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 August 30, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

HM: Three-part disharmony. As NAFTA negotiations come down to the wire, a former Mexican politician wonders whether his country's dealings with the U.S. have been tough for Canada to deal with.

JD: Drive-away shooting. 15-year-old Jordan Edwards was leaving a party when a Dallas police officer shot at the car he was in. Now, that white ex-cop has received a rare murder conviction for killing the black teenager.

HM: Pipe down. A federal court ruling puts the Trans Mountain pipeline extension on hold -— a move some BC First Nations are celebrating as a win for reconciliation.

JD: Keep a lid on things. Weeks after a BC woman was hit by a truck that ran over her head, she's urging her fellow cyclists to wear helmets — because she says hers saved her life.

HM: Swooper-villain. After British police announce they're seeking a paraglider who's been shrieking obscenities at people, the mystery man calls a radio station — and defends what he does in the air, on the air.

JD: And... hey,no hard felines. Tired of seeing local wildlife slaughtered by smug, cute murderers, a New Zealand village bans cats altogether, which pet lovers consider catastrophic. I mean, "astrophic".

JD: "As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that figures they've got a case of cats-scratched fever.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: NAFTA: Mexico, Trans Mountain decision

NAFTA: Mexico

Guest: Andres Rozental

JD: In Washington D.C., NAFTA negotiators are feeling the heat. Yes, they're racing to meet a very tight Friday deadline. But it's also a scorcher in the U.S. Capital. Here's what Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters today, ahead of ongoing talks.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Good afternoon, good to see you guys. As we said, our officials did some work. They prepared some issues for me an Ambassador Lighthizer to take some decisions. And we're about to go and continue negotiating and do precisely that. And because I used to be a journalist, and I know how hard it is, these waiting and boiling. We have brought you some popsicles. So we’ll see you guys later, OK? Take care.

JD: Foreign Affairs Minister Freeland, handing out popsicles to reporters today in Washignton She's heading into what could be final negotiations with the U.S. — which is, of course, demanding big concessions from Canada, and has, of course, set a tight Friday deadline to get it all done. And while Mexico isn't involved in these talks anymore, Andres Rozental is dubious about the role it's played in this week's chaos. In fact, the former deputy foreign minister of Mexico is blaming his home country for sidelining Canada. We reached Mr. Rozental in Mexico City.

HM: Mr. Rozental, publicly Canada's trade team has praised Mexico for the deal that it has worked out with the U.S. Do you think that it is a different story behind the scenes?

ANDRES ROZENTAL: Definitely, I believe that the Canadian government has put a brave face on what in effect is from my point of view a very unfortunate situation. We decided that Mexico and the United States would negotiate bilaterally rules of origin for the automotive sector. And Canada felt that it wasn't necessary for it to be at the table because it would benefit from whatever agreement was reached between the two of us. What I don't think anybody expected it was that right after having discussed the rules of origin for the cars, all of a sudden we started negotiating bilaterally with the United States on everything else. On all the pending issues, sunset clauses, dispute settlement, intellectual property, etc. without the presence of Canada.

HM: You specifically blame Mexico for sidelining Canada more so than the United States. I'm wondering why? Why is Mexico the one that should bear the blame?

AR: Well, I think all three countries probably bear some blame. But I'm a Mexican, and I was looking at it from the Mexican perspective. I think that we in Mexico should have insisted on having Canada with us. Because even when NAFTA was first negotiated, the Canada-Mexico partnership helped both of us in discussing with the United States proposals which we considered to be then and now unacceptable. So why all of a sudden we drop Canada and don't insist that Canada be at the table is something that I put squarely on the Mexican side as blame. Because I think we would have been much better off had we had Canada with us. The leverage both of us can exercise vis-a-vis the United States is stronger than what either of us can do alone.

HM: Critics of the government here though have suggested that the Trudeau government dropped the ball. What responsibility does Canada bear for finding itself outside of the US Mexico talks?

AR: I think Canada should have insisted to come back to the table and be present with all the other issues that were still pending. I don't understand, to be honest with you, why Canada did not do that? I think they were well aware of what was going on.

HM: Mexico's ambassador did say to CBC this week that they kept this country informed about what was going on. So you're not suggesting Mexico was deceiving Canada?

AR: No, I certainly don't think that was the case. As far as I understand from statements made by our chief negotiator, Canada was fully briefed all the way through as to what was going on. His relationship with Ms. Freeland is very close. So I cannot believe that Mexico did anything behind Canada's back.

HM: Well, not only are we told that they're close friends, we also have understood they had some kind of gentlemen's agreement with each other that they would present a united front. So what do you think is behind Mexico's motivations — it's apparent change on that matter?

AR: I think — and this is probably the most unfortunate part of all of this — that this was done for political expediency by the current Mexican president and his administration to be able to be the ones who signed the agreement rather than the new government. I think this was also by the way politically expedient for the new government because they would have to bear the political cost. But that to me is a serious mistake. I don't think that this agreement trilaterally would be ready for signature to the legislative branches of the three countries by Friday. Canada just rejoined the talks as I understand it yesterday. Today is Thursday the deadline is tomorrow pressuring Canada to jump on board something that the U.S. and Mexico agreed to that might not be in Canada's interests. I just don't see how this is going to be ready tomorrow.

HM: And yet, Canada's at that table apparently trying to meet a deadline that it was not part of setting. Do you think that the Canadians should be jumping to meet this deadline?

AR: No, I don't. I don't think the Mexicans should be jumping to meet that deadline, nor should the Canadians. I don't see why we're pushing for something to finish with an artificial deadline that really has nothing to do with us. It has to do really with the U.S. Now he wants to finish it before the midterm so that he can send it to his current Congress without the worry of what's going to happen in the midterms, and if Democrats pick up seats and so on.

HM: We have talked with pretty much every guest we've discussed this issue with this week about the idea of the optics of a deal. And the importance for President Trump to be able to present to his supporters a show of strength at the same time that I guess Canadian and Mexican politicians are trying to tell their people they found them the best deal. What's the risk of walking away? What are the optics of that if they don't come away with the deal?

AR: I don't think that the option is walking away. I think the option is just to continue negotiating until all three countries are satisfied with what they come up with. Trade negotiations as you well know in Canada take forever. They’re very long and complicated negotiations. We're not in a rush. We have an agreement that's in force, and we work within it. And I don't think Mr. Trump is going to take the political heat that would come from withdrawing from NAFTA. But even if he did, I think that his Congress and his political situation would probably at the end of the day change the parameters. So we just should continue to manage this the way we've been managing it up to now over a year.

HM: Mr. Rosenthal, obviously we're all watching with bated breath to see what happens. I appreciate you sharing your insights with us.

AR: Well, I wish Canada lots of luck.

HM: Thank you, sir. Bye bye.

AR: Bye bye.

JD: Andres Rozental is Mexico's former deputy foreign minister. We reached him in Mexico City.

[Music: Ambient]

Trans Mountain decision

Guest: Rueben George

JD: The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is on hold — for now, at least. Today, the Federal Court of Appeals unanimously quashed the government's approval of the expansion. The decision found that the Liberal government did not do enough to consult with First Nations. The court said, quote, "Canada's efforts fell well short of the mark." The court also found the National Energy Board failed to appropriately consider the effect the pipeline would have on tanker traffic. The ruling stemmed from a combined challenge of sixteen cases, questioning the National Energy Board's approval of the project. Moments after the ruling, Kinder Morgan voted overwhelmingly to approve the sale of the pipeline and its expansion to the federal government. So far, we don't know how the Liberals will respond to all this. The Tsleil-Waututh Nation was the lead plaintiff in the case. Its hunting, fishing, and gathering grounds encompass the area where the pipeline ends. Rueben George is the manager of the Tsleil-Waututh Sacred Trust. We reached Mr. George in Vancouver.

HM: Mr. George, What was your immediate reaction when the decision came down this morning?

RUEBEN GEORGE: I knew we were going to win. I felt that we were going to win, but I was still shocked, but I was happy at the same time — a whole bunch emotion.

HM: You say knew you were going to win, why were you so confident?

RG: We did a 100-page assessment and Kinder Morgan within collecting data of our waters and our lands over the last 25 years. We included an 80-page study on the likeliness of a spill. Not if but when a spill would happen that you could only clean up 20 per cent —that's another study. And then we did an economics study. And we were really well-prepared. We worked with world-renowned scientists. We worked with world-renowned economists. And I believed in the Canadian Constitution protecting our Indigenous rights. And I talked to the lawyers after and they said yeah, we were going to win. And I believed that.

HM: What do you think it was that most persuaded the judges to rule in your favour?

RG: Well, a couple things come to mind. The judges said that they took it too lightly. And on our end, we said there wasn't consultation. And we brought all the information of the studies that we created, and they brushed them aside like they have in the past thinking that they could push it through. But no, the judges said no, you have to do this better. And that's what happened.

HM: Right. So they said the review process was flawed at the Energy Board. And that, of course, the government relied on that process and that review. When you look at the specific flaws, what were the problems that were identified that the judge pointed to?

RG: When you put down the facts backed by science of how bad it was or economic reasons why we didn't want it, they didn't listen to that. And the judges said that. They said you have to listen. You can't just think that you can push something through.

HM: The judges found these fundamental problems with the consultation process. Do you expect the Liberal government and the National Energy Board to come back and consult with The Tsleil-Waututh Nation now?

RG: I think they might try to appeal to the Supreme Court. And I believe that they will be denied. So then they might come back and try to talk, I'm guessing. But we're ready for that. I mentioned the studies that we already created, but we're also doing the air quality study right now. We're also doing a health study of how industry affected our health. So we're more than ready, and more getting more prepared as things have to come out.

HM: Do you fear at all that if the consultations are completed and you know are more thorough on the Energy Board side, that the pipeline might get approved again — the expansion?

RG: No, I can’t see it going that way.

HM: Is there any level of consultation that would satisfy you if the end result was that the pipeline expansion were to go forward?

RG: Well, if you look at our documents — like they didn't do — 100 per cent they didn't do. And that's why they lost. We’re explaining facts of why it’s not good. So when we sit down and we have meaningful consultation and an unbiased consultation how is that going to turn out when Canada is going to create a consultation process when they’re the owner of the pipeline? How is that going to be unbiased? So we have to look at that and be very careful with that because we did too much work to bring out facts of why is not good for Canada, our economy, the job, and definitely not good for our environment. It’s too much of a risk that we can't take.

HM: As you know the Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau spoke today about the project. He seemed to suggest this was just you know a positive step forward in a process that was going to ultimately lead to this going ahead. That the project is in the national interest, saying it's critically important for the Canadian economy, and that he will make sure to usher it forward. How do you respond to that?

RG: It's not what they say. It's not. It’s simply what it is a political choice made by Trudeau to support his rich friends. That’s what I believe. They say these things, but what I'd encourage people to do is don't take his word, don't take my word for it, do your own research like I did — like Tsleil-Waututh Nation did. And we take it a step further. It would it be easy for us to negotiate for millions of dollars and let this pipeline go through, but we saw a problem when we did our research and we wanted to do something about it. 71 per cent of the Burnaby residents supported the Tsleil-Waututh Nation in suing Canada for not consulting. I believe in the same thing for Canadians when they see the true facts of the disruption it causes in the services they’ll make the same decision. And it'll all come out during election time that’s for sure.

HM: Kinder Morgan shareholders voted overwhelmingly to approve the sale of the project to the Canadian government. I mean what do you think the messages to taxpayers today who are now so heavily invested in this pipeline?

RG: That is a tragedy because I went and met the shareholders not long ago, and I said make business choices with your money. And they did. They had a choice to take their money out of that bad investment. And Trudeau is not giving Canadians the same choice. It's a bad investment. It's a bad idea. It’s bad for the economy. It's ridiculous and crazy that the company voted to allow this sale to happen because they already knew.

HM: If the government is determined, as it seems to be, to get this pipeline expansion built, can you stop them?

RG: Yeah, starting nine years ago, nobody thought we could do anything. We’ve been winning every step of the way. Now we just have to push this victory across the finish line.

HM: Mr. George, thank you very much for talking with us. I appreciate it.

RG: OK, thank you.

HM: Bye bye.

RG: Bye.

JD: Rueben George is project manager of the Tsleil-Waututh Sacred Trust, set up to oppose the Trans Mountain expansion. We reached him in Vancouver.

[Music: Jazz]

New Zealand cat ban

Guest: John Collins

JD: For some, a cat provides company — a soft little buddy to pet while enjoying a night-in in front of the telly. A gentle, playful friend that makes human lives richer. To others, cats — even domestic cats — are quote, "natural born killers" — heartless, psychotic predators who attack valued local fauna. And that's why a tiny village called Omaui, on the South Island of New Zealand, wants them gone. John Collins is the chair of the Omaui Landcare Charitable Trust. We reached him in Queenstown.

HM: Mr. Collins, why would you want to phase out your village's cats?

JOHN COLLINS: Can I just clarify what the village is and where it is? Omaui is a small village of 30 to 35 houses with a similar number of people. And behind the village is a relatively large area — about 240 hectares of what is pretty much virgin, native forest. So Omaui is a high-value conservation area. It's wildlife rich. We want it to be wildlife richer. It's a high-value conservation area that people can live in. t

HM: But not cats?

JC: Well, cats are predators. Cats eat the birds, they eat the lizards, and they eat the insects. And we're not cat-haters. It's about responsible pet ownership. And Omaui is a place where cats shouldn't be taken.

HM: So what is you proposal to deal with the cats?

JC: Our proposal is to have existing domestic cats microchiped and desexed, if they are not. And upon death, they can't be replaced. And no new cats can be bought in. So we're not trying to take people's cats off them or anything like that. We just want them to be gradually phased out.

HM: Now, you are not part of the council that made this decision, but you did have to persuade them. Was it a difficult process?

JC: Perhaps I could clarify that too? No, I'm not part. I'm the chair of the Omaui Landcare Charitable Trust, at present. It works like this: Environment Southland, every 10 years, do what they call a pest control strategy. Any member of the public can put up an idea or something for pest control. And their working party will look at it, and if they think it's reasonable, they'll accept it for consideration. So that's what happened to us. So our proposal was accepted for consideration. The pest control strategy has just been notified publicly, and our proposal is in it.

HM: And so cats are defined as pests in the strategy?

JC: In this case, they are predators, yes. So it's now up for public consultation.

HM: So it's a small community you're talking about. As you say not too many houses — not too many cats — do you know how many there are — domestic cats?

JC: Possibly seven or eight. I couldn't be sure on that — maybe one or two more.

HM: Do you know how old they — how close they might be to their natural expiration date?

JC: Some of them are quite old; others are young.

HM: Right. So you want them microchiped. You want to make sure that they have been spayed or neutered. And then you don't want them replaced, right?

JC: That's correct. The reason we want the microchiped is that because as well as domestic cats, we have a problem with people dumping unwanted cats — unwanted kittens and cats. And also, it is a population of feral cats, which are really just domestic cats that nobody looks after. When we’re trapping feral cats, if we catch somebody ‘s pet, we don't want to kill it. We would give it back to them.

HM: So if it wasn't microchiped, it would be euthanized?

JC It would be euthanized humanely.

HM: Have you lost friends? Are you having trouble in the community, perhaps?

JC: I haven't lost friends, no. I think most people — a substantial number at least — support us. The’re one or two who don’t that are against it. But I certainly wouldn't fall out with my good friends over an idea. People are allowed to have different opinions.

HM: One resident told the local paper. She thinks the ban is going to make the village like a police state. What do you say to that?

JC: Well look, I wouldn’t reply to that.

HM: Don't think it's pretty draconian to tell people they can't have cats when you know a lot of people around the world love their cats. They get a lot of affection from them. It's a comfort to them.

JC: Yeah, that's correct. A lot of people do. A lot of us also get much comfort from having native birds thriving around us.

HM: Have you ever had a cat?

JC: Yes, I have had a cat, yes. Just about every house in New Zeeland has had a cat.

HM: How would you feel if someone had come up with his rule when you had your cat?

JC: I don't know? It would depend on the reasons.

HM: What do you hope the outcome will be for native wildlife in your area?

JC: I hope there’s more and more native wildlife. I want more bird song in the mornings.

HM: Mr. Collins, appreciate you talking to us.

JC: Okay, thanks very much. Nice to talk to you.

HM: You too. Bye bye.

JD: John Collins is chair of the Omaui Landcare Charitable Trust. We reached him in Queenstown, New Zealand.

[Music: ambient]

Mean paragllider

JD: In Greek mythology, the harpies were half-human, half-vulture creatures. They swooped down with horrendous speed, terrorizing people with their vicious attacks. They were vile; they were hideous. One was named "Celaeno" — meaning "darkness". In the the British seaside town of Bexhill-on-Sea, some residents claim there is a real-life, present-day harpy. He swoops down with horrendous speed in his paraglider, terrorizing people with his vicious shouting. According to one of his alleged victims, he is— and I quote — "evil...his language is foul and obscene". End quote. He is named...Paul. Meaning, "small" or "humble". That part doesn't sound scary. The rest does, though. So local police and Britain's Civil Aviation Authority have launched a joint investigation into this harpy-ish paraglider. A spokesperson laid out the situation. Quote, "Over the past two years Sussex Police has received reports of the paraglider causing criminal damage, obstructing the highway, being abusive and hostile towards members of the public, and generally behaving in an antisocial manner. It has also been alleged he intimidates people by flying low over the seafront." No one knew the paraglider's identity. And then, today, the harpy himself called up radio host James O'Brien. As I said, he said his name was Paul. And Mr. O'Brien let him clear the air he was accused of dirtying. Here's an edited version of their conversation, for the record.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES O’BRIEN: Paul, are you the paraglider pilot?

PAUL: I am indeed. But the accusations are lies.

JO: That is why I am here — to let the ordinary person speak out against fake news. When did you start paragliding?

P: 25 odd years ago.

JO: And the idea that your identity is a mystery is a bit absurd because your brother rang earlier, and you film it all on GoPro. So everything you've done is on stage. So the journalists have gone for the story. Do you intimidate people? Answer the question! Do you intimidate people by flying low over the sea front?

P: No. I’m just there to fly.

JO: Here's another witness, “He is evil”. Anything to say about that?

P: No, not at all.

JO: “His language is foul and obscene”.

P: Yeah, quite. Yeah.

JO: Do you swear from the sky?

P: No, I do not.

JO: Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

P: Of course, I would, because I don't. I’m flying; I don’t wanna be knowing what’s on the ground. I’m going there to fly.

JD: That was James O'Brien, a host on the British radio station LBC, speaking with a man named "Paul", who admitted he was a paraglider being investigated by police. But insisted he was not, quote, "behaving in an antisocial manner", or, quote, "evil". We'll just see about that, Paul. If you're not a harpy, then fine. But if you are, maybe it's time to start switching off the foul and obscene language — and start switching to glide.

[Music: Piano]

Part two: Roy Oliver conviction, cyclist crash

Roy Oliver conviction

Guest: Daryl Washington

SOUNDCLIP

CHARMAINE EDWARDS: He didn't deserve to die. He had a bright future. And we hope that the little bit of justice that he did receive is enough to give other mothers and fathers that are in our position hope. Although it wasn't what we wanted, those 15 years or however many years he does, it's going to feel like life to him. He's ripped away from his family. So it's gonna feel like eternity for him.

JD: That was Charmaine Edwards, speaking to the media earlier today. Ms. Edward’s 15-year-old son, Jordan Edwards, was shot dead by a police officer in Dallas last year. Earlier this week, Roy Oliver — the white now ex-cop who killed Jordan — was convicted of murder. Yesterday, the jury handed him a 15-year prison sentence. Daryl Washington is an attorney for the Edwards family. We reached him in Dallas.

HM: Mr. Washington, we just heard from Jordan Edwards's mother, speaking at today's news conference. You have been with the family. How are they doing?

DARYL WASHINGTON: The family is doing a little better than they were on last evening. We were hoping for a greater sentenced that the one that was handed down. But you know we've all had the opportunity to truly reflect on what happened in Dallas, Texas. And the fact that we were able to get a police officer convicted is huge. So they're happy. They don't want Jordan's life to be in vain. And they woke up this morning with more confidence and belief in the criminal justice system.

HM: What was the reaction in the court room on Tuesday when Roy Oliver was found guilty of murder?

DW: Wow! I mean it was a sense of relief. You just had people who have followed the trial. You have people of all races who were hugging each other, and then basically saying you know that the system saw an offer to do something really, really bad and was held accountable for it. So it was a sense of relief.

HM: And surprise?

DW: You know, I would have to say that there was probably a level of surprise — only because of what has been seen throughout the country with other verdicts. But you know somehow we just kept the belief. We prayed about it. And we really thought that we were going to get a guilty.

HM: What was Roy Oliver's defence? What did he say had happened?

DW: I mean his defence all along — and you heard it on the body cam — is that he said that the vehicle was trying to hit his partner. But I think that was very key during the trial when Officer Gross testified, and he stated that was never in fear. That was very compelling testimony — along with the dash cam video that clearly showed that car was not going towards that officer at no time. In fact, the car veered to get further away from the officers. So it was nothing at all when you look at the body cams that would even show that this officer was in any type of threat of fear on his life.

HM: And let me just clarify that the person who testified that he did not feel he was in danger was actually officer Oliver's partner?

DW: Right. Officer Gross; it was his partner and good friend. The officer testified that he was never in fear.

HM: Mr. Oliver is now facing 15 years in jail. That was the sentence he was given. What do you think set this case apart from all the others that came before it where police officers have gotten off after killing unarmed civilians?

DW: You know, that was one thing that when I was talking to Jordan's parents today you know you never want to label it as this. But Jordan was almost the perfect kid. He was the perfect victim. There was nothing that you can say bad about this kid — straight-A student, great athlete, all the kids loved him. And I think finally, a jury was able to look at Jordan as if that could have been one of their children, and to see that this officer had absolutely no remorse about what he had done. The city of Balch Springs knew that this was a troubled officer. But no one took the warnings. And you know as a result, he became a walking time-bomb that finally exploded.

HM: What does it say to you that Jordan's character — the fact that he was such an exemplary young man — was potentially a factor in this decision?

DW: We hope that the jury can look at situations like this and realize that a victim does not have to be perfect in order to be a victim of police brutality. You know everything was perfect about Jordan, but you have individuals who have been involved in situations. When you look at out Alton Sterling situation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or even here in Dallas, we've had a number of individuals like James Harper, Clinton Allen. These guys may have not been a straight-A students, but they were all victims of police brutality. And in most cases, these gentlemen were unarmed. But generally, what happens is people look at the backgrounds of the victims. And if the backgrounds of the victims are not perfect, unfortunately, the pendulum tips toward the officers. But, hopefully, Jordan's case is going to be the case that's going to expose the problems that we have throughout the United States.

HM: Do you feel that a 15-year prison sentence is enough?

DW: I don't. I really don't. But I will tell you I will take it. Because 15 years is still a long time, and it also sends a message. I think other officers now have to think and consider that there are consequences behind shooting first and talking later.

HM: In Mr. Oliver eligible for parole?

DW: He would not be eligible for parole until serving at least 50 per cent of his time. But based on the incidents that Officer Oliver has been involved in, his character, our belief is that he's going to serve at least 90 per cent of his time.

HM: Oliver’s defence attorney has said that there is a plan to appeal this conviction. Are you concerned about the family having to go through all of this again?

DW: You know, honestly, we try to take things one day at a time. And at this time, we are trying to savour the moment of this conviction. But I think a great case was put on. There were great evidentiary hearings and rulings. And I'm just not sure how this appeal is going to happen? But one thing that we are happy about: If Officer Oliver would have been sentenced to 10 years or less, he would have been eligible for an appeal bond immediately, which meant that he would have been free right now today, pending appeal which could last up to two years.

HM: You have filed meantime a separate civil lawsuit on behalf of Jordan Edward's father in connection with the shooting. What can you tell us about that?

DW: Well actually, the lawsuit is on behalf of the Georgia state, as well as the father, and the individual boys who were in the car. They also have some claims as well. That lawsuit was stayed during the pendency of the criminal trial. But we expect that the stay is going to be lifted. Now, we're going to be able to move forward without a civil lawsuit.

HM: How are the other boys doing who were in the car with Jordan?

DW: It's hard. It's been very difficult because 16-year-old kids are not equipped… not even kids — individuals. We are not equipped to watch close friends, brothers be murdered right now present. So it's going to be a long road to recovery for them.

HM: Daryl Washington, thank you very much for speaking with us.

DW: Thank you very much as well.

HM: All right. Goodbye.

JD: Daryl Washington is an attorney for the Jordan Edwards family. We reached Mr. Washington in Dallas.

[Music: Sombre]

Franklin Pavarotti

JD: All week — across Detroit, and around the world — people have been remembering Aretha Franklin. The Queen of Soul died earlier this month. She was 76 years old 76. Today, fans lined up outside the church where Ms. Franklin got her start as a singer. They were attending a public viewing. Tomorrow, crowds will gather from across the country for her funeral. Mary Callaghan Lynch will be there. She was Ms. Franklin's vocal coach — her opera vocal coach. They came together in 1998, when Ms. Franklin had been asked by Luciano Pavarotti to sing "Nessun Dorma" at an event. And just after that performance, Ms. Franklin was asked to fill in for Luciano Pavarotti at the last minute — to sing that same piece — at the Grammys. And if you'd seen that performance, you'd never have forgotten it. This morning, coach Mary Callaghan Lynch spoke with the CBC's Heather Hiscox.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY CALLAGHAN LYNCH: I would make a tape of the Italian diction. I would sing the aria for her so she could listen ahead of time. And then we would meet, and I would like sing two measures. Then she would sing, and back and forth until she felt really comfortable. So you know I helped her with the you know “Nessun Dorma” — rolling the “R”. But as far as technique, I might do a little pointer now and then. But you know not so much. She had her own style and that was obviously very distinctive. And she's one of the greatest artists of all time.

HEATHER HISCOX: You don't mess with that greatness, do you?

MCL: No, you do not.

HH: Now, you also would have been involved as well when there was another highlight I'm sure of her career: singing that very piece — “Nessun Dorma” — and that was when she performed that piece for the pope back in 2015. Let's listen to a little bit. This is pretty much at the beginning of this, so let's listen Puccini by Aretha.

[Sound: Aretha Franklin singing “Nessun Dorma”/ Opera]

HH: She was rolling her “R”s beautifully there. May I say, Marry. Remember that moment, and how she felt about performing for the pope?

MCL: I was there, actually. I went with her. And it was an anointed moment. And one thing I really would like to share about Aretha that people don't know is she was so gracious. I happened to be Catholic, and she tried everything to get me to meet the pope in the flesh. I was in the second row, watching her sing. And because security was so tight, it didn't happen. And she said you know Mary, I'm so sorry. And she was just gracious and she didn't mean to be, you know? She really didn't, but she always acknowledged me if I was in the audience or backstage. She really was regal. You know in more ways than one, she was a queen.

JD: Mary Callaghan Lynch is the Artistic Director of the Motor City Lyric Opera, and a one-time opera vocal coach for the late Aretha Franklin. Ms. Lynch was in conversation with Heather Hiscox on the CBC News Network this morning.

[Music: World music]

Cyclist crash

Guest: Eleanor Wilmot

JD: If you saw the photograph of Eleanor Wilmot's helmet from that day, you'll understand why she's feeling lucky to be alive. The Vernon woman was riding her bike last month, when she was run over by a truck. She spent weeks in the hospital — but now, she's recovering at home. We reached Eleanor Wilmot at her place in Vernon.

HM: Ms. Wilmot, first of all, how are you doing after this accident?

ELANOR WILMOT: Well it's just you know the old saying take it day by day, and I tend to be quite active. And I'm not patient in that, so people say I look fantastic. But as my husband says, I'm not as good as I look. And I can't be as active as I was. And there's a lot of things I can't do?

HM: What were your injuries?

EM: OK, let me see, I had fractures in my pelvis, three to five cracked ribs, a small tear in my lung, broken collarbone, and I now have titanium in my body from that. And the ball came out of the socket. The truck wheel went over my head and you know the top of my upper-left-side of my body. And I had a road rash. You know on my knees and different my hands and that were all scraped. And my friend said to me that my head looked like I was 80 pounds heavier. And my whole face got incredibly swollen — like people didn’t even recognize me.

HM: Wow! And in terms of your pain now?

EM: Well, it's just been over a month, and you know they had me on morphine for I'd say about three weeks. I didn't like it in my body at all. But they say that I had to take that. You know the pain was excruciating the first week. You know I'm not sleeping well and my body's uncomfortable because I'm lying down a lot and sitting a lot and that. But you know I am moving. And I notice I'm getting better. Thankfully, I could walk slowly, but it's getting better. I do notice small improvements.

HM: Yeah, that's good to hear. Now, can you take us back to the day of the accident? And tell us where you were riding when this happened?

EM: You know it's a small town or a small city, so I cycle a lot. But I stick to the side roads mainly. But I’d gone to the supermarket, and I bought 20 pounds of flour and a few other things. And they were in my basket, so I was coming actually through kind of a strip mall or like this big parking lot. But I ended up on the sidewalk on a busy four-way intersection with all the lights. So I was in the crosswalk, but you know going slowly. And then I went to cross, and this truck came along. There was a right turn lane from where the truck was coming. The wheels were high in the truck, and like deep down, I don't think he saw me at all.

HM: Right.

EM: And so I crossed, and he drove over top of me. And I ended up under the truck.

HM: Can you describe the moment of impact, and what you felt, and when you became aware what was happening.

EM: Yeah, like it was you know sort of surreal, but I just remember it like it was a clear day, you know flat area, like really hot. I just remember being dragged like thankfully stopped. But you know I don't know how long that took. But you know I just was being tumbled along you know with my bicycle and the truck. And it stopped, but I was aware the whole time and that. And then people came running and you know people were calling to me and this sort of thing. And they just said I had to wait there like not to move in case I was paralyzed I guess. And then just not to move until the paramedics showed up. But I felt like I was being barbecued on the pavement because it was so hot, and the heat was coming off the pavement. And somebody said you want water? And I don't know how they got under the truck, but they poured on my body. And I kept saying the left side because that's where all the pain was just excruciating. My face was all like totally bruised. My back and shoulders like were black with bruising. And I had three blood transfusions as well.

HM: Wow! There's this picture. Actually, there’s more than one. There’s several pictures of your helmet after the accident. Can you describe what kind of shape it was in for those who haven't seen those photos?

EM: I'm still in shock. The helmet, the inside is Styrofoam. And the top is like there's a bit of plastic, but it's this thin, thin metal. Like, I am amazed that it was able to save me. I seriously feel like I would have died or else had major brain damage if it wasn't for that helmet.

HM: Because, as you said, the truck went right over your head.

EM: Right over my head. You can see the tracks or marks on top of the helmet. Like the side that was on my head they kept it on until I was out. They didn't want me to move at all. Like it's not even the shape of my head really. It's kind of you know the Styrofoam is all broken and cracked, and you know even the top of the helmet. But I'm still in shock that this little, light thing you know was so ergonomically designed I would guess that it saved me.

HM: Now, when you first saw the helmet, what did you think?

EM: Actually, it's not me so much. Like I just saw it after. You know, I was in the hospital for that time so my husband he came to see me. And he came to the hospital — he was called emergency — and then they showed him the helmet before he saw me. And he said he felt like throwing up when he saw it.

HM: Wow!

EM: And then I saw it when I got home. But you know yeah, I was prepared to see it. I'm not superstitious or whatever, but I think it wasn't my time. I never used to wear a helmet either, but you know I have for some years now. But I definitely saved my life, I feel.

HM: So what's your message to other cyclists after your accident?

EM: Well, I'm a cautionary tale, I feel. And you know we’re all for our own identity or whatever, but I think I would definitely recommend it. I feel like if I was even here, I would have brain damage I'm sure of it. So it saved my life. And you know if you're wise, you’d listen to me and wear a helmet. Have your kids have your friends. It's better than an insurance policy I tell you. It’s a cheap one.

HM: Now, any idea when you get back on that bike?

EM: Actually, I said to my husband like I'm like I'm not that big, but I'm stubborn, determined, and a little bit feisty. And I told my husband he mentioned about my bike, and I said I want a new one. So I'm definitely going to get another bike.

HM: You think you have any hesitation about getting back on it?

EM: You know we have close friends, both my friend and my husband said that my husband said when he got on his bike unharmed you know like a few days after, he said he was very nervous. And both my friend and him said that when they drive their vehicle now, if they're parking, they look around very carefully. You know it's had an impact on those close to me.

HM: Yeah, that's probably a good thing though.

EM: No, it is. Yes. So I think you know this is what happened to me. This is my reality. And I think it's just you know I will be more cautious, there's no doubt about that. I always thought I was cautious, but it’ll make me think twice.

HM: You know I'm sorry you have all these injuries, but I hope you recover quickly. And it is good to hear you know ultimately that you’re going to be able to get back on the bike.

EM: No, totally.

HM: All right. Well thank you very much. And again, we're glad to hear you're on the mend.

EM: OK.

HM: Bye bye.

EM: OK. Bye bye.

JD: That was Eleanor Wilmot in Vernon, British Columbia. We reached out to the RCMP in Vernon about this incident. They told us that the driver, a 71-year-old local man, was cooperative and remained on the scene. Alcohol was not a factor. He was issued a ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian.

[Music: World music]

Plus-sized model

JD: Tess Holliday isn't necessarily who you'd expect to see on the cover of a major fashion magazine. But this week, the American plus-sized model revealed that she will be on the front of October's Cosmopolitan UK. On Twitter, she shared the cover and wrote, quote, "If I saw a body like mine on this magazine when I was a young girl, it would have changed my life." Unquote. One person on social media called it "revolutionary" — others have praised it as progress for body positivity. But the cover has also attracted critics. One person on Twitter saying it is, quote, "helping to normalize obesity." Unquote. Here's Tess Holliday speaking with the BBC about the cover.

SOUNDCLIP

TESS HOLLIDAY: I like broke into tears, and said are you kidding? And she's like I'm positive, which I should have known because the English don't really joke around with this.

HOST: So you cried when she put that to you?

TH: I absolutely cried.

HOST: Why?

TH: Because a magazine like that has never put you know someone like me — like an actual fat body — onto the cover of a magazine. And so it not only meant a lot to me, but the work that I'm doing, which were there for impact you know millions of bodies that look like mine.

HOST: I want to ask you how significant you think it is that you — a UK size 26, I understand — a model, are on the front of a fashion magazine?

TH: I mean it's ground-breaking. I know that you tweeted that. And you know there's a lot of people that can make jokes about my size, my appearance, and go into my health and all of that. But the reality is that there are quite a lot of women, and men, and everyone else that looks like me. And that could literally change their world. Seeing that standing in a supermarket and seeing like actual representation of someone that they identify with. That changes lives.

JD: That was model Tess Holliday speaking with the BBC about appearing on the cover of the Cosmopolitan UK.

[Music: Ambient]

Listener response: Cow Camping

JD: Wait...hold on a minute. Lions and tigers and bears...oh my? That's it? Sounds a little tame given the context, no? I mean I don't know about you, but if I ever stumble on even one of those animals in the forest -- let alone all three -- I imagine I'll be blurting out a whole string of choice words, before never getting to 'oh my'. Of course, I can think of plenty of animal encounters that might warrant an "oh my". Cows, maybe, for one. Grazing peacefully in a field. Then again, context is everything -- as a story on last night's program showed. While hiking with her son in Newfoundland over the weekend, Penny Maguire was visited by a herd of cows in the middle of the night -- which she mistook for much more ominous beasts. Her story prompted David Duchow of Hinchinbrooke, Quebec to email us his. He writes, "Way back when, in about 1971, my girlfriend and I did a trip out east, as far as Prince Edward Island. One night we found ourselves in the middle of nowhere, nowhere near a motel, so we simply parked in a field, and arranged the very comfortable seats of the 1970 Peugeot 204 station wagon into beds and went to sleep after dark. "Soon after, we both were awakened by the car shaking back and forth and sort of up and down too. And we were both completely creeped out, as it was a pitch-black night and we had no idea what was going on right outside the car. I got out a flashlight and pointed it outside. "What we saw was cows...a whole lot of cows, rubbing up against the car from all angles, and the ones with faces right up to the glass were licking the windows -- big pink tongues licking away the night. "Eventually, the unfenced cattle gave up on this strange bovine behaviour and allowed us to go back to sleep. Needless to say, we didn't park in any more fields with cows on our Maritime adventure." Thanks, David, for that udderly terrifying tale. If you feel moooved by anything you hear on the show, get on the horn to Talkback at 416-205-5687. Or email us at cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

August 30 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode