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 May 29, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight…

CO: Oil aboard. The Trudeau government says buying the Trans Mountain is an investment in Canada's economy, and at $4.5 billion the taxpayers are coughing up for it can certainly agree that it's an investment.

JD: Not buying it. An Indigenous leader whose First Nation is part of a legal challenge against the pipeline says he'll keep fighting the project regardless of who's paying for it.

CO: Pain by numbers. The official death toll in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria is in the dozens. But According to a new study the number of dead is actually in the thousands.

JD: Totally awesome. For months the single Twitter account told the members of the band Weezer hurry boys it's waiting there for you. And now the band has finally obliged with a faithful cover of the 80s song Africa.

CO: The sitcom after the storm. When Roseanne returned to TV this year this show was a huge hit. But after a racist tweet from its star, ABC abruptly canceled a planned second season.

JD: And…Jean-erous to a fault. Someone just paid a hundred thousand U.S. bucks for a 121-year-old pair of Levi's. And our guest explains that a vintage denim sale that seems to button fly in the face of reason. As It Happens: The Tuesday Edition. Radio that offers an embarrassment of britches.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Kinder Morgan: First Nation/Federal government, 'Roseanne' cancelled

Kinder Morgan: First Nation

Guest: Rueben George

JD: If you're a Canadian taxpayer congratulations, we guess, you're back in the oil business. In Ottawa today the Trudeau government announced that it is going to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline from Kinder Morgan. That's going to cost four-and-a-half billion dollars — and billions more before the thing can actually pump bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to the B.C. coast. Finance Minister Bill Morneau explained Ottawa’s decision like this.

SOUNDCLIP

BILL MORNEAU: We see this project as one that's in the national interest. We see the value it creates in terms of jobs. We see the significant economic value to the country. And in this exceptional situation where we have delays caused by politically motivated actors, we're going to take those issues off the table by exerting federal jurisdiction.

JD: Mr. Morneau mentioned delays. One is due to a legal challenge being brought by Tsleil-Waututh nation and other First Nations, which is before the Federal Court of Appeal. Rueben George is the project manager for the Tsleil-Waututh Sacred Trust Initiative. We reached him in Vancouver.

CO: Mr. George, you just heard Minister Morneau, he says this pipeline is in the national interest. He's going to make sure it gets built no matter what. What's your response?

RUEBEN GEORGE: That's ridiculous. Again and again we we've been proving them wrong. The National Energy Board when they hired Stephen Kelly who put in 20 per cent of Morgan's application we called them on it, and it didn't work out really well for them. Then they try to unscramble an egg with our advisory committee by hiring former people who worked for Kinder Morgan, like Kim Baird, and we called them on that too. And now we're going to court and we’re suing Canada for not consulting. And then another thing happened, as you know, the leaked documents that they had no intention to consult with First Nations, that they were going to push the pipeline through anyway. That's why the Federal Court of Appeal decision will come later because they're looking at this new evidence. So there's multiple reasons why First Nations are winning 90 per cent of court cases against resource extraction. I believe in the Canadian Constitution protecting our Indigenous rights to stop this. So they left this out from the very beginning and they're making another mistake by doing that.

CO: You went down to lobby Kinder Morgan, didn't you, the investors and wanted them not to back this pipeline? But now that the investor is the Canadian taxpayer so what do you do with that? What’s your argument now?

RG: Well, there's two things around that. When I first went on and spoke at the Kinder Morgan AGM three years ago their stock fell by 60 per cent, their dividens were cut by 75 per cent because there's too much uncertainty. That was back then and now it's happening again. Their stock has fallen 20 per cent since January. And when we spoke to the shareholders we explained to them that it's not a good investment. So they backed out. They made the right choice. They're business people. So now stockholders made the choice by pulling their money out. But Trudeau is not given the taxpayers the decision to pull their money. He’s going to go ahead with it and that's wrong.

CO: They don't have the same — as you point out — that it’s a business decision the part of Kinder Morgan they say ‘All right, well, maybe this is just too much grief to go through with this.’ But this is not a business that's now investing, its us, Canadian taxpayers and they're not playing by the same rules. So how do you resist something that is no longer playing by the rules of business as you were trying to resist in the past?

RG: I think the courts will explain that. The courts will explain that and like we said we'll do whatever it takes to stop it. And we're first going to court. And like I said, I’m happy with the Canadian Constitution protecting our Indigenous rights. And it's a wrong choice. We did a 1,200 page assessment on Kinder Morgan — scientific facts backing why it's not good. We did three additional studies that are 80 pages each. Eighty seven per cent chance, not if but when, this bill will happen. And there was this bill on Sunday, just a couple days ago. We did another study showing you could only clean up 20 per cent. We did a third study on the economics of it, that it's not good for Vancouver, B.C. and Canada. And then if you look at the money that they're going to spend, it's going to be a lot more than four billion dollars left. It's could it be some say seven billion. We're already giving $5 billion in taxpayers money in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. So let's say that's 12 million. Can you imagine the start that we could have with green energy initiatives?

CO: The Trudeau government it says though, that this pipeline, Trans Mountain has been the most rigorously consulted in the history of Canadian resource development. They have done their homework. It's a safe and good pipeline. What more do you want them to do? Is there anything the federal government could do to convince you that this pipeline is safe?

RG: Well, when they say it's safe, number one, we make them own up to their lies. And that's why they have to go through the so-called rigorous process. Like you said, Stephen Kelly was putting in 20 per cent of Kinder Morgan's application to the National Energy Board, then was hired by the National Energy Board. Then you look at Kim Baird who worked for Kinder Morgan, who was hired for advisory committee. All along it's been a farce and we've been calling them on their B.S. And since we've been calling them on the B.S. they had to go back to the drawing board and redo. And that could be said for the rest of the pipeline applications across Canada. They need to be redone, too. This is just the beginning, for real. This is just the beginning of the end of a fossil fuel industry that's so destructive that kills the land, kills the water, kills the people. And right now I think Canadians will wake up because when it's not in their backyard they don't care but it starting to happen like that. You look at the spill in Kamloops just a couple days ago. You look how they reacted to the little spill. It took them 14 hours to react to a spill that was in English Bay. Look at Exxon Valdez, it's still a mess up there. Look at the Gulf of Mexico — all these tragedies that happen are real and things are changing and we need to change to protect our coast, to protect why this is beautiful B.C., why Vancouver is the most consistently rated number one city in the world.

CO: OK. So I'm guessing that your answer is no, there is nothing they can do to convince you that this is a good idea?

RG: Well, the facts say it themselves.

CO: We know that there are hundreds of people who have already been arrested since march who were opposing this pipeline. It seems that there are tens of thousands who are willing to take part in protests against it. How far will you go in order to prevent this pipeline from being built?

RG: Well, Kennedy Stewart just did a study that 10 per cent of British Columbians are willing to do something about this. On our ‘Protect The Coast’ website there's 23,000 people that said that they would get arrested for this. You know, people believe in and love what we have, and I think people will ramp it up. We’re entrenched in our legal case, we’re entrenched in educating people on the true facts of what it is, but I know what the colleagues that I have are going to step it up for sure.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr. George ,thank you for speaking with us.

RG: All right. Thank you.

CO: Bye.

RG: Bye.

JD: Rueben George is the project manager of the Tsleil-Waututh Sacred Trust Initiative. We reached him in Vancouver.

Kinder Morgan: Federal government

Guest: Jonathan Wilkinson

JD: Mr. George is not alone. B.C. Premier John Horgan has joined the Federal Court case. He has also asked the B.C. Supreme Court if he has the power to regulate the environmental impacts of projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline. This afternoon the Premier told reporters that he was not about to back down.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN HORGAN: What we've been doing from the beginning is trying to make sure that we're doing everything that we humanly can to protect the interests of British Columbians. Both governments have professed to embrace the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people. Both governments have professed to embrace genuine reconciliation, and I'm not convinced you can't necessarily do that when you're disregarding the rights of Indigenous groups along a power corridor.

REPORTER: Where we stand today, do you believe this pipeline is going to be built?

JH: I will continue to do what I can to ensure that while I'm leading the government of British Columbia we're doing everything we can to protect those things that are precious to B.C. Our coast is significant to not just British Columbians, but to all Canadians. And I believe we have an obligation to ensure that we are doing everything we can to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a deluded bitumen spill. I do believe that the federal government now, is totally accountable, not just for regulation and approval of a pipeline, but they now are responsible from wellhead to tidewater and beyond. And I think that allows me to have more candid discussions with the owners of the pipeline than I would have been able to when they were shareholders in a Texas based oil company.

JD: That was B.C. Premier John Horgan speaking to reporters this morning in Victoria. Jonathan Wilkinson is the Liberal Member of Parliament for North Vancouver. He's also the Parliamentary Secretary for the Federal Environment Minister. We reached Mr. Wilkinson in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Wilkinson, we just heard from Premier Horgan, who says that the federal government has taken on responsibility from pipehead to tidewater for a possible bitumen spill. But what authority do you have to do that?

JONATHAN WILKINSON: Well, let's start with where this project comes from. I mean, this is a project that the federal government has indicated we believe to be in the national interest. It’s something that was approved by the federal government, it was approved by the province 18 months ago. The proponent spent a billion dollars on the project after approval and then you have Premier Horgan and the new government of British Columbia that tends to rewrite the rules of the game after the game is over, which creates enormous political uncertainty, not only for this project, but for investment in Canada generally. And so what this government has said is it was willing to step in to address the political uncertainties and to do something that would allow this project, which is in the national interest, to go forward. Our intention is to ensure that construction goes on through the summer and that we continue the momentum of the project going forward and ultimately then we will transact the project back to the private sector.

CO: Okay, so are you saying that no matter what, even though there are court challenges, not just from the British Columbia government, but from First Nations who say that you have not provided free, prior and informed consent, which is the duty of Canada to do so with First Nations for this project. Despite the fact that all those things are still in the courts, you say that you want to go ahead and build it. What message does that send to the courts?

JW: Well, what it says is, first of all, with respect to the issue of the British Columbia challenge, I mean we are very confident that this is federal jurisdiction and we are confident that that will be the finding ultimately as we move forward.

CO: Wait a second. How do you how do you think a judge is going to respond to the fact that you don't need to hear what the judge has got to say, you already know what he has to say?

JW: Well, I think Carol, we've been saying that this is a clear case of federal jurisdiction on which courts opined in the past. And we've been saying that consistently from the beginning since the province decided that it would move to try to frustrate the process. With respect to First Nations consultation, what I would say to you is, first of all, you know, 43 out of 51 first nations along the pipeline actually have impact benefit agreements, and a number of them have come out in strong support of the project. So there's certainly not unanimity. With respect to consultation, we did enormous consultation, not only through the National Energy court process, but through the additional work that this Government did with respect to consulting Indigenous Peoples, post the NEB review. And our view is that that consultation was thorough and exhaustive. Obviously, the courts will determine if in fact it fully meets the standards that are required under the Constitution. I would highlight the fact the British Columbia court, last week, looked at the issue with respect to the consultations that were done for the B.C. permit and found that the consultation was indeed appropriate.

CO: If somebody is going to do something on mutual property, let's say that is going to cut down a tree in the back of my house and I say ‘Well, you don't have the right to do it,’ ‘Well, yes I do.’ You take it to court. Meanwhile, you don't cut the tree down while you're waiting to find out whose opinion is more respected by the courts, right?

JW: Well, no. I mean, the appropriate process to go through for a project to proceed were the environmental assessment reviews that were done federally and were done provincially. Once a project has been approved the proponent can proceed. Now certainly people who feel that the process was not followed in a manner that they believe was not appropriate can certainly go to court to actually challenge that, which is what has happened in the context of First Nations. That doesn't mean that you have to have a complete certainty with respect to any challenge that may arise before any project can proceed. If that was the case you would never have any projects proceed.

CO: You have the First Nations who are involved with this now say they will escalate their frontline opposition because of your announcement. 200 people have already been arrested since March for opposing the pipeline. Somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 people have pledged online to do quote “whatever it takes to stop the pipeline.” How far are you willing to go? What are you willing to do in the face of that opposition?

JW: Well, I mean Carol, I think Canadians generally are certainly of the view that people have the right to protest against anything that they don't agree with, that's part of the essence of the democratic process. But Canadians also expect that their fellow Canadians will abide by the rule of law and that is the expectation, certainly, the government has and that all governments must have — governments that are that are responsible for, not only making, but enforcing the law.

CO: How much is this going to cost the Canadian taxpayer to build this pipeline?

JW: Well, ultimately that there should be minimal, if any cost, to the Canadian taxpayer. I mean, this is the purchase of assets, assets have value. And so the focus is on expediting the construction process and ultimately transacting this back to the private sector.

CO: Well, I think the wording was that there's hope and belief that the pipeline will be built by the private sector but you don't know that. It’s four-and-a-half billion for the deal with Kinder Morgan and then another two to three billion to build it?

JW: Yeah, there are costs associated with buying the asset, and then there will be cost associated with constructing it. The focus for us is transacting it back to the private sector. But as you will know, you the whole point of investing in assets for a private sector organisation is to earn returns and generate profits. In the worst case scenario where the government was not able in the short term to get transact it back to the private sector it would earn those returns itself.

CO: Just finally, I hate to sound cynical but I'll take that chance, but it does sound, it does smell like you're worried about the election and this is something you're doing in order to shore up your hopes and aspirations for the next federal election.

JW: Carol, this has nothing to do with the next election. This has to do with being able to ensure that projects, once they are actually approved, can get built. It is a project that is being frustrated by a provincial government that is operating outside its lane, and it is something that we, as a country, need to ensure gets built or the investor confidence issue becomes very, very large. It has zero, I can tell you, to do with the next election.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Wilkinson, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

JW: All right. Thank you.

JD: Jonathan Wilkinson is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Federal Environment Minister and the Liberal MP for North Vancouver. We reached him in Ottawa.

'Roseanne' cancelled

Guest: William Lucas Walker

[Music: Roseanne Theme]

JD: You will not be hearing this on ABC anymore. The network canceled the enormously successful Rosanne reboot today. The decision came quickly after the show's star, Roseanne Barr, put out a racist tweet last night. It was directed at a black former White House adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama. Ms. Barr is an avid supporter of Donald Trump, and for a while now she has been peddling conspiracy theories and posting offensive content to Twitter. William Lucas Walker says she is not the same Roseanne Barr he knew back in the 90s. Mr. Walker is a former writer-producer on the original Roseanne series. We reached him in L.A.

CO: Mr. Walker, when you saw this tweet from Roseanne Barr how did you respond?

WILLIAM LUCAS WALKER: Well, I didn't see the tweet first, I saw the news story that ABC canceled the show because of a tweet and then I went and looked up the tweet and I immediately understood why it ABC canceled the show.

CO: And what do you think of ABC decision?

WLW: I applaud it. I think it was the only thing possible to do, and especially since they are a money making machine and that they stood to make a fortune off of the show. And you don't often see networks make decisions that are morally correct over what they might make in profit. So I was surprised and I applaud their decision. I hate it for friends of mine, I have a lot of friends who are actors in the show or writers on the show or crew members on the show, and they’ll lose their jobs today. I feel terrible for them.

CO: I mean, have you spoken with them? What are they saying?

WLW: I've been on Facebook with some of them. All of them felt like there was no other choice, that it was inevitable. I thought the reboot was excellent. You know, of course I didn't know how it would turn out, but I was thrilled when I saw it. I thought it was an excellent show that was very true to the original in terms of exploring class issues and a lot of emotional issues and things that are normally talked about in television comedies. The only wildcard, of course, was Roseanne Barr's personal tweeting habit, but she's certainly not the person I remember.

CO: Because that's really important to know if the Roseanne Barr with whom you worked on the original Roseanne, is that — do you recognize the person? There's something that Roxane Gay, the columnist said, “Roseanne Barr was once edgy and provocative. Now she's absurd and offensive.” Has she changed? Is this the same Roseanne that you worked with?

WLW: Well, she was always provocative and she always had a real instinct for what would make headlines and what would bring viewers to the show. But she was never, I never knew her to be racist. I never knew her to be anti any minority. It was just never any inkling back then that she would swing to these kinds of rants and conspiracy theories and racist remarks and I'm flabbergasted by it.

CO: And unfortunately I have to quote this very offensive tweet so people know what was said. Roseanne Barr wrote in a tweet, she was referring to Valerie Jarrett, who was the special adviser to Barack Obama during the White House years. And she wrote “The Muslim Brotherhood and Planet Of The Apes had a baby. That's Valerie Jarrett.” But that's not the first time she has tweeted something racist like that. She called Susan Rice, the former Obama's national security adviser, compared her to a monkey as well. So that was well before ABC decided to re-launch the show. So the network knew that she said things like this. So what did you make of the decision to actually put her back on the air?

WLW: I hadn't heard about that earlier tweet. I think this one probably just happened to land at the right spot at the right time and everybody saw it. I don't think there was anybody else on the writing staff or the cast or the crew who shared her views.

And, you know, it's a show about an American family and a show that has all different sorts of viewpoints and I think for a long time they felt like that would work and I think this was just a bridge too far. I think it was just like this obviously isn't some learning curve she's on, she's known she's tweeted things like this in the past and continues to do it, and I just think it was just the straw that broke Roseanne's back.

CO: Just about the show, because lots of people who don't like Roseanne Barr were enjoying this show for all the reasons you're describing. That it was rich as the first one that you were part of. It was showing all of the different kinds of characters who make up the United States and all the different kinds of comfortable issues that families deal with and it was doing all those things. But do you think that in the end is just too difficult to separate Roseanne Conner, the Trump supporter, from Roseanne Barr, who is a Trump supporter and saying things that it looks like Roseanne Conner would never be scripted to say.

WLW: Well, she wouldn't. And Roseanne herself knew that the character could not be her. And I think she was smart enough as a businesswoman to know that if Roseanne Barr was Roseanne Conner nobody was going to tune in. But yeah I think it just became too much. It's just something you can't overlook. I mean, I've worked on a lot of different shows and a lot of the actors in them were wildly different from the characters that they play, but they usually were smart enough to keep that — I mean, not in this way, so I'm not saying racist — but there were people who had substance abuse issues and mental health issues and all sorts of things. But that was sort of dealt with and kept in the background. But this is, especially in the in the climate we're living in now, that it’s such a powder keg, you just can't say things like that. For ABC to have kept the show on the air after this, I think would have caused a boycott of the network. I just don't see how they could have done anything but what they did.

CO: Mr. Walker, I really appreciate your thoughtful remarks on this and thank you.

WLW: OK, thank you.

JD: William Lucas Walker was a writer producer on the original Roseanne. The reboot of Roseanne was canceled today by ABC, just two months after it premiered.

[Music: 90’s Rock]

Weezer ‘Africa’ Cover

JD: They finally blessed the rains. After a months-long social media campaign we can all rest easy. At long last the rock band Weezer has covered Toto's 1982 hit Africa. The Twitter account @WeezerAfrica is believed to be the work of a 14-year-old from Cleveland known only as Mary. And Mary has just achieved something that a hundred men or more could never do. She and her followers convinced Rivers Cuomo, Patrick Wilson, Brian Bell and Scott Schreiner to take on that infamous soft rock ballad. Just last week, Weezer had responded to calls for a cover on Twitter by releasing their take on Toto's lesser known but also awesome Roseanna, leading fans to fear they were being trolled. But today their new recording appeared on the web as sure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the Serengeti.

Part 2: Puerto Rico deaths, Vintage denim

Puerto Rico deaths

Guest: Domingo Marques

JD: The official death toll on Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria still stands at 64. But today, a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the number is likely closer to 5,000. The researchers, led by scientists at Harvard School of Public Health, came to their estimate by conducting thousands of interviews, asking randomly chosen households about their experiences. Domingo Marques is a professor of psychology at Albizu University and a co-author of the study. We reached Professor Marques in San Juan.

CO: Professor Marques, why is your death toll estimate so much higher than the official figure?

PROFESSOR DOMINGO MARQUES: We use a broader definition, our definition that we use this World Health Organization one where deaths related to natural disasters include electrocution, for example, or flooding afterwards, lack of medical attention or prescriptions — so other related deaths. The only way to be able to get them is our method. I mean, we did a survey and we were on the ground and we went house by house, so there's no way that basically from an office the government can do that, right. So that's why the difference is so big.

CO: And what's interesting about your investigation is that because you are on the ground you actually heard the stories of people, which gives you a sense — and it's just heartbreaking to understand how the Hurricane Maria put people into a state of profound despair. It ruptured families, it destroyed their health. It just goes on and on, doesn't it?

DM: Yeah, for me that's the real important data that we have. I want the government, not only to focus on the number of deaths, but the reasons behind that and they're all related to suffering so many losses at the same time — we lost infrastructure, we lost power, we lost running water, drinking water, a sense of security, landslides, flooding. So our data shows that people of Puerto Rico suffered so much and that accounts for the death total being so high. Lack of medical treatment, for example, if you were a dialysis patient there wasn't a dialysis machine working for months at a time. You know, diabetics couldn't get their insulin and if they get it they couldn't refrigerate it because there was no power.

CO: The destruction is vast, isn't it? I mean, $90 billion in damage. You went to visit people, you went to talk to them. Was that in any way helpful to them just to know that somebody showed up and asked ‘Hey what happened to you and how did your family members die?’

DM: Yeah, yeah, months before the study I was already going out with my students and giving psychological first aid. So we've been going out since day seven after the hurricane. And listened to stories and knowing that someone's there, someone cares, especially when we went out and gave them some supplies or batteries or food or water, they were more than grateful. That's something we couldn't do during the study because we couldn't say ‘I’ll give you this.’ They gain nothing from participating in the study. So that was harder on us, the fact that we couldn't get people anything when we saw them lacking even food sometimes.

CO: You have called yourself and your family, you said you were the lucky ones. But even your story, I mean, most people would be horrified to have to go through what you describe. Just tell us a bit about how your family weathered the storm?

DM: In my case and I have a 10-year-old and my daughter she was one-year-old and she needed a respiratory therapy and we didn't have power and we couldn't get gasoline, so you could have all the cash you wanted and there was no way of getting gasoline. I mean, the lines for gas were like eight hours. So it was really hard. I mean, getting food, getting water, even if you had money in your hands, it was really hard. So I lived in a nice house, strong house with hurricane resistant windows. And still we went more than 100 days without power and I had to plug the respiratory machine into my car at night so I can give the respiratory therapy to my baby. I didn't know anything about my family for weeks on end because there was no communications. So I actually was going out with the army helping people and I still didn't know anything about my brother whether or not they were alive or not. And I'm one of the lucky ones. That's like the best case scenario what I'm describing.

CO: Having the official death toll at 64 surely the effects Puerto Rico's ability to get the support, to get the recognition, the help it needs, and to help it get ready to prepare for the next hurricane season. What effect does there have if the Government doesn't accept that the death toll was 70 times higher than the official one?

DN: Yeah, that's a great question. I'm relieved because I just learned that the governor had a reaction and he just said that he's going to accept those results and use them because he respects us. I’m guessing he said he respects Harvard, but the reason we didn't come out with our results right after we finished — with we finished in February — but we wanted to be able to publish it in a really respectable journal, and, I mean, the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most important journals there is out there. So it helps getting that legitimacy so the government can work with us.

CO: Okay, Hurricane Maria was last September and now, without even having recovered from it and even having power in many parts, you are facing the next hurricane season. What concerns do you have about that?

DN: Well, the fact that our electrical power system it's like being fixed with a rubber band, I guess. I mean, most of the repairs, even to houses, are just like temporary fixes. I'm really worried. We've been having hurricanes since our ancestors, so we're used to them, we know how to get ready, but we weren't ready. No one could have gotten ready for what happened. It was one of the strongest hurricanes ever, so no one in a million years could have guessed that we were going to be eight months out. I think it's eight months out already and some people don’t have power yet. So no one could have guessed that.

CO: Professor Marques, thank you for your work and thanks for speaking with us.

DN: Thank you for the interest.

JD: Domingo Marques is the co-author of a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine on mortality in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. We reached Professor Marques in San Juan.

[Music: Drums]

Christopher Wylie House of Commons

JD: Christopher Wylie shed a bit more light on the inner workings of Cambridge Analytica today. Mr. Wylie is the Canadian who blew the whistle on the Facebook data scandal. And over a three-hour session he took questions from MPs in Ottawa. At one point Mr. Wylie was asked to explain why he decided to come forward. He explained it was because the company was engaged in deliberate voter suppression. Mr. Wylie appeared via video link from the U.K.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRISTOPHER WYLIE: My understanding of what the company was intending to do, I believe at the instigation of Steve Bannon and some of his colleagues in different PACs, was to create lists of dominantly African-American voters and then look at what types of messaging would disengage them from politics further, which would then reduce the likelihood that they would vote. So there's different definitions of voter suppression. The most egregious form would be to actually go and try to deregister people to vote or what's called ‘vote caging.’ That's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is finding things that will make politics so unappetizing or confusing to a subset of voters that they become less inclined to actually vote or engage with the democratic process.

JD: Mr. Wylie did go on to say though, that he believed targeting voters with specific messages could be a good thing, too.

SOUNDCLIP

CW: There is something to be said about sending messages to voters where that message contains a policy or an issue that they actually care about. If I'm a person in Nova Scotia I might be not entirely concerned with wheat and farming policies in Saskatchewan because what affects me is fisheries or what affects me is something else. And so the targeting doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. You can have targeting that is positive for democracy because you are speaking to voters about something that they actually care about — and indeed in a medium that they actually see and engage with. We have declining turnout, so this is not just a problem in Canada, it's a problem all over the place because the media environment, the media landscape has completely changed. And so part of the job of political parties in maintaining our democratic process, is to adapt to that new environment and to develop ways of engaging voters in that new environment. So digital has to be part of that. So I think that we shouldn't necessarily treat social media or online communications as a bad thing, just in the same way that you can have a knife and that can be a murder weapon or it can create a Michelin star meal. It's a tool. So the appropriate thing to do is to look at what is reasonable for this tool and how to use this tool and create boundaries for that tool.

JD: That was Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, speaking via video link before a House of Commons committee in Ottawa today.

Vintage denim

Guest: Daniel Buck Soules

JD: An unnamed private buyer has purchased a pair of vintage Levi's jeans for nearly 100,000 U.S. dollars. That is more than 2.7 million in 1897 dollars — in case the jeans original owner was wondering. Daniel Buck Soules of Antiques Roadshow brokered the sale. We reached him today in Lisbon Falls, Maine.

CO: Daniel, first off just describe what these old jeans look like?

DANIEL BUCK SOULES: Carol, if you were to see these Levi's blue jeans you would think that they were absolutely brand spanking new Levi's. They are very similar to what we have today. The biggest differences is the way the selvage on the inside of a leg was finished, not having a second back pocket and having the way that the overalls — they're called waist overalls — so you had to wear suspenders, so they had the suspender buttons on them.

CO: The other thing about this particular pair of jeans is that they're huge, right?

DANIEL BUCK SOULES: Well, Carol, you know the way I like to describe them is that this man who ordered these was the John Wayne of Tucson. They were 44 inch waist, 36 inch inseam and he was he was a big man. Not only was he a big man like John Wayne, but he was truly a westerner. He was a John Wayne of his time. He ran a dry goods store in Tucson. He would frequently go to Yuma and to the west coast to pick up dry goods. His wagon train was shot up. He was actually shot three times and he still made it back to Tucson, Arizona and survived and kept going.

CO: And so why did he custom order these blue jeans?

DBS: When it comes to Levi’s in that time period you couldn't go to a J.C. Penney and purchase them, you had to order them. So he ordered them got them in, but at the time he was ill. So they put them away in a trunk and he ended up shortly, about a-year-and-a half after, passing away and he never wore them. And they literally are brand spanking new.

CO: They’ve been sitting in that trunk ever since?

DBS: They've been sitting in that trunk ever since. His descendants would pull them out of the trunk on occasion to show them to people and then wrap them back up and put them back in the trunk. We frequently when, we clean out houses, we'll find items from the 18th and 19th centuries that are like the day they were made. Tucson, Arizona you have a very dry climate. You have no humidity. It just it was a perfect environment to keep these in pristine condition.

CO: There's such a story behind these jeans because of this the man who owned them, who never wore them. How is it that story was passed on? How do you know all this about the guy who bought these jeans?

DBS: All I can say Carol, is Solomon Warner was extremely well-known. He helped found Tucson. In the 1940s movie Arizona, he's actually depicted in the movie. So these people knew that their ancestor Solomon Warner had purchased them and they had come down through the family.

CO: Now do you think the family when they were taking these jeans out every now and then looking at them and showing the people, did they have any idea how much they were worth?

DBS: For a long time they did not. One time somebody had offered them some money for them but it was nowhere near this amount. And when they met with me and they showed me the jeans, that's when I said to them you've got something special here. And that's when it slowly built to the point, after doing research, to find out that these junior jeans were worth close to $100,000.

CO: Can you tell us anything about the person who bought them?

DBS: They’re from Southeast Asia and they really want to remain anonymous — that’s the only thing I can say.

CO: But the buyer did send somebody to the United States, to Maine, to inspect the jeans, right?

DBS: Correct. They sent two people over in order to inspect the jeans. They spent about a half an hour looking the genes over, taking photographs of the jeans inside and out. Because Carol, these are so rare that they thought that these probably were either fakes or something somebody made up and so they wanted to verify that these jeans truly were from the 19th century. And when they did the research while they were here and looked at them they realized that these truly were jeans from 1897. And that's why they were willing to spend the money that they did.

CO: And that they’re really truly Levi's?

DBS: And they're truly Levi's, yes they are.

CO: Did you think that you would get such a high price, $100,000?

DBS: Yes. We felt that we would get close to $100,000 only because of the rarity of them and the condition. These are the only pair that we're aware of from the 19th century of jeans that have never been worn.

CO: And I understand that since you've sold these jeans and got all the attention for it, which has been considerable, you've had a lot of people who want to talk to you about their jeans.

DBS: We actually have not only Levi’s but also other 19th century blue jean manufacturers. So what you find is that when people see this come out, people stop to look and say ‘OK what do we have in our house?’ We get people from all over the country who contact us that say ‘Hey we want your help.’ We've got some great stuff it looks like coming in with other blue jeans from the 19th century.

CO: You’d think in this day and age actually there are people going out to buy blue jeans that are made to look like they're 121 years old.

[LAUGHTER]

DBS: And they pay a lot of money for those. But these are these were museum quality and went into a private collection.

CO: And do you know what the buyer will do or could do with a $100,000 pair of jeans?

DBS: Because he's a collector of Levi’s his plan is just to keep them in his collection.

CO: So those stay in a trunk or a drawer for another 121 years?

DBS: Or possibly in a shadowbox displayed somehow in his home. I'm not sure what he is going to do and how he's going to do it. But he will keep them just for himself because he's got a number of other Levi's as well.

CO: All right well think about that when you're putting your jeans on in the morning. Daniel, it's great to talk to you. Thanks.

DBS: Carol, thank you very much. Have a great day.

CO: Bye.

JD: Maybe a $100,000 pair of Daisy Dukes. Daniel Buck Soules brokered the sale of a pair of vintage Levi's which went for almost $100,000. We reached him in Lisbon Falls, Maine. And if you would like to see what a $100,000 pair of jeans looks like head to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient Bass Tones]

Louisiana Preacher Private Jet

JD: A Louisiana preacher is asking his followers to help him preach the gospel better by giving him $54 million to buy a luxury private jet. Jesse Duplantis is a 68-year-old televangelist. His ministry already owns three jets, but now he is asking for help buying a fourth. And to the skeptics he says “What would Jesus do?” Here he is from a video he posted on his website last week.

SOUNDCLIP

JESSE DUPLANTIS: You know, I've owned three different jets in my life and I use them and just burning them up for the Lord Jesus Christ. Now some people believe that preachers shouldn't have jets. I really believe that preachers ought to have and go on every available voice, every available outlet to get this gospel preach to the world. I really believe that if Jesus was physically on the earth today he wouldn't be riding a donkey. Think about that for a minute. He'd be in an airplane preaching the gospel all over the world. I'm excited also about the United States embassy is now in the nation of Israel in Jerusalem. What a blessing to God. That tells me that the end times — I mean it's coming fast ladies and gentleman. And he said go in the world and preach the gospel to every creature. How are we going to do that? I can't live long enough to travel by car or by ship or by train — but I can do it by an airplane.

JD: That was televangelist Jesse Duplantis. He preaches the prosperity gospel, which says the God blesses the faithful by showering them with earthly riches.

Part 3: Cycling crash, Swearing Children

Cycling crash

Guest: Gord Townley

JD: The Seven Days in May charity bike ride was supposed to be fun. More than 50 cyclists spending a week riding a route around Lake Ontario. But the fun came to an abrupt end on Sunday just outside Kingston, Ontario. First one of the cyclists hit a pothole, fell off his bike. The group he was riding with stopped to help, everyone pulled off to the side of the road. Then those riders were struck by a car. Gord Townley is the founder of the Seven Days and May ride. We reached him on the road near Oswego, New York, on the southeast corner of Lake Ontario.

CO: Gord, I'm sorry for all your troubles. Is everyone recovering?

GORD TOWNLEY: Unfortunately not. On Sunday afternoon four of our cyclists were injured — one prior to the incident involving the car — he had fallen. He's okay, he was released from hospital shortly after with minor concussion symptoms. But he is now home and safe. Another cyclist was knocked over the guardrail. He has bruises and was inspected on sight, but he's okay. The third cyclist is actually my daughter and she received several broken bones, ribs, broken wrist, punctured lung. She remains at Kingston General Hospital, but she is recovering. She had surgery on Sunday night and she's going to be fine. A fourth cyclist, who was hit head on by the car, remains in Kingston General, his family is with him and he is in critical condition.

CO: It's just awful. I just want to go back to how everything began on Sunday when the first cyclist that was involved in this hit a pothole and then what happened after that?

GT: When he fell he hit his head. One of the gentlemen with him happened to be a retired fire captain and knew how to take control of the situation. So he stabilized the cyclist, brought him over to the side of the road, had traffic stopped while we cleaned up the scene and was attending to his injuries. I do want to stress that everybody was on the side of the road.

CO: Just for clarity, everybody who is involved with this who was trying to help this one cyclist, you were all on the side of the road no one known was on the road at this point?

GT: That's correct. Nobody was riding their bikes. Everybody's bike was against the guardrail or around the corner of the guardrail. So what happened was a van was being driven along the road, saw the cyclists on the side and the attention going on. So quite appropriately slowed down and actually moved a little bit over to the left. At that same time another vehicle was approaching the scene at speed coming from the west heading towards Kingston. And rather than slowing down they pulled over onto the shoulder of the road and tried to pass the van on the right. And what they did initially was they brushed past one of the cyclists, they hit with the front right of the car and rearview mirror. My daughter who spun around hit the fire captain and he and the gentleman who are being attended to actually got flipped over the guardrail. Another cyclist beside them also got brushed and was pushed over the guardrail and then the car actually bumped against the guardrail and carried on and then struck the last cyclist head on, so hard that the windshield was knocked back into the car and it was only at that point that the driver applied brakes.

CO: And that's the first time the driver for his foot to the brake, at that point?

GT: Yes, according to eyewitnesses, one of whom was one of our cyclists and was the furthest back and saw the saw the entire incident unfortunately all too vividly. And then the car rolled across the road and rolled into a ditch. I rolled up, by the way, just as the fire captain got to the cyclist. So as I'm walking onto the scene I hear “Daddy” from the side and I went over noticed my daughter for the first time obviously in quite a bit of distress. But her boyfriend was comforting her. I quickly assessed what was up, I could obviously tell she had a bad arm and everything and she had contusion on her head and was bleeding but I knew she'd be okay. And then I went down and helped the fire attendant with the cyclist who was in the greatest distress. Paramedics arrived a couple of minutes later and obviously they took over.

CO: But so awful for, I mean, for everybody but you arrive on the scene to see all of this, these people hit, but to know your daughter is one of them — it must have been such a distressing moment?

GT: It's one of those moments you never want to have to experience. The only thing I can say to that is that the other three cyclists who were only minor hurt or were hit witnessed something that was incredibly horrific and they are still living with those images in their head.

CO: Now this whole event, the reason why all these cyclists were out was for this event called ‘Seven Days in May’ and you're still on that ride. What's that about?

GT: We started ‘Seven Days in May’ this actually was our seventh year. We raise awareness and funds for pancreas cancer research in Canada. For those that don't know pancreas cancer is the third leading cause of death in cancer in Canada. It is underfunded grossly, less than two per cent of overall research funds go to pancreatic cancer. So in 2011 my mother passed away from pancreatic cancer, which created an awareness and the desire to do something. So in 2012 we came up with this idea. It is a challenging ride to do it in a week. It's over 1,100 kilometres in seven days. And while we do it we try to raise money and 100 per cent of what we raise actually goes to pancreatic cancer research in Canada.

CO: Well, I don't need to tell you to be safe out there. That's just horrific. I can't imagine what Sunday was like for all of you. And I'm glad your daughter is okay.

GT: Yeah. Thank you very much. We did check in with our other cyclist who's in critical condition, his family, we were chatting with him last night and that they too would want us to go. We actually have his jersey with us on our ride so it will go around the lake and we’ll certainly be signing and returning it to him and his daughter at the end of the week.

CO: Well, safe journey to you. And our best to all the others who are injured and recovering and those who saw it , it’s going to stay with them. Thank you so much. Take care.

GT: Thank you.

JD: Gord Townley as the founder of the Seven Days in May charity bike ride. We reached him in Oswego, New York. We did call the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police, to ask if charges will be laid in the crash. They said it is still under investigation and thus declined to comment further.

Jeremy Thorpe

JD: One of the biggest political scandals has just hit the small screen. BBC Television is airing a new series called A Very English Scandal — it stars Hugh Grant and Ben Whishaw. Mr. Grant plays Jeremy Thorpe, a former leader of Britain's Liberal Party. And Mr. Thorpe is credited with making that party a political contender in the mid-1970s. But then it was revealed that he had had a homosexual relationship a decade earlier, when such things were still illegal in the UK. The story does not end there. Mr. Thorpe, who was one of the most powerful politicians in the country at the time, was charged with conspiring to murder his ex-lover, a man by the name of Norman Scott. The plot did not go according to plan. The gunman, Andrew Newton, ended up shooting Mr. Scott's dog instead of Mr. Scott, as Jeremy Thorpe had allegedly intended. Now, in 1978 prior to Mr. Thorpe’s and Mr. Newton's trial, former CBC Radio producer Steve Wadhams interviewed the gunman and his intended victim for a documentary that aired on the CBC Radio program Sunday Morning. Here is the story of what happened that night. The first voice you're going to hear is that of the gunman Andrew Newton. The second is Jeremy Thorpe's ex-lover Norman Scott.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW NEWTON: We drove out Porlock Hill, it was a very dark night and pulled the car up faking to be tired, Norman Scott offered to drive van. As he got out of the car I pulled the gun out. I shot the dog. I do like dogs, I’ve received a number of letters from people who are dog lovers. But I had to get rid of the dog because it was such an enormous beast. And I was told by Norman Scott that he’d only have to click his fingers it would rip my throat out.

NORMAN SCOTT: I didn't hear any bang. I've never ever heard the bang, which is a very strange thing because it has no silencer on the gun because I now know there wasn't because a silencer is a very long thing. Anyway the dog sort of sank down in front of me and I sort of looked down and I went down to try and just shake her. I just couldn't believe it and I said no ‘You can't involve the dog. Why have you done this?’ And he said ‘Now it's your turn.’

AN: The thinking was that if I could bugger up the attempt then I could go back to Holmes and say ‘Look, I tried to do the act, but Norman Scott ran away, the gun jammed.’ What really frustrated this attempt was when I did pull the gun on Scott he froze like a custard, and instead of running away just stood there and what I did was leveled the gun at him and said it is your turn and pretended that gun had jammed.

NORMAN SCOTT: He was to be paid 10,000 quid. He leveled it at me, absolutely like that, held it right up and leveled it at me and like an animal he sort of cried out and got back into the car and he screamed ‘I'll get you.’

STEVE WADHAMS: You mean so you went on to those lengths and with no intention of killing him on the mall?

AN: Well, look sunshine, when you've got people sort of trying to kill somebody, you’re not dealing with fairyland figures.

NS: I was trying to breathe into her and then this car came along, I ran out and tried to stop them and waved them down. And of course I was covered in blood because I'd had my head you're trying to make her breathe. So they thought I'd been shot. I said ‘My dog's been shot,’ but so garbled they thought I'd been shot. And then, I mean, in all my nerves and worry, I said ‘It's all because of Jeremy Thorpe.’ Even then, in my shock I realized it.

SW: You said that right there?

NS: Yes. I said it's because of Jeremy Thorpe.

JD: From 1978, those were the voices of Andrew Newton and Norman Scott. They were describing Mr. Newton's botched attempt to kill Mr. Scott to prevent him from publicly tarnishing the reputation of UK Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe. The interviewer was former CBC producer Steve Wadhams. That was for a documentary that aired on the CBC Radio program Sunday Morning. Jeremy Thorpe and Andrew Newton were both acquitted. Mr. Thorpe died in 2014. Their story is told in a new series that is airing on BBC television in the UK called A Very English Scandal.

Richard Peck obit

JD: For Richard Peck authenticity was the most important thing. Mr. Peck wrote novels for teenagers and young adults starting in the days when books in that category were only just being recognized as a genre of their own. Richard Peck died last Wednesday. He was 84 years old. In 1979 Mr. Peck appeared on CBC Radio's Morning Side. He told host Don Harron about the challenges of writing for a generation raised on television and he also discussed the release of his book Are You in the House Alone, which won an Edgar Award for mystery fiction. Here's part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD PECK: The book is a grim one and it's not typical of the other things I've written. It's a book on the most unreported crime in our countries and the fastest growing and the one of which the teenager is the main victim. The crime is rape. It's as characteristic a story as I can make it about a high school girl who is raped by one of her classmates.

DON HARRON: And then what happens?

RP: I don't play it for sensationalism. I play it as a real story because there are some things I want the young to know, that the laws and the implementation of laws surrounding rape are wrong. They victimize the victim and they let the attacker, as you know, go free most of the time. Now the young don't know, that they've watched so much television that there is something in them that makes them think that the criminals are always caught just before the final commercial. Well in life it isn't that way. So this is a story of a girl who suffers this crime and then suffers the awareness afterwards that she's not going to have any justice. Also she has to go on living in a community where her rapist is going free. So this is the story about how she faces it. It's not a sensational story in it's graphic elements. It's a story that asks young readers to say ‘Let's think of what we're doing to victims today, and let's evaluate a system in which criminals go free.’

DH: What's been the response to this book?

RP: Well, it's been tremendous, more than I had expected. The book did not sell well in hardback because in our field hardback books are sold mainly to libraries, and a lot of librarians just didn't want to put their jobs on the line. So I began to think well as this book is going down the drain, still it was worth writing it needed to be written. But then when the paperback came out it sold very well because it sold directly to the young. And then it was televised this fall by CBS and that did it. Now the mail comes in.

JD: That was author Richard Peck speaking with CBC Morningside Host Don Harron in 1979. Richard Peck died last Wednesday. He was 84 years old

Swearing Kids

Guest: Emma Byrne

JD: Artificial intelligence researcher Emma Byrne thinks that there is a lot to be said for swearing. Ms. Byrne watches her words herself, especially we assume, we hope, during radio interviews. But she does say that we could afford to be a lot less persnickety about the words children use. Next week Ms. Byrne will be presenting her research on swearing at the Cheltenham Science Festival in England. The upshot — parents should be more permissive when it comes to their children's verbal hygiene. We reached Emma Byrne in London.

CO: Ms. Byrne, why do you think that kids should be allowed, even encouraged, to swear?

EMMA BYRNE: Yeah, I mean swearing, we know, has loads of benefits. It's excellent for us as aduts to kill pain. It's really is a social bonder. It's a great way of demonstrating sympathy between people who otherwise find it really hard to express their emotions. Some of our own research that took football fans on Twitter and they don't swear each other's teams, they don't abuse each other, what they do is they either celebrate by saying ‘f yeah this is an amazing game’ or they're talking about excrement really bad one it is and it's a way of expressing the sort of bonding between them. But the problem is is that we have to learn how to do that effectively somewhere and we do kids a massive disservice when we try to preserve their innocence in some way by banning swearing. So it's not that I'm suggesting that parents encourage their kids to swear, but that they look at what their motivations are when they're asking their kids not to swear because I think quite often we're doing that as parents for our own protection rather than with the best interests of our kids at heart.

CO: Profanities are so often something that is designed to shock. They are cultural taboos usually, dealing with bodily functions or dealing with deities or whatever. But they’re also often misogynist, racist, sexist. These are words that we use quite often to hurt. So why would that be valuable to children to have these words in their vocabularies?

EB: It's very valuable to have the conversation about those words in their vocabulary. Trying to pretend they don't exist does them a massive disservice. As parents if we want to instill our values in our kids then we need to be able to name those words and to talk about those words before they come across them in context out in the world. Because there is a huge difference between the kind of swearing that’s done either spontaneously to kill pain or deliberately but in a way that is jokey and bonding, versus the stuff that is aggressive and it's very much based on slurs. And anything that is slur-based is designed to be hurtful. They're talking about the different uses of swearing and being able to tell the difference between when a hammer drops on your toe or you narrowly avoids being in a car accident and you’re shaken and something just slips out. They internalize this message that there is a degree of hypocrisy about swearing, that it's okay for mum but it's not okay for me, fine I'm just going to use it anyway. For me with my two-year-old it’s a little early yet, but talking about why there were some words that I just don't use. And what the physiological effects are of those slurs on people that hear them when they belong to both those groups that have suffered from oppression.

CO: When your book Swearing is Good For You first came out you were on CBC, on Day Six, and you were at that time grappling with whether you would be comfortable swearing in front of your own kids. So what decisions have you made since then?

EB: I think yes, six months or so of raising a toddler have really made me realize the value of being able to express your emotions with language. So my daughter is just getting through the stage of the of hitting, yelling, screaming, flailing laying on the supermarket floor when things aren't going well and it’s getting to the point where she can actually start to name some of her feelings. And I try to be much more mindful so not completely erased all swearing from my life, but be much more mindful about how I use it. And also to articulate some of the reasons why it's happening. So she understands that you know Mummy was terrified of the way that Audi was driving and that’s why she used that awful word. But one of the things that I'm kind of looking forward to is when she first uses a swear word at me, with me, in front of me, the ability to be able to sit down and discuss that rather than just instantly closing down and saying ‘Never use that word in school, you will embarrass me.’ Because quite often as parents there is this tendency to not want our kids to be looked down upon because it reflects poorly on us.

CO: You touched on something important because this is a convention of society that children don't swear. And so if individual parents, households say well, you know, there are these conditions in which you might want to tell one of us to f off. What happens when you hear from the school that that's what they're telling to the teacher?

EB: It's really important in places like schools or children's groups, Cub Scouts that kind of thing. But you can't have kids for one reason or another are going to swear. Sometimes it’s sociologically because they've been raised in households that don't speak to them respectfully or sometimes it's because they are raised in households where swearing is forbidden and that’s the only place they can do it or sometimes it's actually something physiological, like Tourette's syndrome. And trying to equip teachers and youth workers to understand where that swearing comes from. Because one of the things we know from studies of typical kids, but also from people who have Tourette's syndrome, is that the more you draw attention to that swearing the greater power it has. So being able to look at what is provoking swearing, whether it’s straight forward or neurological or whether there is some trouble in that child's life is really important.

CO: Well, I'm sure there are conversations happening across the nation now among parents and their kids. So I'm sure you've sparked something. Ms. Byrne, it’s good to talk to you thanks.

EB: Thank you.

JD: Emma Byrne is a research scientist specializing in artificial intelligence and she is the author of the book Swearing is Good For You. We reached Ms. Byrne in London, England. And for fun sake why not read more about this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 29, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode