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 March 15, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

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: Struggling to understand. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh admits to sharing platforms with those who advocate political violence. But he says it was always about promoting understanding and inclusion.

JD: Deceit, deception and do you really have to go? Donald Trump boasts about lying to Canada's prime minister, but a former ambassador says the reality is the US president has a bit of a man-crush on Mr. Trudeau.

CO: Taking refuge. Police charge in Ontario man with multiple counts of fraud, alleging he duped Syrians into thinking they were paying for asylum in Canada.

JD: Blow by blow account. A Cape Breton woman uses an ATM and is sent scrambling after her two-thousand dollar withdrawal winds up billowing in the wind.

CO: Out of their misery. A former CIA officer says that Donald Trump's pick for the United States top spy was responsible for some of the agency's worst acts of torture.

JD: And… wouldn't know? After considerable scientific checking, scientists send the termite scuttling down from having a classification all its own to being just another awful kind of cockroach.

JD: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that figures that must have been bugging someone.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Jagmeet Singh follow-up, Puppy legislation, Syrians defrauded

Jagmeet Singh follow-up

Guest: Jagmeet Singh

JD: Old videos just keep coming back to challenge Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. Today, it's a clip from a 2016 seminar organized by the National Sikh Youth Federation. In it, Mr. Singh is sitting beside the group's co-founder, who talks about the use of violence in the struggle for Sikh identity. Here is a clip in which you can hear the NSYF co-founder Sharmsher Singh speak.

SOUNDCLIP

SHARMSHER SINGH: These two perspectives, which have become our approaches to leadership and politics, one is about sovereignty explicitly and uncompromisingly. It indorses the superiority of our culture, our language and our ideals. And it endorses violence as a legitimate form of resistance and survival. The other perspective is about conformity. It's about the commodification of our culture. It's about Sikh being broken into manageable chunks and packaged under labels such as “identity”, “symbols of faith”, “multiculturalism”, “Sikhism”. And it's a story of assimilation and political subcertaintness.

JD: From a 2016 video, that was co-founder of the National Sikh Youth Federation, Shamsher Singh speaking at a panel on Sikh sovereignty. Sitting beside him on the panel is Jagmeet Singh, who is now, of course, the federal NDP leader. Mr. Singh has also come under fire this week for speaking at a Sikh independence rally in 2015. We reached Jagmeet Singh in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Singh, we just heard the audio of the co-founder of the National Sikh Youth Federation, and he's talking about violence as a legitimate form of resistance and survival, and you were sitting right beside him. You didn't even blink. What were you thinking?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well, I think the context is important. I've heard people talk about the pain that the Sikh community has endured, and different ways of responding to that. So I wasn't surprised. I think it's important to have some context. Leading up to ’94, there was state crackdown on the rights of the Sikh community. And then in ’84, there was a massive military attack on a place of significant importance — a revered place where thousands of civilians were killed. And then subsequently, after a month later, there was an assassination of the prime minister by the Sikh bodyguards that resulted in state-organized collective punishment of Sikhs where thousands were killed in a four day period, which constituted a genocide. And in some people in that pain and trauma talk about ways of responding to that in ways that I don't approach.

CO: But you know you're at an event that's about sovereignty, and you know you're sitting beside Sharmsher Singh. And his organization, and many like him, they believe that there is a legitimate call for violence in the efforts to acquire an independent Sikh homeland — the Khalistan. Do you support him? Because he's not talking about stuff ten years ago or 20 years or 40 years ago, he's talking about right now — this is part of their drive. Do you support his views that he feels that violence may be a necessary tool in order to achieve a Sikh homeland?

JS: Well, I've condemned terrorism and acts of terrorism. So I've made my position clear. But what I want to speak to is that I do understand where that pain and trauma comes from. Even though the violence perpetrated against Sikhs is in the ‘80s and ‘90s, that trauma and pain from that continues. I mean think about the fact that every Sikh I know has experienced personally someone in their family or a friend that's been killed by the government or by military.

CO: So you understand why he might feel that he needs to use force and violence in order to achieve an end?

JS: Well, that's why I understand that the trauma exists — that that pain exists.

CO: OK, that's the question is do you understand why he would think that violence is a legitimate means to an end?

JS: No, so I'm telling you, so I understand why people feel the pain and the trauma. And sometimes in responding to that pain and trauma, people respond in different ways. My approach is different. I used this opportunity to talk about my own experience. Growing up as a kid, I felt that same sort of isolation and marginalization that people who looked just like me, who had the same name as me, who believed in the same traditions, I believed in were targeted and killed. That hurts. That makes you feel like there's something wrong with you. It makes you feel shameful. And so I've used that feeling of being marginalized into something positive. So if I'm given the opportunity to speak at an event or a space where I know I can connect with people about my story. Let's build a society where no one is left out, where no one is marginalized.

CO: But this isn't just a session where people are telling their stories and their memories. This was an event called Sovereignty and Polity. So the question, which was about Khalistan — it was about an independent Sikh homeland. Yes or no, do you support an independent Sikh homeland?

JS: That's a great question. Let's talk about that. So, I’ve very clearly and openly advocated that it is people's right to talk about self-governance, increased autonomy, self-determination. These are things that are absolutely legitimate to talk about. I've also made it very clear that as a leader of a federal party in Canada, my position on Canada is a united Canada. I'm very clear on that. But I don't weigh into whether or not people in Scotland should vote for independence or not. I absolutely have said that in Catalonia, people have the right to talk about their self-governance and their self-determination and what they want to make of their future. I've defended that right. But I've not said that Catalonia should vote one way or another. Similarly, in India, I’ve absolutely supported the right for people to talk about the pain that they suffered. I've just made it clear that it's not my position to decide whether one should go one way or another.

CO: But let's talk about this other video from 2015, and that's also been published by The Globe this week. You were at an event where it is a big poster of a man who's considered to be the founder of the Khalistani movement, and who used violence to that end. And you're talking on that stage. It's about another sovereignty rally, and you said, this is a quote, “We are talking about this because, in our country, where we live, the country intentionally tried to wipe us out in that country. It was a planned process.” You say that you don't want to interfere in another country's events. You're Canadian, so why are you there talking about our country being India, and our intentions, our aspirations? Are you not at a Khalistani rally? I mean what are we supposed to make of that?

JS: Well, this is what we make of it: the understanding of how that feels. Like, if you put yourself into that shoes, the feeling of being in a place where your parents are from a place where you should be protected by your government and how that feels to be singled out, targeted and attacked to kind of put oneself in those shoes, imagine how that happened in Canada. How would that feel? So using the language the descriptive way to really get inside the feelings of the emotions of what that feels like.

CO: To what end? To what end were you doing that? Trying to get inside those emotions? What were you trying to get across?

JS: Well, this is what I always do: first of all, you know the pictures that you're talking about I should also talked about that. Most gurdwaras across the world have pictures of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. In the Golden Temple complex, there's a memorial in the complex to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. The prime minister attended there. No one asked him his position on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale because it's a complex situation. When I'm at the event, I'm talking about how we can channel that frustration and talk about the wrongs of the government at a time when people sometimes fall into communal violence and talk about a Hindu-Sikh conflict, which is very divisive. I want people to focus in on it was never violence between two communities. It was something organized by the government.

CO: But people are cheering “Khalistan, Khalistan”. So the question we keep coming back to: do you support the idea of Khalistan? Would you like to see a Sikh state called Khalistan established in South Asia? Would you like to see that?

JS: Yes, so I've answered the question. I'm happy to do it again. I made it very clear I support the dialogue and the conversation about self-governance, improving governance, improving autonomy and even self-determination. Those conversations are important.

CO: But you don't believe in carving out a separate state for Sikhs?

JS: So, self-determination is a question that people can make. Whether it's carving out a free Scotland or carving out a Catalonia, these are questions that the people living in Scotland, living in Catalonia and the people living in Punjab can answer those questions. I am very, very clearly in support of the dialogue. The decision is not mine to make. And I don't have an input on that decision.

CO: You've said it many times you are against all forms of terrorism. But as you know, the the man sitting next to you in the event in 2016, the people around you on the stage in 2015, they don't believe that armed struggle is terrorism. They believe that if they have to use violence in order to achieve the means, that is a form of freedom fighting, that they are not terrorists, that violence is not terrorism. Would you agree? Would you think that what Mr. Bhindranwale did, or any of the people who take up arms for the sake of Khalistan are they terrorists or are they freedom fighters?

JS: Well, I think now you're getting into the complexity, and that's important for us to touch on this complexity because if you've got a scenario where there's been historic and ongoing violence perpetrated against the minority community by the military, by the state, then people talking about how to defend themselves this is a reality. Some people talked about how do we defend ourselves when the state is killing and murdering and slaughtering people of a minority community? It's a legitimate conversation to have and to talk about. Some people disagree with that. The point is that it's complex.

CO: What about you? I'm asking what you think about it?

JS: Well, that's my point is that you're trying to simplify something that is complex. The complexity is how do we talk about a situation where there's a genocide against a community? How do we talk about a situation where the military might of a country went into a place of prayer and killed thousands of civilians?

CO: I understand that context is very important, but the thing is that this is a question: are the people who take up arms for Khalistan — who advocate violence for Khalistan — and they say that they're not doing it as terrorists — this is armed struggle that’s necessary for the cause. As was the man standing beside you talking in that event in 2016, do you agree with him — do you agree that there's a reason to take up arms for Khalistan, and that would that be terrorism?

JS: I think this is exactly why I need to attend events like this. And when I was a kid growing up, I felt a lot of the pain and frustration and a lot of the trauma that comes from being a marginalized community, a member of marginalized immunity. And so I've talked about what are the peaceful ways forward? What are the ways forward constructively? What are the ways that we can deal with that pain and that hurt, and channel that into something positive? I've talked about how that means we need to build a society that is inclusive. A society where there are social programs that lift everyone up. Why we need to have pharmacare and affordable housing.

CO: I'm sorry, the reason I cut you off because you keep repeating many points. What I want to understand is do you see a legitimate place for armed struggle within that? Within that effort to create that society for Sikhs, do you see a place for armed struggle as the people you’ve been onstage with advocate?

JS: So and you keep coming back to the same question, and I'm giving you the context. What you're asking for is a simple answer to a complex situation.

CO: I guess I am asking for a simple answer. Yes or no, do you support armed struggle in the interest of Khalistan?

JS: Listen, I can tell you a couple of things. One is I denounce terrorism.

CO: But I’m not talking about terrorism. They don't regard this as terrorism.

JS: Our conversation is going to require that you have to listen a bit too. You can interrupt me a lot, but at some point, you’re going have to listen as well if you want me to answer a question.

CO: OK, sir. All right.

JS: I mean I'm happy for you to interrupt, but there’s got to be a point where you have to let me answer my question too. So if you're asking about the situation where people took up arms, this is a complex situation. What are the answers? I don't know the answers to the response to a government and a military that are singling out and slaughtering people because of their minority community status, because of their religion. The question is very complex. The scenario is very complex. It doesn't merit a simple “yes, no” answer. It merits a thoughtful approach to what is the trauma? What is the pain? Why are people feeling that way? Well, there are massive civil and human rights violations. If there are massive violations of human rights, what are the responses to that? I know that what I can do is talk about my experiences. And my experiences are I know that there's pain and there's trauma associated with feeling that way. And my response is to talk about how we can move forward in a way that's peaceful, and that is a reconciliatory matter.

CO: And can you understand why Canadians would like to hear you clearly say in this interview an answer to my question that you denounce violence for the sake of Khalistan? That you denounce an armed struggle — armed resistance — within whatever context you want to give? Canadians would like to know if you denounce violence toward the end of creating an independent Khalistan.

JS: Well, I mean what we're looking at is something I can very clearly say: I've condemned terrorism.

CO: I'm not talking about terrorism. I’m asking about violence and armed struggle because you yourself have made it clear that there's a difference — this is not terrorism.

JS: If we're talking about how people resist violence has been perpetrated against them, I don't know what the proper response is. I know that when people talk about would we ask a black president to condemn someone like Malcolm X? In the history of the black community, Malcolm X is someone that's a controversial figure who fought for civil liberties, but also talked about issues that people would say were controversial and perhaps militant. These are issues that are complex and don't merit a “yes, no” answer. There is a reality of oppression that was faced by African-Canadians, and what the appropriate response is you know it's not something that we could just sit down and say “yes” or “no”. We have to look at the scenario in a thoughtful manner.

CO: In an interview with Terry Milewski — my colleague at CBC — last October, you're asked if it was appropriate to put up posters in honour of Talwinder Singh Parmar, the man who's been concluded as being the mastermind of the Air India bombing. He, Terry, asked you five times to answer whether you condemn that, and you didn't answer. Will you tell us if you denounce the people who hold up Talwinder Singh Parmar as a martyr?

JS: Yes, I can definitely answer that question. I really appreciate the question. So first off, anytime we talk about the Air India bombing, we just have to take a moment to reflect on how this was the worst terrorist act in Canadian history. There was an inquiry that was conducted. The inquiry did not find anyone at the end of the inquiry guilty of the offence. But the inquiry did identify Talwinder Singh Parmar. I accept the findings of this inquiry, and I condemn all those responsible, including who they've identified.

CO: Well, you finally told Terry Milewski that you don't know who is responsible for the Air India bombing. Do you still feel that way?

JS: Well, it's clear that after the inquiry, no one was found guilty. This is something that people find very painful that there's no closure. So yes, there are questions that were not answered. But, at the end of the day, I've said very clearly that the inquiry did point to and did identify a single individual. I accept that. But there is certainly questions that people continue to have about why there's no further convictions made? Why there is no one else brought to justice? These are legitimate questions that people have.

CO: There are those who believe and have said that they think the Indian government was behind it. Do you support theories that the Indian government was behind the Air India bombing?

JS: I think as long as you understand my position, I accept the inquiry. At the same time, I can tell you that because of this history of oppression, of genocide, of violence where the state was the aggressor and the state was the organizer of this violence, there are some in the community — in the Sikh community — that don't accept the official record. But I'm telling you that I accept the inquiry, and I accept the results inquiry. And I can tell you why some people don't accept the results of the inquiry. And why some people don't accept the official record. But beyond that, I mean I can only tell you what the inquiry came up with. The inquiry has certain results.

CO: When you were asked at that time by Terry about Talwinder Singh Parmar, you later said that the questions were racist. Do you still feel that way?

JS: Well, at the time, at the first day that I was elected as leader, I didn't see the relevance of that line of questioning. As federal leader though, I'm open to any questions. And I think your questions are completely fine and appropriate. And anyone's allowed to ask me any question they want. I put myself out there as a federal leader of a party. And I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone may have.

CO: And I appreciate you answering our questions, Mr. Singh. Thank you.

JS: No problem.

JD: We reached federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh in Ottawa.

Puppy legislation

JD: US Senator John Kennedy is marking his line in the sand. The Republican from Louisiana has decided that the senseless killings in his country must end. And so, this morning in Washington, D.C. he introduced the W-O-O-F-F Act. If you haven't been following the big issues in the US capitol, that's the "Welfare Of Our Furry Friends" Act — or WOOFF. The Senator promised the bill after news broke that a dog had died on a United Airlines flight — this one a puppy that had been put into an overhead bin. Senator Kennedy wasn't pulling any punches yesterday when he spoke to CNN.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN KENNEDY: What happened on United was disgraceful. This was a ten-month-old puppy; it belonged to a little 11-year-old girl. They'd paid 125 bucks to bring Coquito — that was the puppy's name — on the plane, and I don't know what happened. But I do know that three-quarters of all the pet deaths on planes every year — and customers are paying to bring their pets on the plane — that aught to tell you how much they love their dog. Three-quarters have happened on a United flight. I don't particularly enjoy having to legislate or trying to legislate common decency. But by God, I'm going to do it until they take this Seriously.

JD: The legislation Senator Kennedy introduced today would protect pets from being placed in the overhead luggage because, as he points out, dogs and cats are family. Now, however, the Senator is being asked about the protection of some other family members: children being killed in school shootings across the United States. The Senator enjoys an A-rating from the National Rifle Association. And in the wake of last month's shooting in Florida, CNN's John Berman asked him this.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN BERMAN: In order to get to that spirit, in order to achieve that spirit, in order to achieve anything, is there any gun measure — any legislation — you could conceive of supporting.

JK: I don't think we need more gun control laws.

JB: Not a single one?

JK: No, I think we need more idiot control.

JD: After that, Senator Kennedy's swift action on protecting pets in his WOOFF Act didn't seem to line up with everyone's sense of priorities. Entrepreneur and Army veteran Fred Wellman tweeted, quote, "Sooooo....a single puppy dies on a plane and you introduce a Bill in two days. 17 people die and we don't even have hearings. Real profile in courage." Unquote.

Syrians defrauded

Guest: Jon Williams

JD: Eight families all fled the war in Syria — all were desperate to come to Canada. And now, police believe they've all been the victims of a Canadian scam. And they may not be alone. This week, Halton Regional Police charged Bashar Abdulahad of Burlington, Ontario with eight counts of fraud over 5-thousand dollars. Mr. Abdulahad is accused of bilking money from the would-be refugees. Detective-Constable Jon Williams is on the case. We reached him in Oakville.

CO: Detective-Constable Williams, how did this scam work?

JON WILLIAMS: Well, our accused, Bashar Abdulahad, has a number of contacts in the Middle East, as he's Iraqi descent. And it seems that he used friends of his over in Qatar to introduce himself to various desperate Syrian families as someone who could provide a co-sponsorship through a church here in Burlington for them to become refugees in Canada.

CO: And they would wire him money?

JW: Yes, so the arrangement that would be made, in his words, they would front the costs for the refugee sponsorship, and wire him the money. And then through fundraising that he would do with the church, he would reimburse them upon their arrival in Canada.

CO: And how much money is he alleged to have extorted?

JW: Well, we have eight victims at present. And the amount for those eight families is around 230,000 Canadian dollars. But we believe there are dozens more families, and that the money would be considerably more.

CO: And all the victims are in Qatar.

JW: Yes, so far. I believe there are other families that are in other countries, but all of the victims that I have currently are in Qatar.

CO: Was there anything in common with them? Were they all related? Or were there similar stories? What can you tell us about the actual families who are victims of this alleged crime?

JW: Well, I can tell you that they all seem to come from the same region in Syria, and they all know each other in one way or another just through social networks, which is how word spread about Mr. Abdulahad, which led to more victims being victimized. It seems also the majority of them are actually working as engineers over in Qatar on various government projects, and they're all highly-educated individuals.

CO: And these would be likely targets because they would possibly have the money that the man was trying to extort?

JW: Well, actually, what I'm told from my victims is that most of them — if not all — had to borrow various sums of money from lenders to send to him. So now not only are they out of an opportunity to come to Canada, but they're out a significant sum of money as well.

CO: Why do you think they trusted him?

JW: Sheer desperation. They're very educated people, having spoken to them. So it wasn't a lack of educational or simple-mindedness on their part. But they have families with children. They’re in a country that doesn't have the same human rights that we enjoy here in Canada. And they were desperate to not be sent back to Syria, and to come to a country that would be safe to raise their children.

CO: And by virtue of being in Qatar they are refugees — is that their classification?

JW: Yes, I believe so. It’s a bit more complicated than it is here. They don't get to stay there indefinitely. Apparently, the government in Qatar changes the rules in regards to the Syrian refugees as of when they see fit, including taxation and so forth, which is another reason that they were so desperate to move on elsewhere.

CO: So how vulnerable are they?

JW: The accused in this matter has targeted the most vulnerable members of the globe. They are family people, desperate to escape a horrible situation.

CO: What was the service that Mr. Abdulahad was allegedly offering them?

JW: He wasn't even offering a service per se like he wasn't portraying himself to be an immigration consultant. He was portraying himself to be a member of a church that could be charitable and assist them in co-sponsoring them through this church. And then help with fund raising to get them over here. He was portraying himself to be a charitable member of society.

CO: Since all the victims are in Qatar, how did you find out about it? How did this come to the attention of the police?

JW: Well, a private citizen in Toronto, who has asked not to be named, he attempts to help marginalized communities in Toronto, as well as sponsoring refugees — in this case, obviously, Syrians. And just through the circle that he works with and other charitable organizations, he heard about this story and reached out to the one English-speaking victim that I had and started to gather information. He then passed the information onto myself to begin an investigation.

CO: And the person he did contact were they already becoming suspicious? Why would they flag this as being something? Or did he flag it to them?

JW: The fraud actually occurred in the beginning of 2016. And a considerable amount of time had passed, and they obviously hadn't received any sponsorship. And upon asking for their money to be returned, Bashar Abdulahad was obviously refusing to do so. So they became suspicious and, in fact, it was just a scam just.

CO: Just as far as you know, will these families be able to come to Canada? Was there any paperwork done for them? Since they've been waiting since 2016 having given over all their money, what hope do they have of coming here now?

JW: Well, unless they've begun other avenues to arrive in Canada, which I don't think most of them have — if any of them. They don't have any chance of coming to Canada at this point unless someone else can become a sponsor. I'm not even sure if the sponsorship arrangement that our government put in place a short period of time ago is still in action. So as of right now, they're stuck in a pretty awful situation.

CO: And you think there are more of them — more victims in Qatar?

JW: I'm certain there are more victims, yeah.

CO: Any idea how many you think?

JW: Well, one of my victims believes that he knows of 27 different families. And I have obviously only identified eight of those. I would say there are at least another two dozen.

CO: How much money was each family handing over?

JW: It really would depend on case-to-case. I would say on average was around about $35,000 Canadian.

CO: Good heavens! And you do you suspect are there any more charges coming? Any more people you may be charging?

JW: Well, we certainly have more investigation to continue. We conducted a search warrant on Mr. Abdulahad’s house yesterday, in which we took some computers and other devices. So there may well be more charges in the future.

CO: It’s very distressing. Detective-Constable Williams, I appreciate you telling us.

JW: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye

JD: Detective-Constable John Williams is with the Halton Regional Police Service. We reached him in Oakville, Ontario.

Part two: Trump trade comments, new CIA head

Trump trade comments

Guest: Frank McKenna

JD: Let's say you're having a disagreement with someone. A bit of a debate and you don't have all the facts right there in front of you — or maybe at all. And in the heat of the moment, you just...well, you make things up, don’t ya? Because it feels really good to win an argument. Well, that's basically what Donald Trump says did this month, in a discussion over trade with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In fact, he boasted about it at a fundraising speech in Missouri. The President didn't realize that event was being recorded by The Washington Post. He described telling the Prime Minister that the U.S. runs a trade deficit with Canada, without knowing if that was true or not. It’s not. Frank McKenna is Canada's former ambassador to the U.S. We reached him in Toronto.

CO: Mr. McKenna, when you first read these reports that President Trump just made this up, what did you think?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, it's pretty stunning. I had to laugh for a bit. You know the media who follow him closely have found over 2,000 instances where they feel that he's been lying. But this to my knowledge is the first time that he's ever admitted that he actually just makes stuff up.

CO: But didn't just admit it — he was bragging about it.

FM: Yeah, well let's consider the context. This wasn't an on-the-record speech; this was an off-the-record fundraiser where locker room rules seem to apply. And I guess he didn't know that he was being taped, so he's pretty candid. And yeah, he was bragging about it. And I think the important thing as to why this matters is the question of whether we have a trade surplus or deficit has been made a litmus test by the United States. That is their standard as to whether trading partners are naughty or nice. We've been saying — not only Canada but his own Council of Economic Advisers, the Census Bureau and the Office of the U.S. Trade Commission — have all been saying that they have a surplus with Canada. So now he admits that he's just making it up when he says the contrary.

CO: And now just to give the quote — this is what he said to his Missouri audience — he said, “Trudeau came to see me. He's a good guy, Justin. He said no, no, we have no trade deficit with you, Donald, please! And I said wrong, Justin, you do. But I didn't even know — I had no idea.

FM: It’s pretty incredible. It makes it a little bit tough negotiating. I admire Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Chrystia Freeland and the rest of the people there who have been so very disciplined and restrained in negotiating on behalf of Canada. They've done a terrific job.

CO: But how can you negotiate with that? I mean if it's just some sort of a game where you make stuff up just what is it to bully him, to tease him, to knock off his guard what would be the purpose?

FM: Well, it’s a style that he is used to. But in the world that I inhabited, both politics and diplomacy, it's something that endears you to your counter parties. And I think Canada and the rest of the world are probably going to follow the admonition of the great American legislator Daniel Monohan when he said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. And I think I think a lot of counter parties like Canada are going to say look, let's get an independent fact finder here so that we can at least agree on the facts.

CO: I guess the two parts of this are, first of all, that he was telling Mr. Trudeau and the Canadians no, you're wrong. I know there's this trade deficit. But that he would think that this would entertain his audience — that this would make him appear savvy or something. What possible message would it send to his supporters in Missouri to say that he lied?

FM: Well, I’ve done an awful lot of political speeches in my life, and your interest is more to amuse them than to educate them. And when you look at the rest of his speech, he talked about immigration, about other trading partners around the world. He just talked about a whole host of things, all of which are controversial in their own right. So I think it was all intended for entertainment.

CO: But how concerned would other countries be to hear this if they're going to go into their own negotiations? When Mr. Trump says that he is the one that wants to lead things say even with North Korea, I mean how dangerous is this kind of a strategy?

FM: So if you're North Korea, you've got two issues. One, you've got a president who's going to negotiate with you that says this. But you've also got a president that's threatening to tear up the Iranian deal, which was based on trust and put together painstakingly, including China and Russia and all of our other allies. So North Korea might say well, what is the word of this president worth? The only deal of the same kind that he's done he wants to tear up. And he said openly that he often speaks without knowing the facts.

CO: We learned that Mr. Trump is replacing his ex-economic adviser, Gary Cohn. He's got Larry Kudlow coming in — a very blunt-talking to former Wall Street analyst — and he doesn't agree with Mr. Trump on tariffs. And he thinks NAFTA is a good thing. He thinks it would be “calamitously bad decisions” is the quote if they should ever tear it up. Should this be of some comfort to Canadian negotiators?

FM: Some. He was very blunt. I think he was out again today to say why are we fighting with Canada? They’re our pals. But we have to remember that Mr. Cohn was of a similar view and Tillerson. And so their opinions didn't seem to hold much sway with the president. And we also have to remember he's surrounded by some anti-trade flamethrowers. So it's good to have somebody like Larry Kudlow who's got a big personality and has strong views there. But it's not necessarily determinative of the issue.

CO: though he is a pal to Canada — that’s what he says. But he's also called Prime Minister Trudeau a “left-wing crazy guy”. Is that going to help us?

FM: Look, if I went back through the last 50 years, I could find worse than that. Our president's been called a “son of a b” and the US president has been called “a bastard”. And Lyndon Johnson once lifted Lester Pearson up by the lapels and held them up and said, “Don't you ever come here and piss on my rug again.” So if you go through the litany of relationships, there's a lot of salty language that's been exchanged. What's more important than all of that is that Kudlow believes in free trade. He believes the steel and aluminum tariffs are stupid. And he believes that NAFTA is absolutely essential, and that Canada is just best friend, ally and trading partner of the United States.

CO: Prime Minister Trudeau hasn't responded to the president's admission of lying to him. Should he respond?

FM: Look, on this file, I think the Prime Minister has really played it right. And I know from people who are close to President Trump, President Trump actually likes Trudeau a lot. And one person told me it's a bit of a bromance; he's got a bit of a man-crush on Trudeau, and probably would like to be like Justin Trudeau. And Trudeau has played it very cool. And he's not been provocative. And not risen to the bait ever. And I think that's smart until we get these negotiations behind us. There's a lot at stake here. And Canada, to their credit, have put their shoulder to the wheel, and showed huge discipline — great discipline.

CO: All right. We will be watching. Mr. McKenna, thank you.

FM: OK, thank you.

JD: Frank McKenna is Canada's former ambassador to the United States. Currently, he is the Deputy Chair of TD Bank Group. We reached him in Toronto. We have more on the story on our website.

Blowing money

JD: Suzanne MacIntyre can't get the image out of her head: thousands of her hard-earned dollars, flying away in the wind. On Tuesday, the Cape Bretoner was taking money out of the ATM in Port Hawkesbury. Two-thousand dollars in cash; she put the money in her purse, the wind took it away. Here's Ms. MacIntyre describing the story to CBC reporter Wendy Martin.

SOUNDCLIP

SUZANNE MACINTYRE: And at first, maybe a couple or three seconds, I didn't realize that what I was seeing flying in the wind I was trying to you know stay upright and go towards the car. And I thought wow, what a gust of wind! You know look at those fliers or papers. And after a couple of seconds I went oh my God, that's my money! And just started running, and there were some people in the parking lot that must have heard me say oh my God, that's my money! And they started running towards the flying bills. A lot of it just blew directly across the highway. It was cold, it was misty and the wind just blowing a gale. And there was another young lady that was finding like a bill or two in a puddle or in a snowbank. And there was an older gentleman that came, and he went across the highway. Then the two ladies with the little boy went across the highway. And they searched all the alders and bushes. There's kind of a walking path there. You know all of them that came to me just surrendered the money. Nobody even thought to keep anything for themselves. And I was so grateful and thanking them. And they stayed for a long time — like some stayed 20 minutes. And the gentleman stayed 45 minutes.

WENDY MARTIN: So how much do you think you managed to get back?

SM: Probably close to half. It was taking time because the wind you know you take a step forward and it was blowing you back. I came home, and I thought well, I'll call the RCMP. They made a call that a gentleman had brought in some more money that he had found. You know good Samaritans all around. You wouldn't see that anywhere. You know a lot of people would have felt they had a big windfall — no pun intended. And just said well, you know too bad for her, but this is a lot of money. She must have a lot of money. That would have been the wrong assumption.

JD: Suzanne MacIntyre, describing to the CBC's Wendy Martin how a strong gust in Port Hawkesbury swept two-thousand dollars in cash out of her hand, and into that fresh, crisp Cape Breton air.

New CIA head

Guest: John Kiriakou

[Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that Gina Haspel oversaw a black site CIA prison while suspected al-Qaeda extremist Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded. It has since come to light that she did not take charge of the prison until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.]

JD: Donald Trump's pick for the next head of the CIA may have some trouble getting past Senate. Gina Haspel would be the first female director the CIA. But she was also at the agency during the early days of George W. Bush's war on terror. And she ran a so-called dark site where detainees were waterboarded and subjected to other enhanced interrogation techniques. That had Republican Senator Rand Paul saying this yesterday.

SOUNDCLIP

RAND PAUL: Particularly troubling I think is this quote her time there, and from the time when the torture was actually occurring. The quote from one of the interrogators says that Gina Haspel said, “Good job. I like the way you're drooling.” This is about Zubaydah, as he was being waterboarded. “It adds to the realism. I'm almost buying it. You wouldn't think a grown man would do that.” When you read that, sort of the joyful glee at someone who's being tortured, I find it just amazing that anyone would consider having this woman at the head of the CIA.

JD: John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer, and anti-torture whistleblower. We reached Mr. Kiriakou in Washington.

CO: Mr. Kiriakou, what do you make of Gina Haspel’s nomination to be the head of the CIA?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: I'm sickened by this nomination. I think this is exactly the wrong message to send to the CIA workforce, to our allies around the world and even to terrorists.

CO: Why isn't she fit for the job in your view?

JK: Well, first of all, let me say that I think it's wonderful that this president or any other president wants to name a woman as the director of the CIA. The CIA has been led for 71 years by white men. Great idea! But there are dozens of other women across government who are qualified for this job and would probably make terrific CIA directors. Gina Haspel is not one of those women. When you name a woman, who was integral to the CIA's torture program that tells the CIA workforce that you can go ahead and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity and still get ahead in your career. And indeed you can even be promoted to director of the CIA. So you don't have to follow the rules. You don't have to obey the Constitution or your oath to uphold the Constitution. You can just do whatever you want.

CO: I know you have limitations, but what can you tell us about her involvement with torture at the CIA?

JK: Well, I think it's been relatively well documented in the Senate torture report. I can't go into things like the location of the secret prison or what exactly it was that she was doing there other than what we know publicly. That she was the director. But I mean that ought to be bad enough. And another thing that we do know that I believe is a criminal act that Gina Haspel committed is that it was Gina Haspel who made the order — who wrote the cable — to the secret site, ordering them to destroy the videotaped evidence of the torture sessions. She had been specifically told by the CIA's general counsel and by the White House counsel to not destroy the tapes, and she did it anyway.

CO: And her nickname is “Bloody Gina”. Do you know how she earned that?

JK: Yeah, in the halls of the CIA in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Gina was very quick to advocate the use of force. She was very quick to advocate the use of torture techniques, which she was calling enhanced interrogation techniques. You heard Senator Paul in that clip at the start of the segment. What kind of human being even talks like that? Now, if Gina Haspel really said those words to Abu Zubaydah after he had been waterboarded — after his heart stopped beating because of the torture he endured — then shame on her for saying it. And shame on us for thinking that she should be the CIA director.

CO: The term enhanced interrogation is something that she wasn't the only one to use. That was a common language during that program. And was there any actionable intelligence ever gleaned from any of these torture sessions?

JK: You know that's the most important questions that we ought to be asking. The answer very simply is no. The Senate torture report documented very, very clearly using primary source CIA documents that the only actionable intelligence that was gleaned was collected by FBI agent Ali Soufan, who used a tried-and-true FBI method of engaging in a conversation with the prisoner, of establishing a rapport, establishing a relationship and then allowing the prisoner to open up over a period of time. Once Abu Zubaydah was turned over to CIA custody for interrogation, and the torture began, he clammed up, and he never provided any actionable intelligence that saved any American lives or disrupted any attacks.

CO: From those who have described it, it is the most gruesome thing to see this kind of torture — waterboarding — would she have witnessed that?

JK: Probably not. There was another female officer who went up to the secret site just so she could witness it. She wanted to sit in the room while Abu Zubaydah was being waterboarded. She somehow extracted pleasure from that. That was documented in the Senate torture report. There's no evidence that that Gina was in the room when Abu Zubaydah was tortured. But she was the overall head of that entire process.

CO: She would have known what it did. That it was not just interrogation. That this was torture.

JK: She would have known in intimate detail because don't forget when the torturers finished their workday, and they write these cables to headquarters saying exactly how it was laid out and what Abu Zubaydah said during the course of the torture, it's Gina that's ultimately signing off on those cables.

CO: Do we have any idea how Donald Trump views the use of torture or enhanced interrogation as the code is? Would he support that?

JK: Well, we do know because in the immediate aftermath of the election, when he was trying to assemble a cabinet, he said that — and this was an exact quote — he said that he would, “bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse.” And then in the days after that comment, he was counseled by then General Mattis — now Secretary of Defense Mattis — and General Kelly — who's now his chief of staff — that torture did not work, and that they could get more information from a prisoner if they offered him a cigar and a cup of tea than they could by torturing him.

CO: You went to prison as a whistleblower on this torture program, what does it mean to you that you spent two years in prison and the person who was doing the torture is now going to run the CIA?

JK: Well, that's the sick irony of our society, isn't it? But that's OK because I embrace my position as a whistleblower. I don't really want to be a whistleblower, but this is the hand that I've been dealt. And so I have a soapbox now. And I have to take advantage of that soapbox to explain to the American people why this is such a disastrous appointment. Why this is bad for the country. It's bad for the CIA. And it's bad for our allies.

CO: Mr. Kiriakou, I appreciate speaking with you thank you.

JK: Thanks for having me.

JD: John Kiriakou is a former CIA officer, and an anti-torture whistleblower. We reached in Washington.

Termite cockroaches

JD: When I remind you that Pluto is no longer a planet officially, do you feel sad? I do; poor, tragic Pluto, 7-point-5 billion kilometres away — demoted by persnickety, stuffed-shirt astronomers. But when I tell you that termites are no longer officially termites, you feel nothing, nor do I. Stupid, destructive termites, probably never more than a few metres away — demoted by sensible, well-informed entomologists. The decision was a long time coming. 84 years ago, scientists examining the guts of termites found a particular microbe that also lives in the guts of cockroaches. That was a clue to a truth summed up in the title of a 2007 research paper: "Death of an order: a comprehensive molecular phylogenetic study confirms that termites are eusocial cockroaches". It's been 11 years since we all read that paper, so here's a refresher: the authors' analysis revealed that termites were not, in fact, their own order — Isoptera — but merely a branch on the family tree of that most resilient and disgusting of nature's jerks: the cockroach. Now, it's official. The Entomological Society of America has just merged the termite order with the cockroach order — meaning, essentially, that termites are cockroaches. Of course, as termite researcher Thomas Chouvenc points out, quote, "If you have a termite infestation in your house, but the pest control company comes and says 'you have cockroaches in your house,' how confusing would this be? For common use, termite will remain termite." Unquote. Fine. But now we know who you really are now, termites. Nothing more than roaches. You can bite all the fancy wood you want, but your special status just bit the dust. And you'll never get it back — knock on wood.

Part three: Encore: Tom Wilson

JD: From an early age, Tom Wilson remembers feeling like he was living in a mystery novel. The Hamilton, Ontario musician always had a lot of questions for his parents. Why were they so much older than his friends' parents? Why didn't they have any photos of him as a newborn? For decades, the Steeltown troubadour has been making music with bands like Junkhouse, Blackie and the Rodeo Kings, and Lee Harvey Osmond. But the mystery was always there. Despite all his success and fame, Mr. Wilson felt like he didn't really know himself. Last November, Tom Wilson joined Carol in studio to talk about his new memoir -- "Beautiful Scars: Steeltown Secrets, Mohawk Skywalkers and the Road Home" -- and how he came to learn the truth of who he was and where he came from. Here's an encore presentation of their conversation.

CO: Tom Wilson, welcome to As It Happens.

TOM WILSON: I'm thrilled.

CO: This is an astonishing book.

TW: Oh my Gosh.

CO: It is, yeah. But you know pop stars — musicians — write memoirs, it's not uncommon. And they're usually writing about all the good times and all the famous people they knew and how exciting everything was. “Beautiful Scars” is not that book.

TW: No, I never considered writing that kind of book. I think it was played around with when I met with Random House at first. And I wanted something that was poetic and real. And in this story of my life and my family and the lives around it, I was the last man standing. So as the last man standing, I had a responsibility to the truth — my truth, or my version of the truth — or the way I saw my life. And that didn't really involve you know hanging out with Bob Dylan or riding Sarah McLachlan around on my shoulders through a party…

CO: Which you did.

TW: Which I did, of course.

CO: But the thing is it is so raw I mean. And so you just lay yourself bare on this one. But how difficult was that for you? And what motivated you to want to reveal so much pain?

TW: I guess I got asked to do that. I always go along with the theory that just because someone asks you a question doesn't mean you have to answer it. Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. But sometimes people ask you to do things and at exactly the right time in your life where you think it's right — where you want to reveal yourself. And I did. I revealed basically… you can excuse my French, I showed my arse in public. And the thing about this is when you show your arse in public, sometimes you've got to pull down other people's pants too, you know? And as a result, you know I guess I will come up against some adversaries on this.

CO: George — your dad — is a more mysterious character. Bunny is just larger than life. She's so much part of your growing up. But George's is in the background, isn't he?

TW: Yeah, he was always kind of in the background. But he was still you still in charge. He still had the steering wheel on Bunny. When he spoke, she really listened. And their relationship I think at some point in the book, I say you know Bunny would make these announcements to me as a kid. One of them was. Well, if your father wasn't blind, we wouldn't have stuck together, you know what I mean? Which is a lot of people's stories in marriages. If we didn't have kids, we wouldn't be together. If this hadn't happened, we never would have been together. You know I was just a kid and kind of you know I mostly walked around as a child with my jaw dragging on the hardwood floors of East 36th Street, you know? Because some of the things she said were just madness, you know? With her and her own admittance, and maybe I dragged some of that to this book, you know? Since I do say I was the last man standing, maybe I brought some of her candidness and her truthfulness, you know? I brought those to the page myself.

CO: You do suspect quite early on in your life that while Bunny and George are your parents, that Bunny is not really your mother.

TW: No.

CO: What were your first clues? What were your first indications that led you to believe or first suspect that you were not born to these people?

TW: Well, four-years-old is what Janie told me…

CO: Janie is your cousin?

TW: Cousin Janie, yes. Still, by the way, Cousin Janie. She enlightened me about some of this at the times that I suspected that Bunny and George weren’t my real mom and dad. And I maybe I was just really aware or alive and awake as a four-year-old because I noticed that Bunny and George were older, you know? Bunny had gray hair tied back in a bun, and she always wore an apron. So she was just different. She was from a different era, you know? The other mothers were you know smoking longer cigarettes and drinking beer from the bottle, and they were Hamilton chicks, man, you know? And Bunny was this she always was like French aristocracy. Almost like she came from you know a castle somewhere and landed on 162 East 36th Street. Because she carried herself differently and it was noticed by people — people would complement on how beautiful she was. But she was still older, and she was still from another place. And I knew that as a four-year-old. And I asked her straight out how come all the other kids have pictures of them as babies? How come all the other kids have stories about the day they were born? And how come the mothers and fathers are so much younger than you and dad? And I got shut down several times.

CO: She would hint at… not just hint, she would tell you these are secrets.

TW: There are secrets about you, Tommy that I'll be taking to my grave. So as a four-year-old, once again, jaw on hardwood, bang, you know? I was a mystery. I felt like I was in a mystery novel from a young age.

CO: But during holidays, you would sometimes go to Kahnawake, which is the First Nations and Mohawk community just outside Montreal. What did you understand was your relationship to that place and the people there?

TW: Well, I knew Bunny and George as my mom and dad. And what they really were my great aunt and uncle. So everybody who was related to them I knew them through Bunny and George being my mother and father. So Bunny's sister was my Aunt Isabelle, who was actually my grandmother. Her husband John Lazar, who was also a chief on the reserve, was my uncle John. You know cousins, everybody was somebody else and I didn't know. I'm just going to tell you at this point, that the feeling that I had when I was four-years-old, the feeling that I had going back to the reserve for Christmases as a kid, the feeling that I had as a grown man, the struggle, whatever fists were trying to punch their way through my paper bag. All came to a head during I went to see a movie, a Jim Carrey movie called “The Truman Show”, and everybody was laughing and having a good time. And I couldn't breathe. I had an anxiety attack because exactly how everybody knows Truman story except for him is exactly how I felt my entire life.

CO: So you felt that everybody knew who you really were?

TW: Yes.

CO: But when you would go to Kahnawake, Bunny's sister was married into that community. And so you were there as you thought a visitor?

TW: Yeah, as a nephew.

CO: But you felt a deeper connection?

TW: I felt a deeper connection. I felt a deeper connection to these people I was looking at as my uncle John. It was through marriage in the family. I thought I just look like this guy. I'm still a Hamilton guy, I'm about coffee and cigarettes. But there was a spiritual connection in that house that I didn't feel in other places. I felt more at home in my grandfather's, my Uncle John's home than I did in Bunny and George's home.

CO: When you were in Hamilton, where you grew up, kids would taunt you and they’d call you Indian.

TW: Yeah.

CO: What did you make of that when they were doing that?

TW: I thought they were nuts. You know it wasn't real to me. It usually ended up in some kind of scrap, you know on the church lawn. It usually ended up in some kind of dust up. But yeah, I was thought of right through grade school and into high school that they thought I looked Mohawk, or native, or Indian, whatever it is they wanted to call it. To the point where I was even going one of my very first managers and Hamilton said you know I really think you look kind of kind of like an Indian guy, you know? I think maybe we should call you Indian Tom Wilson, and we're not going to give you a full headdress. We're going to give you one feather.

CO: Yikes!

TW: Yeah, yikes. But you know it didn't resonate with me. I just thought you're crazy, you know what I mean? And it was also the ‘70s, so well the world was insensitive to that kind of rhetoric.

CO: This is As It Happens, and I'm speaking in studio with Tom Wilson, musician and author of “Beautiful Scars: Steeltown Secrets, Mohawk Skywalkers and the Road Home.” And Tom, I want to talk about Steeltown because this is where you grew up. And your descriptions of Hamilton are just extraordinary. But you said that you realize when you're about seven-years-old that you were “poor” in quotation marks. That you had no idea what that meant, but the world came to tell you that you were poor. How did the world tell you you were poor?

TW: Well, it was actually under the moniker of the needy. In grade one, the Salvation Army came into the school and said we're going to collect cans of food, boxes of spaghetti and kraft dinner, instant milk. Things that were easy for people who were needy because people who are needy you know maybe their dads don't have jobs and they don't have a fridge and stove. We didn't know who the needy were, but they immediately became the villain in the schoolyard. You know the needy all of a sudden instead of any racial slurs or any kind of stuff that kids come up with. It was the needy that got chased around and tag became needy and people got beat up because they were the needy ones in the crowd. It was a made up thing. So we collected all this food. And it was in an old Dominion box at the front of the class in grade one. And our teacher you know would kind of coach us along that we need to bring in food. Just like the Salvation Army said, don't forget to bring in your cans of beans and Niblets corn and things like that. So we brought it all in. I brought stuff in. And then a couple of days before Christmas, Salvation Army, these guys in uniform, came to the door and delivered a box to Bunny. I actually remember I remember her telling me to grab the dog. And I remember her wiping her hands on her apron and going to the door and taking his box from these guys and putting it on the kitchen table. And I thought this is great! People are bringing us gifts for Christmas. And I pulled over a chair and Bunny tried to shoo me away, but I was really interested. And I looked in the box and it was like boxes of Kraft Dinner and Niblets corn and you know instant milk. And I realized that we were a family in need, that we were the needy. That all this time what was going on at school that actually I was one of the needy.

CO: Probably one of the most extraordinary stories you tell is when your parents shipped you off to hockey camp.

TW: Yeah.

CO: Without anything.

TW: Without anything, no. Their intentions were supreme, and their love for me was like the same love that I have for my own kids and my grandsons, you know?

CO: You call them warriors.

TW: They were warriors because they had already been through the Second World War. George was a tail gunner in a Lancaster bomber. Most young men who sat in that seat didn't come home during the Second World War. He came home, but he came home a broken man with a major head injury. And he was totally blind. And all the residue that comes along with that you know the bitterness and alcohol and getting off morphine. You know those guys. There was no step group or no get together to talk about your problems for those guys. They just came home and George hit the El Mocambo on Spadina, got himself a stool and did a fair amount of drinking.

CO: And Bunny was a street warrior. She was elbows out.

TW: She was elbows out, you know? She was always there for the underdog, you know? Always there for the Mohawks, you know? Two of her sisters married into the Mohawk community in Kahnawake.

She was always into helping those kids out. And she taught me that. She taught me how to look out for people that didn't have what I have. And to respect what I had.

CO: And there you were at a hockey camp. I just want to read this is part of this story. I'm kind of proud of my eight-year-old self for not backing down from the challenge of going to hockey school without skates or any equipment. Whoever that guy was, I remember him and his bravery. Did it get harder to be brave the older you got?

TW: I found my own way. I figured out that I couldn't deal with the world head on. That I wasn't really equipped to deal with other people's rules like get a normal job, or be successful in school. I had my own way of learning things. And I realized at a young age that I wanted to be an artist and a communicator. And that I could be in control of my world if I could only write it down, if I could only sing it, if I could only visualize it and paint it.

CO: You got hold of a guitar, and that was the turning point for you — to actually have a guitar in hand. How did you get that guitar?

TW: Waddington's Music in Hamilton announced that they had a Chet Atkins. I think it was called Quick Pick and Fun Strum, something like that. But Chet Atkins guitar lessons, where if you went and signed up, then they'd give you a guitar to take home to learn. And it was like bang, you know? That was my way to get my hands on a guitar because I basically was day and night dreaming. I mean I remember walking around I'd walk around the house you know strumming an air guitar, you know? it was an obsession. Staring at the back of Alice Cooper's “Lover it to Death”, you know? And all those crazy, crazy looking guys in that band, Dennis Dunaway and Michael Bruce with these SGs, you know? I think I called it an electric pack of wolves strapped around their necks, you know? So the dream of the guitar was overwhelming to me. And so I just went down and borrowed a guy on the street. I borrowed his ID and went down and gave a fake address and went to the first guitar lesson and walked out with that guitar. Pretty well never came back.

CO: You stole it?

TW: Yeah, for sure. I stole it on an HSR bus. I took the bus down to Gore Park. Obviously, I was overwhelmed with this idea of a guitar that I didn't really have a plan. It was like who steals a guitar on the HSR bus, you know?

CO: Well, but you also were inspired by the music — the records — your mother brought home that she had shoplifted.

TW: Yeah. You know she was just looking out for me. There's one thing about Bunny shoplifting that I sure don't want it to be the point that defines her. As a reader, hopefully you didn't see it that way. But yeah, she used to pick me up records the Zeller's Mohawk and Upper Sherman Avenue. And she obviously ran in. I can only picture this, right? But I imagine her running in there and just grabbing whatever she could and running out to her Austin Mini and driving home. Because when I got home from school, she'd be there and she never hands behind her back. And it would be like pick a hand. I’d say OK, Mom, Right hand. She’d take out it would be like Black Sabbath “Sabbath Bloody Sabbath”. I said wow, thanks Mom! That's great. And say OK, what about the other hand? I said OK, let's see other hand. Pull out the other hand it was like the first Captain & Tennille record, right? Like these things didn't make sense, you know? I ended up with Bob Dylan's “Blood on the Tracks” and the first Donny Osmond record, you know? And a Frank Mills instrumental album and a Leonard Cohen record, you know? So she was just grabbing whatever she could, you know? But that was you know she was in there swinging for me, man. She was in there swinging. And you know what? You could put her down on the floor and she'd still be kicking and scratching and biting and fighting for me. I think at the end of the book, I say that these people: Janie, Bunny and George, they gave me a fighting chance. And I don't even know if I'm paraphrasing myself, but you can't ask for much more than that in life.

CO: We have Tom Wilson in studio here at As It Happens, founding member of Junk House, Blackie and the Rodeo Kings and Lee Harvey Osmond. And now, he has this book “Beautiful Scars: Steeltown Secrets, Mohawk Skywalkers and the Road Home”. And we could have a whole conversation about your music career, but as you built your career, and wrote the music, and toured, and became a dad of two kids. You were struggling weren't you? And as you reveal, there was a time you went right into the ditch. I just want to read that moment. I'm sure a very painful time for you. But you write. I was a monster and there was nobody to destroy me. No mob to storm my castle with pitchforks and pots and pans and fiery torches. No one brave enough to stop me from what I was doing. I was on my own. And I think I may have wanted to die. But I was too afraid to just cut my wrists. And I was too dramatic to let the pageantry of it all go unnoticed. So I just marched on. What happened?

TW: Well, I guess you know you get to the bottom, or you think you are at the bottom. And then you look down and you realize you've got a ways to go. It just everything ran its course, you know? Alcohol and cocaine heroin and waking up with strangers just got tiring. I think it outgrew me, or just went past me. I don't know. Maybe I switched lanes. There's all kinds of metaphors I could use, but it just ended. And it just had to end because I probably would have been dead from that lifestyle. I didn't know how to take care of myself I guess. And the book is in your hands. Well, the book is still being written for me. And there's still things that if I open a page I start to realize about myself — that I as much as Bunny and George loved me, they couldn't equip me to take care of myself in that way.

CO: But how much of it was it because you didn't know who you were?

TW: Most of it. The struggle of not knowing who I was, or where I was from, not really knowing who my father was, it being evident and nobody really telling me; people keeping the lie up. I was 53 when I found out that Bunny and George weren't my mom and dad. And in my 50s, as a man, I had finally stopped trying to be you know John Wayne or Johnny Thunders, you know? Or Neil Armstrong or you know I stopped trying to be all the things that you try to be when you don't know who you are, you know? I discovered that I was a Mohawk man. And after writing this book, I realized I was born a Mohawk baby. And 53 years later, I'm 58 now, I found out I was adopted. In my 50s, I became a Mohawk man. So there was this giant gap between being born a Mohawk, and becoming a Mohawk, you know? Again, there was a rebirth, and there is a certain amount of comfort that goes along with that too.

CO: Do you think things would have been different if Bunny had told you that from the beginning?

TW: Yeah. Yeah, but Bunny was protecting me. It's not an easy road being a Mohawk in this society, you know? There's challenges that go along with not being a white guy. She knew about it and she was trying to make an easier life for me I guess.

CO: What would you change if you could?

TW: Nothing. I think that I become the man I'm supposed to be. There's nothing to change. No offense to that question, I can't live in that la la land. Everything is way too real. I just want to say that about the book continuing to write itself. When I was born, I was put into an orphanage. And then I was in a foster home in Hamilton — the Miller family. I did an article that came out in the Hamilton Spectator and I actually talked about that that I was adopted in a foster home with the Miller family. And the next day, a letter came to the Hamilton Spectator and it was sent to me. Hello, I'm so-and-so Miller, and I'm the daughter of so-and-so Miller. And we remember having you in our home. And so I'm going to go meet Mrs. Miller, who had me in her foster home, who raised me for the first year of my life and whose heart broke when I was taken out of that home. So my point is that even though, like I say, you hold the book in your hands, there’s still things coming at me that have to do with this story.

CO: Tom Wilson, it is a remarkable story. And you have been very generous to share it in this book. I'm sure it's very painful and you say there's still more of this story coming out of you.

TM: Yeah.

CO: But I think part of it is coming out of you in your music and I saw you come in here with a guitar.

TM: Yeah, I guess that thing's been following me for the last 45 years. It's not the guitar I stole from Waddington’s. But it is still a guitar.

CO: It would be great if you could play something for us.

TM: I'd love to do that for you.

[Music: Beautiful Scars by Tom Wilson/ folk]

JD: From last November, that was an encore presentation of Carol's conversation with Tom Wilson. The Hamilton, Ontario musician was in studio to talk about his memoir, "Beautiful Scars: Steeltown Secrets, Mohawk Skywalkers and the Road Home."

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 15, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode