when people were given the choice between being active and being inactive — being sedentary — having sedentary behaviour or more active behaviour. They would go toward the active behaviour, but it hurt their brains. They had to actually do more brain work in order to do that. Is that right?

MB: Yeah. We only found significant results for the avoidance action. We didn't find any significant results for the approach action in regard to the brain. So we focused on the avoidance, and we showed that it's a lot more difficult to avoid sedentary behaviour than avoid physical activity.

CO: What do you conclude from this? What does that tell us about our species, and the fact that we have a hard time doing things even if they’re in our own self-interest?

MB: So what we think is that this minimization of energetic cost was very useful during evolution because it gives you an advantage for survival. Because you are more efficient at finding food or fighting competitors or everything. But now we don't need to do this — at least not using physical activity. And it's this automatic attraction to sedentary behaviours is not helpful anymore. But it's still there in our brain, and we need to fight it.

CO: You know it’s something I noticed that if my subway station in Toronto. If when you get out the doors there is the closest place to go upstairs is actually a staircase — a walking staircase. And then further along is the escalator, and people walk right by the staircase they'll walk further to get to the escalator, and walk right past the staircase. So sometimes they actually spend more energy avoiding spending energy.

MB: That’s funny. I didn’t know this example. I have another example. It's when you go to the gym and you take the elevator. That doesn't make sense.

CO: That's true. So now what should we take away from this? People who are perhaps even now as they listen to you sitting there trying to decide whether they should get up or not and do some exercise. What's your advice?

MB: I think when they are faced with two options they should try to take control of their brain and decide to go for a more active one. And on our side as scientists, we will try to see if we can retrain this automatic tendency to approach sensory behaviours. Then they won't have to take control anymore, but we don't know if we will be able to do so because retraining something that is automatic may be complicated.

CO: Maybe we’ll just give into our brains and sit there and turn on Netflix.

MB: You can still do this.

CO: Alright. Thanks for talking to us, Matt.

MB: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

MB: Bye.

JD: Matt Boisgontier is a researcher at the University of British Columbia. We reached him in Vancouver.

[Music: Acoustic Guitar]

Nordstrom’s shoes

JD: And now, a sneak preview of the "As It Happens" winter collection. A pair of scuffed boots with a missing insole, duct tape over a hole in the left sole, and no right heel on the boot. A pair of tan pants with a coffee stain on the crotch, frayed hems, and some Canadian Tire money in the back pocket, which has been laundered past the point of possible use. Okay, yes, this is my old stuff. But I'm only asking 175 dollars for the pants and 250 bucks for the boots — which is less than half of what Nordstrom's is charging for a pair of sneakers that look like they were hung from the back bumper of an ATV for a six-hour off-road adventure. The shoes are made by an Italian company called Golden Goose, and are called "Superstar Taped Sneaker". Leather sneakers with, quote, "a grungy rubber cupsole", and, quote, "crumply, hold-it-all-together tape" wrapped around the front. Seriously, that is just soiled tape around it. 530 U.S dollars — 685 Canadian. The shoes are, in fashion terms, "distressed". And so are we now. Because people with too much money are spending that amount on the kind of damaged footwear most of us already have, and are ashamed of. And because complaining about the tone-deafness and insensitivity of fancy stores is a cliché as well-worn as those stupid shoes. There's outrage, of course, but Nordstrom's says quote, "taste is subjective". Well, so is lack of it, which doesn't matter, because right now, the "Superstar Taped Sneaker" is sold out.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Part two: Maxime Bernier

Maxime Bernier

Guest: Maxime Bernier

JD: It’s been a bit like "musical chairs" in the House of Commons recently. And seated in the corner back-benches, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party have a new neighbour: Maxime Bernier. Mr. Bernier made his first foray into the House this week, as the leader of the newly-minted People's Party of Canada. He stood to speak on Wednesday — this time, without the support of his old colleagues in the Conservative Party. Here's how that went.

SOUNDCLIP

MAXIME BERNIER: This house urges the Government to put the complete abolishment of the system of supply management on the negotiating table. In order to vacilitate a new NAFTA agreement. And bring down the prices of milk, poultry and eggs for Canadian consumers.

GEOFF REGAN: Does the honourable member have unanimous consent of the house to move the motion? No, there is no consent.

JD: Mr. Bernier there, seeking unanimous consent to put Canada's supply management system on the table in NAFTA negotiations. As you just heard, failing. But despite the raucous reception in the House, Mr. Bernier is setting out on a new political experiment he hopes will succeed. You'll recall it was less than a month ago that the Tory MP bolted from the Conservative Party of Canada, to start his own political movement. And we have questions about his new venture… a lot of questions. Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, sat down with Carol for an in-studio interview.

CO: Mr. Bernier, welcome to the As It Happens studio.

MB: Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to be with you.

CO: I was watching your face as you listened to that clip. What was going through your mind as you listen to yourself in the House on your first day in your new party?

MB: You know it's a little bit bizarre that I'm the only politician in the House who wants to fight for Canadian consumers. That's the reality.

CO: Listening to your colleagues — your former Conservative colleagues — laughing and jeering, saying no, no, and just sort of rejecting you altogether. What was that like for you?

MB: I'm not so surprised at the end because you know I'm the only one who wants to have that on the table for the NAFTA negotiation. Actually, that's what President Trump is asking for the last six month. And it's so important for the future of this country. Twenty per cent of our economy is depending on the U.S., and the relationship between us and us. So if we want to have a deal, we must be able to put that on the table and at the end that would be good for Canadian consumers. So I was a little bit disappointed at the end. But I didn't have a lot of expectation also.

CO: So you and Donald Trump. Two peas in a pod on this issue?

MB: What I said to the prime minister and Andrew Scheer when they were saying we must stand up against the president Trump I said no, we must sit down with him. We must sit down and having a real negotiation on NAFTA and on free trade. You know they're putting at risk the automobile industry here in Ontario, and all the auto industry just to protect 19,000 producers on their supply management in this country. And now maybe we won't have a deal. We must be ashamed that Mexico they were able to have a deal before us with the U.S. So that's a very bad strategy that the Trudeau government they're doing right now with the help of the Conservative Party of Canada also.

CO: Your new party — the People's Party of Canada — I mean just one question about that because I do remember, I'm sure you do, remember when Coalition Avenir Quebec introduced their party, and the acronym was CAC. And how much derision there was. You’re going. to be PP of Canada?

MB: It's PPC.

CO: PP of C.

MB: But you know the name it's important for us. We are a party that want to work for people in this country, and not for special interest group. And the best example it's that cartel of supply management.

CO: But you talk about your former Conservative Party that you ran for the leadership of not very long ago. You called them morally corrupt. And you are now going to represent the people. Who are the people that you plan to represent?

MB: Canadians that are fed up with traditional politics. Canadian who doesn't believe in politicians when saying something a day and the opposite the other day. Canadians that want to have real bold reform in this country for having a smaller government and a more freer and prosperous country. So our platform is based on the four principles individual freedom, personal responsibility, respect, and fairness. And people who believe in that will come in our party. We can have a lot of support not only from Conservatives, but also from people who voted for other parties.

CO: I'm listening for that thing that's going to make me drop everything and follow you out the door and join you. I mean I was there when Bloc Quebecois started that movement and the Reform Party of Canada — two powerful things. And to be in the room at those times it was like a match was lit in a room full of fuel. It was like ideas and a movement whose time had come. What is it about marketing boards and supply management and equalization payments and small government that's going to set off that ignition?

MB: I think it's a movement also. We're more than a political party. I think we are a movement because for the first time in this country a politician want to speak about the reform of equalization formula. Saying it is unfair for province who receive the money and from province who are giving the money. We must question that. We must review that. I’m the only one who want to have a universal healthcare delivery of services by public and also private delivery, like in other countries in Europe. So people they want real change, and I think we are part of the solution.

CO: You know I don't think that I saw much or heard much about your party and about your ideas until in the middle of August, you began to talk about immigration policies, and what you call extreme multiculturalism. Did you do that because you hoped it would generate excitement about your movement?

MB: No, it wasn't new. When I said that at that time doing the summer I said the same thing during the leadership campaign. I said at the time that we must question the level of new Canadians that we're having every year. It's always more and more, and more. I don't want our country to be like other countries in Europe in having a challenge to integrate their new immigrants. So Canada has been built by immigrants and we are proud of that. Justin Trudeau is saying that you know Canada is a post-national state without any identity. That's not true. There is a Canadian culture and Canadian values, and we must be proud of that. So I just want to open that debate in Canada. And I think it's okay to have a debate.

CO: Well, you did open the debate, didn't you? Because you had very provocative tweets, and by mid-August, you were talking about Trudeau says diversity is our strength. But where do we draw the line? Why should we promote ever more diversity? What is the line that you want to draw?

MB: diversity, it is good. This country's been built by diversity. But diversity in sharing of values, for me, it’s not good. A person that wants to come to our country must share our Canadian values…

CO: What are they? What are these values?

MB: We all know that you know equality between men and woman, equality before the law, democracy, tolerance and diversity. I want this country to be like that in the near future. So I'll give you an example. If you have two new Canadians who are coming to Canada, and one want to kill gay people, and the other one say no, it's okay. They can believe in what they want. So is it good to have two people having different point of view on that subject?

CO: Wait a second. Where does this come from? I mean you have an example of somebody who said oh, well you know you want to kill gay people, you can come in. And you don’t, oh; you can come in too. Come on! Where did this come from?

MB: It will be better to have people who share our values.

CO: We're not going to move on before you tell me where this comes from. This idea that somehow we're letting in people say I'm coming here to kill gay people.

MB: I’m not saying that. I don't want that example to happen.

CO: Well, where's the evidence that's going to happen? Are you setting up a straw man here to say I need to fight something that doesn't exist?

MB: No, I want to protect something that exists. So that's the difference. So we need more immigrants in Canada. We need more economic immigrants. In my own riding in Bauce, we have a lack of employees over there. So let's have a little bit more economic immigrants. And I want them to come here and to have a job that would be good for them, but that would be good for us also.

CO: I'm trying to figure out who this undesirable is it you feel that you've said, of course, we all agree that this person who wants to come in because he doesn't like gay people, and wants to kill them. OK, Agreed, he shouldn’t or she shouldn't come in. But what is this image? What is this person that you find undesirable? We know those guys shouldn't come in. Who is it that you're trying to keep out?

MB: With that example I think Justin Trudeau is always saying diversity is our strength. It is not our strength.

CO: Killing gay people isn't diversity — that's crime.

MB: But that diversity of values.

CO: And you think if we have diversity we end up letting in people who will kill gay people?

MB: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying we must promote what unites us. Not always what divides. I'm coming from Quebec. I'm a francophone from Quebec. If people want to keep a part of their own culture that's okay.

CO: That's multiculturalism. You’ve said that's wrong. You don't want that.

MB: No, no. I said extreme multiculturism is wrong.

00:36:59 - SPEAKER: F15.

CO: And what is that? What is extreme multiculturalism?

MB: When you’re always doing the promotion of the diversity. For me, that's extreme. We must do the promotion of what unite us.

CO: How about allowing diversity? How about is that you say Okay, you want your kids to learn your native language you brought to the country. You want them to know those values. to learn the dances and the music. And you wanted to have classes after school. That's multiculturalism. What's wrong with that?

MB: There’s nothing wrong with that.

CO: So where does it cross the line for you?

MB: When you have 49 per cent of Canadians that are saying that we have too much immigration in this country. We must listen to that. And I'm the only politician who was listening to that. And saying to these people immigration is good. Let's be sure that the new Canadians that will come tomorrow, next year, in ten years from now, will always share our Canadian values. That's the debate that I’m doing.

CO: We have people coming from other countries they're coming from war, they're coming from struggle, from dictatorship, from tyranny, from poverty, from all kinds of things.

MB: But they are coming for what? To share our Canadian values for freedom. That’s great! I’m not against that.

CO: Maybe they could teach us something about values?

MB: Yes, why not?

CO: Maybe these values that you cherish might evolve.

MB: It’s the western civilization values. Yes, the society it is not a block of ice. Yes, it will evolve. If you want the Canadian society to evolve and progress, you need to be able to have people who know our culture and share the basic of all values. And yes, they will add something to our values. And maybe in 15 years from now this country will change for the better.

CO: What is your evidence that people coming to this country don't share those values, or are not wanting to take part in this culture?

MB: I’m not saying that.

CO: Well, you are in these tweets. Here's another quote having people live among us who reject basic Western values such as freedom, equality, tolerance, and openness doesn't make us strong. They want to live in a ghetto. That’s balkanization. These people bring distrust social, conflict, potentially violence. Who are these people, Mr. Bernier?

MB: It's people who don't who don't share Canadian values, I said that in the beginning of the tweet. There is a lot of things that's happening in Europe right now in France and Belgium. Do you want that? No, I want my country like it is right now being the same in 20 years from now.

CO: This is “As It Happens”, I'm here in the studio with Maxine Bernier. We're talking about his new political movement party the People's Party of Canada. And whe you talk about compare this to Europe, what's happening Europe is extreme, isn't it?

MB: We don’t want that in Canada.

CO: But we know this is a particular moment in time when let's say Germany, 1 million people in the course of about 18 months walked into that country. This is something that's happened because they share a border with refugee-producing areas. We don't. It's very difficult to come to this country. it's very controlled.

MB: No, no, it is not. We have refugees coming from the US.

CO: How many? Ten-thousand, twenty-thousand? That’s not a million.

MB: Yeah, but they're coming here. In two years from now we'll know if they're really refugee or not. The government is telling us that half of them won't be real refugee. They will have to go back to their country.

CO: OK, so 30,000 come, and 10,000 get accepted. That's a crisis?

MB: No, but that shows that people want to come to this country. That's unfair for the real refugees that are waiting in camp. Their life is in danger. And these people has to wait because the system has to process these people that are coming from the U.S. We must be able to solve the problem and the loophole that we're having with the American about the Safe Third Country Agreement.

CO: OK, you know there's two processes you're referring to. One, people coming across the border they go before the refugee board for an assessment. The people in the camps — the people in other countries — are part of resettlement programs that Canada runs through the United Nations.

MB: I want more real refugees. I want to help the people who need to be help.

CO: OK, but because people cross the border does not mean that people can't be resettled from other countries. We're still having those programs.

MB: We’re having those programs, but they're waiting over there.

CO: They were waiting already. They were waiting five, six, seven, eight, nine years.

MB: You want them to wait 10 years more?

CO: Perhaps that's why they're coming into Canada walking across the border because they can't get in through those processes?

MB: So we don’t agree on that point. I think it's too different. The people who are coming to the border to the U.S. as a refugee and the real refugee camp I think is two situation very different.

CO: You want to cut immigration by how much?

MB: I said 250,000 people a year like we had under the Harper government.

CO: And why is that better than having the numbers that the Liberal government is prescribing?

MB: I want to have more economic immigrants and less reunification of family and less refugees because I'm following what the markets wants. And I want to be sure that these people would be able to participate to our society and having a job.

CO: So you want fewer refugees? You just said that.

MB: Yes.

CO: Why? Why that particular group?

MB: Because we need to make a choice. And we in this country, if you ask the business sector, they need people. We have a lack of people. We have a lot of jobs available. But we don't have Canadians, and the population is aging. So we need to answer this first need first.

CO: But again, I don't know where it's either or? We have an immigration policy. We have refugee policies. We have international obligations to help resettle the many people…

MB: We can do that, but we are a sovereign country also. We can decide our immigration policy in Canada.

CO: You tweeted that if you can buy a plane ticket from Nigeria to New York, you're not a real refugee. Why not?

MB: What I'm saying it’s not the definition of refugee. I’m showing to people that people who are crossing the border they're not in danger. And I want to help people in danger in refugee camp first.

CO: Well, I'm just wondering if you think that somebody who can purchase a plane ticket couldn't be a refugee? I just want to get an idea my mind what you think a refugee is?

MB: I know the definition of a refugee. We want to help the real one. That person who they were in the United States, and stayed in the United States, and want to cross the border just for more economic opportunity.

CO: How do you know that's the case? I mean we know the United States for hostile toward refugees, so maybe he really is asylum seeker. Absolutely, Mr. Trump has made that clear that he doesn't want people from certain countries.

MB: That's your point of view. The United States are welcoming some refugees.

CO: They have reduced their numbers considerably.

MB: Yes, so are they hostile because they reduced it? Am I anti-immigration because I want to reduce the number? They are a sovereign country. They have the right to do what they want to do. And we have the right in Canada to decide our immigration policy. And our immigration policy for the last 50 years was a big success. And I want us to be a big success for the future.

CO: So you articulate numbers and ideas about what you want for immigration, what you want for the country. And this is thought out, it's interesting. At the same time, some things you say like in August, you targeted this park in Winnipeg. You said that this is extreme Liberal multiculturalism because a park was named after the founder of Pakistan.

MB: Why celebrating the father of Pakistan? That's an example of celebrating diversity. We must celebrate what unites us. At the same time, we destroy a statue of John A. Macdonald?

CO: This was vandalized. After you tweeted this, the vandalized it. People were very upset.

MB: I'm responsible of that.

CO: The people in the Pakistani community believed that tweet led to the vandalism.

MB: Oh my god.

CO: I'm not telling you something new.

MB: You're saying because of my tweet, I'm responsible of what happened in that park. Are you serious?

CO: The Pakistani community believes….

MB: And you believe it also?

CO: Is it coincidence that it was vandalized right after you drew attention to this?

MB: Give me a prove that people did it because of my tweet.

CO: Listen, this is what happened. This is the consequences.

MB: So I understand that you don't share my position on immigration. I understand that you don't agree with what I'm saying. It's OK. It's a democracy. What I'm doing in politics I believe in strong ideas. And if you don't like what I'm saying, I’m telling you don't vote for me.

CO: I'm wondering what these times when you do push the buttons, when you do this…

MB: That's a policy.

CO: That's not a policy to talk about that this is wrong. There’s lots of parks in Canada. Why can't they be named after people that represent the communities who are here?

MB: They can be named. They can be named. I'm just saying that you had a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald that you decided not to. That's the best example to promote Canadian values and Sir John A. Macdonald. That was an example, Sir John A. Macdonald and that park, so I put the two together.

CO: This is “As It Happens”, I'm here in the studio with Maxime Bernier, the leader of this new political party the People's Party of Canada. I know your plan is to run candidates in 338 ridings in time for 2019. How are you going to do that?

MB: We’ll have 338 candidates. That's it. What we have to do right now is to build riding association, that's what I said, 338 riding association before December we'll have that. Right now, people are calling our office to be our candidates. So it we’ll have 338 candidates in every riding, and we'll be very competitive in the next election.

CO: And how will you vet them? Because you already have a lot of interest from people like well, the Canadian Nationalist Party, which promotes white nationalist ideas.

MB: I told them they’re not welcome in our party.

CO: You said that you were on the phone with Travis Patron.

MB: Yes, I returned my call. When somebody is calling me, I'm going to return my call. And I did that. And that person wanted me to be against immigration. And we had a very good discussion like what we are having right now. And I said no, I believe in immigration. They built this country. And you know you're not welcome in our party. And if these people want to be part of a party they can create their own party, and telling them good luck.

CO: The one thing that matters to you a great deal is that you don't like the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and what he's doing to Canada. And yet, many conservatives are saying that you've given such a gift to Mr. Trudeau because now you're going to split the votes of Conservatives.

MB: I think that Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau is about the same.

CO: So you don’t want either of those guys.

MB: The two are playing politics with NAFTA. The two have the same position. They want to protect a cartel that it's not good for Canadian consumers we are paying twice the price for poultry, dairy, and milk. And they can get rid of that for Canadian consumer. And at the same time, having a deal with the U.S. Both of them they want to protect special interest group. I'm working for the people, for all Canadians, and I won't protect any special interest group. So that's a difference. But also, I will attract some Liberals. Liberals who voted for Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, for a balanced budget and lower taxes. They're welcome in our party. We will do that. I would attract some NDP also, who told me Maxime, we like your position on abolishing corporate welfare. We don't like when the government is giving a lot of money to big corporations. I'm serious about that. I will abolish corporate welfare. We'll save five billion dollars a year. So we are building a coalition. And I want also 30 per cent of Canadians that didn't vote at the last election. Thirty per cent of them, it's a huge clientele because they don't believe in politicians anymore. Because they're tired of political correctness. So that's what I'm doing, and I think we'll be able to be successful.

CO: Mr. Bernier, I really appreciate you coming in. Thank you.

MB: Thank you very much.

JD: Maxime Bernier is the leader of the People's Party of Canada. He joined Carol in the "As It Happens" studio. To hear that interview again, or share it, it’s on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: World music]

Part three: Newfoundland lottery, eel sighting

Brexit latest

Guest: Jonathan Lis

JD: British Prime Minister Theresa May has had enough: she wants the EU to treat her with more respect. She said so, publicly, earlier today, after what's been characterized as a "humiliating" couple of days for her, and her country's negotiations to leave the EU. At a summit yesterday, she was unpleasantly surprised when European Council President Donald Tusk said parts of her plan were just not going to work. In her address today, Ms. May responded.

SOUNDCLIP

THERESA MAY: At this late stage in the negotiations, it is not acceptable to simply reject the other side's proposals without a detailed explanation and counterproposals. So we now need to hear from the EU what the real issues are, and what their alternative is, so that we can discuss them. Until we do, we cannot make progress. In the meantime, we must and will continue the work of preparing ourselves for no deal. In particular, I want to clarify our approach to two issues. First, there are over 3 million EU citizens living in the UK who will be understandably worried about what the outcome of yesterday’s summit means for their future. I want to be clear with you that even in the event of no deal your rights will be protected. You are our friends, our neighbours, our colleagues. We want you to stay. Second, I want to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that in the event of no deal we will do everything in our power to prevent a return to a hard border.

JD: British Prime Minister Theresa May speaking earlier today. Jonathan Lis is the deputy director of the pro-EU think tank and campaign group British Influence. We reached Mr. Lis in London.

CO: Mr. Lis, it seemed that Theresa May is pretty angry about how the EU has responded to her proposal. Does she have a right to be angry?

JONATHAN LIS: Not in the slightest. If she had an ounce of political judgment and was remotely cognisant into reality, she would have known that this was coming because we've been warning her about it for two years. The EU told her the day after the referendum, or told David Cameron, that the single market could not be divided. And Theresa May even acknowledged it couldn’t be divided in her speech in January last year, which is where she said we wouldn't be part of the single market. So the EU is understandably perplexed when in July, Theresa May came up with the Chequers Plan, which sought to divide the single market by keeping the UK in the single market for goods, but not in services, capital, and people. The EU is quite clear that you have to have all four freedoms of the single market and not just one of them.

CO: One of the things that she said is that she doesn't feel that the EU negotiators and Mr. Tusk really respect her. That she is being respectful of them, and there is this Instagram that Mr. Tusk put out rather insulting saying that it's picture of him and Theresa May, and offering her a piece of cake perhaps sorry, no cherries. To be so flip about it, I mean doesn't that indicate to Ms. May that they're not taking this as seriously as she is, and they're not respectful?

JL: If I had been Donald Tusk social media adviser, I wouldn't have advised that particular Instagram story it safe to say. But I think that we risk missing the big point here, which is that the EU has been absolutely respectful and clear with the UK from the get go. The EU simply told the UK was welcome to leave. The EU would be very, very sad to see it go. But that the UK would not be entitled to special privileges. If the UK wants to leave the European Union that meant the UK would be a third country. And therefore it would be treated as a third country. So what Theresa may has been seeking to do for the last two years is to have special treatment. And the EU simply have to push back and say no, we can't give you special treatment. And, of course, the other point is that the EU's key priority is not the UK but Ireland. And the UK seems not to understand that. The UK wants two things. The UK wants the EU to treat it as an equally powerful third country, which it isn't. And it also wants the EU to treat it as a member state still deserving the EU’s protection and it isn't that either. So Dublin’s prime concern is keeping an open border in Ireland. So, of course, that will be the EU’s prime concern, rather than appeasing Thersa May.

CO: Her idea that she put forward, you mentioned it, the Chequers Plan. And that is sort of across the board in the UK. And Europe is saying that it is a dead duck — it's gone. Chequers is not a plan that was ever going to fly. What is the Chequers Plan, and why is it being so universally dismissed?

JL: so the Chequers Plan, as I say, mostly it’s fine because it provides a blueprint for the UK’s proposed future relationship with the EU. But there are two key things that the EU can't accept it in it. The first, as I say, is they were to keep the UK in the single market just for good. The EU says the UK has to be in the single market for good, services, capital, and people as well. So that's the first reason. That's an absolute red line to the EU. The second reason Chequers won’t fly is because it proposes a customs arrangement for Ireland and Northern Ireland, which means that Northern Ireland and Ireland would have different tariffs. And the government in Dublin and also the EU say that would mean that some requirement for a physical infrastructure on the Irish border, which is a total red line. And so they say that Northern Ireland has to be in the customs union not in its customs arrangement. And that's another reason why Chequers won’t fly because Chequers refuses to concede the possibility of a customs union for Northern Ireland.

CO: So basically, what we’re down to is not very long before this has to be decided because the clock is ticking till March. You're still such a long way apart between the EU and the UK. And they haven't agreed what is the economic relationship between these two entities? That has not been determined, has it?

JL: Yeah, we all kind of drinking at the Last Chance Saloon here. It's very, very serious indeed. But here's the thing. There are only four options to Theresa May. The first option is a full single market and customs union for the whole UK. The second option is a border in the Irish Sea. The third option is a peoples vote, which is a new referendum for the people to check whether they actually want to do this. And the fourth option is to have no deal. And that is absolutely impossible because if they can't agree a deal, legally we leave the EU next March without any deal at all. But that will be so cataclysmic for our economy that Theresa May would never be allowed to do it. First of all, because it would mean economic chaos around Christmas — time three months beforehand. So we'd know that we're heading for disaster and people would stop it. And secondly, because there's no majority for it in Parliament. I deem the Parliament would be prepared to bring down her government rather than allow no deal scenario. So it's not in a position that there will be a deal. And that means that we go back to the power dynamics. The EU is more powerful than the UK. In a battle of red lines, the EU will win. And that means that Theresa May have to capitulate. It really depends now which we she’ll capitulate.

CO: She doesn't have many cards to play, does she?

JL: She has no cards at all. The only card she had was when to trigger Article 50 — the departure mechanism for Leaving the EU. Because a lot of people said she should bide her time. She should prepare over a course of months or years about what we do before we left. But the political circumstances dictated that she trigger it very quickly. And that has been the downfall because we weren't ready to trigger Article 50 we did, and now there's no time.

CO: What's the mood in the UK? Not just I mean in the streets and the pubs and among people, but also in the markets and business?

JL: Well, people are very, very concerned. I mean, first of all, there is the majority in Britain now to remain in the EU. And we cannot stress that enough. Every single poll that is commissioned at the moment says that there’s both majority for people's vote — a new referendum — and also to remain in the EU by perhaps a margin of 54 to 55 per cent. And this is very, very detailed polling, which is replicated in every single poll. That's one thing, but businesses are incredibly concerned because when the government talks about no deal, as Theresa May did today, they get jittery. That takes them one step closer to activating their contingency plans, which if they enacted those would lead to a crash in our economy. I mean we already saw the pound going down today when Theresa May was talking about no deal. This is incredibly irresponsible by the government because they know in their heart of hearts it is not a realistic proposal. They are playing fast and loose with people's economic lives.

CO: Alright, we will be watching. Mr. Lis, thank you.

JL: Thank you.

CO: Goodnight.

JD: Jonathan Lis is the deputy director of the group British Influence. We reached him in London.

[Music: Guitar]

Newfoundland lottery

JD: The odds of winning big on a lottery scratch card are about the same as those of catching a rare blue lobster. Phoebe and Dwayne Cox know that. They work in the lobster fishery in Wreck Cove, Newfoundland. So when the Cox couple bought a scratch ticket, which revealed they were the winners of a million dollars, they couldn't quite believe it. Here's Phoebe Cox telling the story yesterday, at the big cheque unveiling ceremony.

SOUNDCLIP

PHOEBE COX: Just stop in to pick up things, and I decided to get a couple of scratch tickets. And I picked up a $10 Crossword and an Ultra. As I get up the road, I decided to scratch my fortune. And that was not a winner. So I went up probably a kilometre or so, and I decided to scratch my Ultra. And I was in the back seat, by the way. And I started scratching, and I noticed the number 55. And then I scratched and I had 55. I thought you know what I got — I got ten dollars one time. As I was scratching and going over, I knew I had more than ten dollars because it was big number. It was a big number, and I said oh my god, Dwayne. Oh my god, Dwayne. I just won a million dollars. Dwayne, I just won a million dollars. Pheb, it's only money. Yes, Dwayne, It's only money. It's not a hundred thousand. It’s a million. We’re rich! I said, stop the car, stop the car, stop the car. So I jumped out of the car with my ticket in my hand. I was going around the road. Get in the car, Pheb!

JD: That was Phoebe Cox, describing her reaction when she scored a million dollars on a lottery scratch card. That is how all lottery winners should sound. She's going to splurge with a trip to Cuba with her husband, Dwayne — Phoebe's first-ever plane trip. The couple will also build a house to replace their mobile home. But they've got no plans to retire from the local lobster fishery — for now.

[Music: Instrumental]

Mass bird deaths

Guest: Kevin Beech

JD: As we go to air the Canadian Wildlife Service is still investigating an incident that took place last Friday. It happened near the Tsawwassen ferry terminal, south of Vancouver. The scene has now been cleaned up, but Kevin Beech isn't about to forget what happened that day. We reached Mr. Beech in Surrey.

CO: Kevin, how did you first come to notice that something very unusual was happening?

KEVIN BEECH: I was going to pick a friend of mine up from the ferry terminal, and we had some time to kill. So we went down to see a friend of mine that was on the Twassen First Nation's reservation. As we’re driving, out of the corner of my eyes, I see three or four things hit the ground really fast. And they were big, right? I'm like what the hell? Hold on a second. I get out get out, and it was like I thought it was like twenty or thirty birds, supposedly the count was 42 they picked up. There was a whole pile of them. the drove right into the ground. There were a couple left alive with like broken wings and legs. Like I'm an animal lover, right? It was horrible. There was a couple of them that had little blood pools around their heads and stuff. It was terrible — like they flew right into the ground.

CO: Just describe it again. You saw as many as 40 birds they just dropped?

KB: They flew right into the ground. That’s why I named it “Suicide Birds” on my Facebook, and it's gone completely viral.

CO: And what did you do? How did you react to this?

KB: Well, there was another lady that had seen it too. And I was like should we call the SPCA? She said that she didn’t think they would come for them. And like I said, there was only like three or four of them left alive. So I was like OK, not much we could do about it. And I took a couple pictures, and hopped back in the car, and we went down to the beach, saw my buddy for about 10 or 15 minutes, and when we drove back by they were all gone.

CO: What do you mean they're all gone?

KB: They were gone. It was really weird. But I gather the Owl Rescue Society here in the lower mainland came and picked them up. And the official count was 42.

CO: Now the Canadian Wildlife Service is investigating at this point, is that right?

KB: Yeah, it's a little bit of a weird answer. They called it a mortality event.

CO: What do they mean by a mortality event?

KB: I'm not sure what that’s supposed to mean. That sounds to me like they don't know what's going on, and just saying whatever. They just said they were aware of it. The first reporter that I talked to that contacted me for this was the one that talked to them. And when I told her exactly where it happened, she went out there with the cameraman and ended up finding three dead birds still there. And she sent them to the lab, and the results aren’t back yet. She said she would let me know, and obviously everybody else, right?

CO: Do you know what species the birds were?

KB: No, I'm not a bird person. But I was told they’re starlings or something like that.

CO: Starlings you've probably seen them. They are those extraordinary birds. You know when you see those flocks, and they're all moving in unison in those great swirls and swoops.

KB: And they do big lop-d-loops and so on and so forth, yeah. There was still a couple flocks of them flying around. The Owl Rescue centre or whatever it was like oh, it was probably migration and hunger. And I'm thinking to myself what are you talking about? There's like a million blackberry bushes right. No way these birds were hungry. And like I said, there was two other swarms flying all around all over the place, right? I don't know why I decided to drink the Kool-Aid, so to speak, and fly right into the fricking pavement. Yeah it brutal it was really creepy.

CO: Also at this time of year, I'm not an expert either, but usually birds have eaten quite a bit. They're getting ready to migrate, and starlings are migratory birds, they go south into the States. So they're usually pretty fattened up and ready to go at this point I think.

KB: Yeah, I don't know. These birds weren't skinny or malnourished anything. They looked totally fine. Like I said, it was kind of brutal, right? I'm an animal lover, and I don't see any animals hurt. I don't know why they flew into the pavement, but it was really weird.

CO: So disturbing. Were they flying? Were they swooping? Were they doing that swirly thing before?

KB: Well, I didn't see them before. I just caught like the last three or four of them hitting the ground, right? When we were looking at them there was, like I said, there was still way two or three you know a flock or whatever flying all over the place.

CO: You know I went online just to see if this is something that's happened anyplace else, and there was apparently in Penticton last March there was an incident where starlings did the same thing.

KB: Like I said, when I posted the picture on Facebook, it went absolutely viral. So many people have posted so many opinions and ideas, and so on and so forth. But there's been a lot of people who posted all sorts of weird bird events all over the world.

CO Kevin, it's very disturbing. We have on our show lots of bird lovers, bird watchers, people who know a fair bit about birds — amateurs and otherwise. So I hope to hear from some of them maybe they have some theories as to what might have happened.

KB: Yeah, and anybody that wants to, like I said, there's well over 400 shares on my Facebook is under Kebeech, and you can see the posting yourself.

CO: Well, it's good at least for you to be able to share that, and maybe get some ideas. Because I hear from you that was really quite disturbing to witness this.

KB: Yeah, like I said, I don't know the cause. Lots of people have opinions, but it's really creepy. It’s kind of like you know that Alfred Hitchcock movie with the birds? It was like that kind of creepy, you know what I mean.

CO: Poor things! Kevin, thank you.

KB: No problem.

CO: Bye bye.

KB: Bye.

JD: Kevin Beech witnessed a bird "mortality event" near Tsawwassen, British Columbia last Friday. We reached him in Surrey. The Canadian Wildlife Service is planning on conducting a necropsy to determine the cause of death of the 42 starlings, and they will have a preliminary diagnosis in the coming weeks.

[Music: Guitar]

Eel sighting

JD: And now for something completely mysterious, witnessed one-point-four kilometres below the ocean surface.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Yeah there's something dark over to the left and right in the centre. It's moving along there. Can we take a look at that?

SPEAKER TWO: What is that?

SPEAKER Three: Oh, wow!

JD: You just heard the crew aboard the exploration vessel Nautilus, which is currently sailing in waters off Hawaii. They were monitoring video being captured live by a deep-sea submersible, when into the frame slithered a lone black, slinky thing — topped with a head that looks like a golf driver. Now listen to the crew's reaction when that golf club starts to move.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A lot of people really excited]

JD: Amidst the excitement, you may have caught that what the researchers spotted was a gulper eel. It has a pouch-like mouth that it inflates to scoop up much larger prey, and to ward off potentail predators. Perhaps like a pelican. But black. And slinky. But -- and if you're freaking out, this is key — it’s very far away from you, at the bottom of the sea.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 21, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode