Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The AIH Transcript for January 11, 2016

Hosts: Helen Mann and Angeline Tetteth-Wayoe

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello I'm Helen Mann sitting in for Carol off. Good evening.

I'm Angeline Tetteth-Wayoe, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

ATW: Tonight:

HM: News you can prove. Salacious headlines about Donald Trump's far-from-proven bad behavior in Russia lead a watchdog from the Poynter Institute to issue a plea about journalism and the truth.

ATW Yes we can. And yes he did. A Chicago pastor and friend of Barack Obama's reflects on the legacy of the community activist who became his country's first black president.

HM: Press passing. A Canadian anti-asbestos activist remembers the man she knew as a journalist, but who's now alleged to have been an industry spy and a British civil suit.

ATW: No man is an island. The Prime Minister says he spent New Years at the Aga Khan's private island because the two are long-time friends. But a Conservative MP says Mr. Trudeau's head may be stuck in the sands.

HM: The roots of the problem. Joseph Boyden denies inventing an Indigenous identity, but the author says from now on he'll be less keen about the media's path to his door.

ATW: And 9021 Oh! Fan frustration finds As It Happens when our interview with the star behind “Beverly Hills 90210’s” brainiest teen contains the teensiest pronunciation error. As It Happens the Wednesday, edition radio that vowels to do better the next time.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: BuzzFeed report, alleged asbestos spy

BuzzFeed report

Guest: Kelly McBride

ATW: Last night, BuzzFeed News dropped a bombshell. The website published a 35-page dossier about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. It was allegedly written by a former intelligence official. The dossier makes unsubstantiated claims that Russia has been quote, “cultivating, supporting and assisting Mr. Trump and keeping track of compromising information on the President-elect”. Although the document has been circulating for months, no other news outlet decided to publish the unverified allegations. Today, at a news conference Mr. Trump was asked about it. Here's some of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

JIM ACOSTA: The tweet that you had this morning about how we’re living in Nazi Germany what were you driving at there?

DONALD TRUMP: I think it was disgraceful, disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake out. And that's something that Nazi Germany would have done and did do. I think it's a disgrace as far as BuzzFeed, which is a failing pile of garbage. Writing it, I think they're going to suffer the consequences — they already are.

JA: Since you’re attacking us can you give us a question. Mr. President-elect…[Cross talk: DT:] Go ahead, go ahead. No not you.

JA: Since you are attacking our news organization, can you give us a chance?

DT: Your organization is terrible.

JA: Mr. President-elect, can you give us a can you give us a question?

DT: Don’t be rude.

JA: Can you… [Cross talk: DT:] you are fake news.

ATW: That's Donald Trump in a heated exchange with CNN's Jim Acosta. The journalist didn't get to ask his question. Mr. Trump was responding to BuzzFeed News's publishing of an unsubstantiated dossier on the U.S. President-elect. Kelly McBride is a media ethicist and Vice President of the Poynter Institute. She believes the documents should never have been published. We reached her in St. Petersburg, Florida.

HM: Kelly McBride, why do you think BuzzFeed was wrong to publish this dossier?

KELLY MCBRIDE: Well, I don't think it was an act of journalism. Instead it was just an act of showing the public what you have. But the act of journalism that needs to happen here is to vet and verify or debunk. That's what journalists do. They tell people whether something is true or not. And BuzzFeed didn't help us out in their act of just publishing the report online.

HM: Do you think it was irresponsible?

KM: Yes absolutely. Mainly because it has the effect of making it less likely that citizens will listen when the truth finally surfaces. You know the BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith wrote an explanation as to why he published the dossier. I'm going to quote from his note it says, “Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the President-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the U.S. government.” Given that the material is out there we've been told not just among members of the government but some journalists and others have had their hands on this material. What do you think of that is that not a valid argument?

KM: No not at all. I mean we don't have any of the tools that we need to make up our own minds about whether this information is valid or not. It's not like this is an opinion about climate change or vaccines where if we were so motivated we could go do the research and figure it out. You'd have to be deeply sourced in three intelligence communities: the British one, the U.S. one and the Russian one to really figure out if this is true or not. There's about five people in the world who are able to do that. So just tell the American public hey go figure this out yourself. That seems to me particularly unreasonable and disingenuous.

HM: One of the arguments I'm hearing today is that if this was credible enough to be presented to President Obama and to Donald Trump then the public should know as well. The suggestion being that the intelligence community wouldn't have included it if it wasn't didn't have at least some validity.

KM: Well, so what the intelligence community has said is that the source itself has credibility, but the intelligence community has had this report for quite a long time and they haven't put their stamp of validity on it. So I'm not sure that that that should be the standard. I mean those are those briefings are classified for a reason even though this report because it didn't come from a formal intelligence organization — it came from a private one — doesn't have a classified stamp on it. If that was our standard then sure, this report could be included in that. But that's not the existing standard that we use for publishing intelligence information.

HM: Maybe you could explain what credible journalistic organizations would normally do — at least historically — with this kind of material before they went to publish?

KM: Well, so first of all they’d try and figure out who the source was that has created that and that name has recently come out and people are trying to figure out more about that guy. They try and figure out what the motive of the source was and what the motive not just for creating it, but for then making it publicly available. And then on top of that you would take the details that are included in the report and see what you could verify. In a lot of times you can't verify the most important details, but could you verify I mean there's one particularly salacious narrative in there about Donald Trump in a hotel where President Obama stayed. Could you verify that he was in the city in the right time frame? You know there's ways to start picking apart part at that time line that I'm sure other news organizations are doing as we speak.

HM: CNN took a different approach. It reported the same story, but it did not publish those salacious details or published the dossier itself at all. What do you make of how they handled it?

KM: Well, I think what they were trying to do was much more journalistic. They were informing the public that this briefing had happened both for the outgoing and incoming President and that there was this serious matter. And I think it had BuzzFeed not published the dossier. The story today would be how is the intelligence community and the political community and the White House going to deal with this? But instead right now we're not having that conversation at all. We're just talking about the details of the report and whether they're true or not.

HM: You said earlier that this is the kind of thing that will further reduce the public's trust in journalism and journalistic institutions. What can be done given the changing nature of news through social media and other developments to kind of restore that trust? Is it possible?

KM: Well sure, but it's going to be one news organization at a time and one audience member at a time. You know we are definitely in for four years of the commander-in-chief in the United States dismissing anyone who criticizes him as a bad journalist and unfair and unethical. We are going to have to make that case for the value and veracity of journalism. I mean most of the information that gets published is good solid information.

HM: Ben Smith, the BuzzFeed editor also said that publishing the dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017. What do you think he means by that?

KM: I am not sure at all because I think the job of reporters is to report information. To vet and verify and add context and help people make sense of information. If all we have to do is throw all the information that we get online we don't need professionals to do that. Anybody can do that.

HM: Kelly McBride, I appreciate you talking with us. Thanks so much.

KM: You're welcome.

HM: OK bye.

KM: Bye.

ATW: Kelly McBride is a media ethicist and Vice President of the Poynter Institute a training center for journalists. We reached her in St. Petersburg, Florida.

[Music: Electronic]

Rex Tillerson

ATW: From the get go, it was clear that Marco Rubio wouldn't be playing nice. The Republican senator was questioning former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson today at Mr. Tillerson’s confirmation hearing as the U.S. Secretary of State. The topic of Russia dominated the exchange. Here's Senator Rubio, for the record.

SOUNDCLIP

MARCO RUBIO: Let me ask you this question. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?

REX TILLERSON: I would not use that term.

MR: Well, let me describe the situation in Aleppo and perhaps that will help you reach that conclusion. In Aleppo, Mr. Putin has directed his military to conduct a devastating campaign. He's targeting schools markets not just assisted the Syrians in doing it his military has targeted schools and markets and other civilian infrastructure. It's resulted in the death of thousands of civilians. This is not the first time Mr. Putin is involved in campaigns of this kind. Back when he was just appointed Prime Minister before he was elected. And I'm sure you're aware of that period of time. There was a series of bombings and they blamed it on the Chechens. And Mr. Putin personally said that he would punish them and so he ordered the Air Force to bomb the Chechen capital of Grozny. They used scud missiles to hit hospitals. The city's main outdoor market packed with shoppers hundred 137 people died instantly. They used thermobaric and fuel air explosive bombs. These are the bombs that ignite and they burn the air breathed in by people who are hiding in basements. They use cluster munitions. He used battlefield weapons against civilians. When it was all said and done an estimated 300,000 civilians were killed and the city was completely destroyed. By the way there's a credible body of reporting open source and other that this was all. All those bombings were part of a black flag operation on the part of the FSB. And if you want to know the motivation here's what it is. Putin's approval ratings before the attacks against the Chechens was 31 per cent by mid-August of that year, it was 78 per cent in just three months. So based on all this information and what's publicly on the record about what's happened in Aleppo and the Russian military you are still not prepared to say that Vladimir Putin and his military have violated the rules of war and have conducted war crimes in Aleppo.

RT: Now those are very very serious charges to make and I would want to have much more information before reaching a conclusion. I understand there is a body of record in the public domain. I'm sure there's a body of record in the classified domain and I think in or in order to deal with a serious question like this.

MR: Mr. Tillerson, what has happened in Aleppo is in the public domain the videos and the pictures are there.

RT: I would want to be fully informed before advising the President.

MR: Well, I encourage you there's so much of it. There is so much information out there about what's happened in Aleppo leaving the Chechen issue aside. What happened there is clearly documented as well. There's so much information out there. It should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin's military has conducted war crimes in Aleppo because it is never acceptable. You would agree for a military to specifically target civilians which is what's happened there through the Russian military. And you know I find it discouraging your inability to cite that which I think is globally accepted. I want to in my last minute and a half year move really quickly to an additional question in fact; I want to enter two things into the record Mr. Chairman without objection.

RT: Without objection.

MR: The first is a partial list of political dissidents, journalists and critics of lot of Mr. Putin who were suspiciously murdered or died under highly suspicious circumstances. The second thing I want to enter into the record is a letter addressed to this committee by Vladimir Kara-Murza, who himself was mysteriously poisoned and is an opponent of the Putin regime. I'd like to enter that into the record.

RT: without objection.

MR: Mr. Tillerson do you believe that Vladimir Putin and his cronies are responsible for ordering the murder of countless dissidents, journalists and political opponents.

RT: I do not have sufficient information to make that claim.

MR: Are you aware that people who oppose Vladimir Putin wind up dead and all over the world? Poisoned, shot in the back of the head and do you think that was coincidental or do you think that it is quite possible or likely, as I believe, that they were part of an effort to murder his political opponents.

RT: Well, people who speak up for freedom and regimes that are repressive or are often a threat and these things happen to them in terms of assigning specific responsibilities. I would have to have more information as I indicated. I feel it's important that in advising the President if confirmed that I deal with facts. That I deal with sufficient information which means having access to all information. And I'm sure there's a large body of information that I've never seen that's in the classified realm. I look forward if confirmed to becoming fully informed, but I'm not willing to make conclusions on what is only publicly available or have been publicly.

MR: None of this is classified Mr. Tillerson and these people are dead.

RT: Your question was people who are directly responsible for that. I'm not disputing these people are dead.

ATW: That was Senator Marco Rubio questioning U.S. Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson at his confirmation hearing today.

[Music: Love Letters/ Pop]

Alleged asbestos spy

Guest: Laura Lozanski

ATW: The case reads like a spy thriller. It centers around a man who allegedly posed as an investigative journalist, interested in making a film about the dangers of asbestos. Over the course of four years, he attended global anti-asbestos conferences and interviewed experts. But court documents filed in a U.K. civil suit paint a very different picture of Rob Moore. Instead of making a film he's now accused of working as a spy, connected to corporate intelligence to infiltrate the banned asbestos movement. One of the people that Mr. Moore interviewed was Canadian anti-asbestos activist Laura Lozanski. She spoke with him last September at her office. We reached Miss Lozanski in Ottawa.

HM: Ms. Lozanski, when you met Rob Moore what were your first impressions of him?

LAURA LOZANSKI: he seemed very articulate, very genuinely concerned about the issue and wanting to get involved in making workplaces and manufacturing and mining of asbestos a lot safer. So that you know he was doing videos on children that were involved in Thailand. So you know this was in his view pretty horrendous. And you know how could we go about ensuring this didn't happen anymore.

HM: And what did he tell you he was going to do with the information you were providing?

LL: Had this group called “Stop Asbestos” and he wanted to be part of the larger global community so that you know it would be helpful if he could talk to other people about what they're doing and just really interested in. Well part of what he was interested in was money like he needed to get some funding. And I said well, you know we don't do that we're volunteer activists. It's not something that we do. So he wasn't insistent about it, but he was you know interested in it where he might be able to get some funding to make his videos.

HM: Did any red flags go up for you at that time?

LL: The only thing I found afterwards was I just found a kind of fleeting thought it was kind of odd that I hadn't heard from him afterwards.

HM: So how did you learn that something might be amiss here? That you know he might be involved as a spy for the asbestos industry?

LL: In December — late December — our group received information. There appeared to be an asbestos spy who was located in the UK. There was a court case a statement and a claim was being filed and there would be a court case to try to discover who this person was, the company he was working for and who was actually behind that company. So companies working for what we believe is a front for other people. So we were kind of speculating, kind of joking amongst ourselves you know was it that guy that came here? It just so happened he was British. Right? And then when I got back to work the first week of January the publication ban was lifted and his name and his photo was made public and it was absolutely that man sitting in my office.

HM: And how did you feel when you learned that this person who is accused of espionage is the same person who had interviewed you?

LL: Well, the first word that always comes to mind is betrayed. We advocate on behalf of the honorable people whether they're in the workplace, whether they're in developing countries where there's no protection for workers there and so you know it wasn't just about the fact that he tried to pull the wool over the eyes of people who are very experienced in this issue. But that he was using or trying to use this information for organizations that we believe want to continue the mining and production of asbestos. And so it's putting vulnerable people at risk and it was like why would you do that? Like why would you, people who are dying from this over the world including Canada. why would you invest yourself in this?

HM: Do you fear that you provided particular information that might be sensitive that that could have implications for other people?

LL: No. Most of us are not concerned about anything that we've disclosed. You know there's no state secrets as I've been saying. We don't have any back door connections to people. We're very transparent up front about what we do. We're lobbying our government and our MPs’ and MPPs’ and anybody who will listen about trying to get a ban. However, we're now starting to be quite concerned about what does this mean for activists in other places where they are really vulnerable where they are in countries where they might not have protection and if their names were outed what would that mean for them? So we're starting to grapple a bit with that.

HM: Now the case is still before the courts and we want to be clear here nothing's been proven, but the documents that have been filed do show some details on how Rob Moore was allegedly operating. What did you learn from those documents?

LL: Well, that he had a planned out strategy. And then of course he appeared to have been paid over 400,000 pounds for his work. You know it wasn't just a slapdash running around talking to people there was like a concerted effort. What that told me was that he knew what he was getting himself into and he knew what he was doing.

HM: Is there any evidence that he was indeed hired or being paid by the asbestos industry?

LL: Not yet. We do know that he was working for the PR company. The purpose of the lawsuit is to try and get behind the PR company because they were hired by somebody. They get hired by different companies or whoever to do investigative work right? They're calling it investigative work. This investigative work was sending somebody out to spy. Because he was not up front about what he was doing he didn't say I've been hired by this company and this is what I was doing. He made out that he was a journalist.

HM: Is the allegation though that the PR company itself was hired by the asbestos industry?

LL: That's our feeling. That the PR company was hired by person or persons unknown in the asbestos industry. So I mean that's all going to have to be proved in court, but that's what we're trying to get at.

HM: Do you plan any further action?

LL: No. I think the important thing is that the public is aware will be a little more cautious with people that we don't know it's certainly not going to prevent us from going on and doing the work that we do because we're quite confident that the science and the medical proof is there that this is a hazardous substance and we've been doing this work for many many many years. But I think what's really important is you know this is quite a reprehensible thing to do and that there are other people out there that you know we're going to be watching.

HM: Ms. Lozanski, thank you for talking to us.

LL: Thank you so much.

HM: All right, bye.

LL: Bye bye.

ATW: Laura Lozanski is a longtime anti-asbestos activist. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music: Uphill City/ Ambient]

Joseph Boyden

ATW: Joseph Boyden has become famous telling stories of Indigenous life to predominantly non-Indigenous audiences. The author of novels “Three Day Road”, “Through Black Spruce” and “The Orenda” has been feted here and abroad for his work winning numerous awards including the Giller Prize. He's also been featured on CBC's own Canada Reads, over the holidays, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network or APTN published an investigation into Mr. Boyden’s Indigenous heritage. Their story sparked a conversation about indigenous identity who can claim it and to what end. Mr. Boyden himself released a written statement after the story came out saying his roots are mostly Celtic, but also that he has Nipmuc an Ojibway roots. Since then he's stayed quiet. No social media, no interviews. Today Joseph Boyd sat down with his friend CBC host Candy Palmater. Here is an excerpt of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

JOSPEPH BOYDEN: I fear that I've become a bit too big of the toe of one of the go to people when it comes to Indigenous issues in this country. There's no question and for that you know I've really thought hard and long about this and I have become too much of a go to guy and I should be allowing those with deeper roots in their communities to speak for their communities. Absolutely. This is something that I do feel like going to the world with my heart open, but sometimes I fear my ego has gotten a little bit too big for that and I'm pulling back and saying no this is you know others need to speak. And I do apologize for taking up too much of the airtime. Absolutely.

CANDY PALMATER: Some of your critics will say not just air time, but prize money, that kind of thing. What do you say to those critics?

JB: This hurts a lot. You know I've won one wward now the McNally Robinson Aboriginal Book of the Year Award for an Indigenous prize in 2005 for “Three Day Road”. It was a $5,000 prize. There were five of us shortlisted. I went up on stage and I said I would like to share this prize equally among all of us because this is you know this is the right thing to do. I've never won any other prize based on my Indigenous heritage. I've never applied personally for an indigenous grant.

CP: So what about like the ballet that the TRC funded and things like that? Do that is different from Indigenous money?

JB: In all honesty, I was paid very very very little for that — for the work done. And no this is about reconciliation. That ballet when I wrote that ballet it is as the person I am. This person who is a small part indigenous, but it plays a big role in my life.

ATW: That was writer Joseph Boyden speaking with his friend CBC host Candy Palmater about the TRC or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission among other things. You can hear more of that interview tomorrow on q on CBC Radio One.

[Music: Don’t be afraid to sing/ Ambient]

Correction: Andrea Zuckerman

ATW: They never would have made a mistake like this at The Blaze. The Blaze like duh! It was the West Beverly Blaze, the school paper on Beverly Hills 90210. And last night we interviewed the actor whose character edited The Blaze. Gabrielle Carteris is now president of the Screen Actors Guild and she's fighting to keep the online company. IMDB from publishing actor’s ages. But let's not get distracted by that. After our interview we saw this tweet from Rob Shostak of Toronto quote, “@cbcasithappens Gabrielle Carteris played the character of Andrea Zuckerman pronounced “On-dree-ah” not “Anne-dree-ah,” unquote. So our fact checkers dug deep into all 10 seasons of 90210 and this is what they found.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Andrea, hi.

ANDREA ZUCKERRMAN: Hi everybody.

SPEAKER: ah, the infamous Andrea Zuckerman.

AZ: Andrea zuckerman doesn't always take no for an answer.

SPEAKER: Andrea, settle down.

AZ: People are dying, Brandon.

SPEAKER: Andrea.

SPEAKER: Give em hell, Andrea.

[Sound: A school bell]

ATW: So we apologize to the fictional Andrea Zuckerman and all her real fans and Rob Shostak, Thank you.

Part 2: Obama legacy, Trudeau’s Aga Khan trip

Obama legacy

Guest: Alvin Love

ATW: Yes we can. Yes we did. Those were Barack Obama's parting words to a packed crowd in Chicago last night. It was an emotional farewell. After eight years America's first black president’s final term was coming to a close. Here's part of what he said to mark the occasion.

SOUNDCLIP

BARACK OBAMA: In 10 days the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy. No. No. No. No. The peaceful transfer of power from one freely elected president to the next. I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition just as President Bush did for me. Because it’s up to all of us to make sure our government can help us meet the many challenges we still face.

ATW: The farewell speech was in Chicago, where President Obama got his start in politics before becoming a senator and then assuming his country's highest office. But when Reverend Alvin Love met Barack Obama, he was a young community organizer working in Chicago's South Side. They've been friends ever since. Last night Reverend Love attended the speech not far from where they first met. We reached him today in Birmingham, Alabama.

HM: Reverend Love I understand you were there last night with your 6-year-old granddaughter. What was it like for you to listen to the president with her in attendance with you say goodbye to the office of president?

ALVIN LOVE: It it was for me a moment and I did feel with so many mixed emotions. It was really hard for me to separate one from the other. Tremendous sadness and the fact that these eight years are over, but then also just tremendous joy for the journey to have been a part of this moment in history you know with President Obama the things that he has accomplished and done and the dignity with which he did it. And then the pride of being able to have my granddaughter there to witness it and share, Six-years-old, I don't know how much of it she understood. But she understood that's President Obama and I'm glad to be here. So I'm hoping that will be something that will stay in her memory for the rest of her life and maybe help shape her to do some great things.

HM: Can you recount for us the first time you met Barack Obama?

AL: Oh, first time I met Barack Obama. I was sitting in my office one bright spring day and he walked up to the door and rang the bell. I actually was leery about opening the door because I had had two people in the 10 minutes prior to his coming who had come and all of them were asking for money to go get a sandwich. And he came looking like he was hungry.

[Sound: Laughing]

HM: He was skinny?

AL: He was skinny. But I opened the door and he began to share with me about why he was there as the new community organizer in the area, told me about his own personal background and we shared what was supposed to have been a 15 minute meeting ended up being two hours. And so we kind of hit it off.

HM: He was elected of course of this wave of hope and change both times really. How do you think he did in terms of living up to the hopes of the people that you know that you work with in your community?

AL: I think he did an excellent job in terms of throwing that concept of hope out to us and giving us something to shoot for. But I think for African-Americans particularly, we put such a high expectation upon him going in as a first African-American president. I don't know if anybody could have ever lived up to and so in that sense perhaps not to say that he didn't produce the kind of hope that he talked about, but perhaps the kind of hope that that many people in our community were looking for was really more than anybody could have been expected to do.

HM: What about the kinds of change that he promised? I'm thinking in particular about some of the key points that he hasn't achieved. Guantanamo still being open, the situation in Syria, many saying he should have intervened there. Has the presidency disappointed in any way?

AL: Well, I think anytime you still have conflicts on foreign soil that is a disappointment. I think that the rise of ISIL is a sore spot for all of us. But I don't think it's a disappointment that we can overcome it. I think we continue with the work.

HM: In his speech last night. President Obama only once mentioned the name Donald Trump, but he did it in the context of the peaceful transition of power. But when you look at the incoming president what are your thoughts in terms of how the Obama presidency and the reaction to it perhaps helped usher in Donald Trump?

AL: Well, I think anytime you start to I guess killing the onion on some long buried issues in our country you're going to get a reaction. Particularly to those who are either comfortable with it or face it from the way things were. And I think just the very fact that we had an African-American president will lift up the issue of race and it forced America to confront it. And some of that confrontation was not the best. So people you know really let some divisive emotions come out, some real nasty racism across this country. I think initially you know we were all taken aback by it. I don't know if we're amazed by, but we're certainly hurt by it. I actually believe that in the long run it's going to force us to finally deal with these things.

HM: Looking back for you, what do you think Barack Obama's main legacy will be as president?

AL: Well, I think certainly even though the new administration is going to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act I think we're getting 20 million people who didn't have health care on the health care rolls is a tremendous legacy. I think equal marriage rights is going to remain his legacy. I think his biggest legacy is not so much in programs and laws, but it is in that kind of attitude that he brought to the country. Kind of a sense of hope and the tremendous amounts of young people that he brought into the federal government. One of the things that strikes me now as I have gone to the White House a couple of times the White House full of so many young people who spent eight years working in the federal government, understanding it and bringing their passion to it. And now when I look I see all these nominees and appointees and everybody is predominantly old, privileged, white and male. And I think you're going to find a groundswell of young people who now had a taste of actually getting things done and they're not going to be satisfied with just sitting around waiting for somebody else to do something for them.

HM: In the speech last night he also repeated his vow to stand with his fellow Americans as a regular citizen. What do you think is next for your friend?

AL: Well, I don't know. I hope some rest.

[Sound: Laughing]

HM: He deserves that I think.

AL: He deserves it. Last night my wife said he looks tired. Someone asked me when he was first elected if he had changed. And I said no. he’s still a community organizer at heart. He's just organizing on a bigger scale. So I think the same thing is true. I think he's going to continue organizing around issues that were important to him, to his community and I have to have been president to his community that a whole lot larger than the south of Chicago now.

HM: All right. Reverend Love, it’s a great pleasure to speak with you. Thank you very much.

AL: It's been my pleasure. Thank you. Bye bye.

ATW: Reverend Alvin Love is a friend of U.S. President Barack Obama. We reached him today in Birmingham, Alabama. Listen to As It Happens in the coming days for more coverage of President Obama's departure and his legacy.

[Music: Le Sucre/ Electronic]

Sessions attorney general hearings: Senator Booker/ Congressman Lewis

ATW: U.S. Senator Cory Booker knew the move was unprecedented. No sitting senator has effort testified against a fellow-senator at a U.S. confirmation hearing. But, for Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions, Senator Booker decided to make an exception. The New Jersey senator made a passionate plea at today's confirmation hearing arguing that Senator Sessions track record on civil rights makes him unfit for the job. Here is some of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

CORRY BOOKER: I imagine that no sitting senator has lived in the last 20 years in higher crime neighborhoods than I have. I have seen unimaginable violence on American streets. I know the tremendous courage of law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every single day to fight crime in America. I want an Attorney General who is committed to supporting law enforcement and securing law and order, but that is not enough. America was founded heralding not law and order, but justice for all. Senator Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job to aggressively pursue civil rights, equal rights and justice for all of our citizens. In fact, at numerous times in his career he has demonstrated a hostility towards these convictions. If confirmed Senator Sessions will be required to pursue justice for women. But his record indicates that he won't. He will be expected to defend the equal rights of gay and lesbian and transgender Americans. But his record indicates that he won't. He will be expected to defend the rights of immigrants and affirmed their human dignity. But the record indicates that he will. His record indicates that we cannot count on him to support state and national efforts towards bringing justice to the justice system and people on both sides of the aisle who readily admit that the justice system as it stands now is biased against the poor, against drug addicted, against mentally ill and against people of color. The next attorney general must bring hope and healing to this country and this demands a more courageous empathy than Senator Sessions record demonstrates. Challenges of race in America cannot be addressed if we refuse to confront them. The arc of the moral universe does not just naturally curve towards justice we must bend it.

ATW: That was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, testifying against the nomination of fellow Senator Jeff Sessions for U.S. Attorney General. Senator Booker wasn't the only dissenting voice at today's cabinet confirmation hearing. Congressmen and civil rights pioneer John Lewis made an emotional plea of his own. Here's part of what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN LEWIS: I was born in rural Alabama. Not very far, Senator Sessions, was race. There was no way to escape the chokehold of discrimination and racial hate. That surrounded us, any black person who did not cross the street when a white person was walking down the same sidewalk, who did not move to the back of the bus, who looked a white person directly in their eye could be arrested and taken to jail. Theforces of law and order in Alabama was so strong that to take a stand against us and justice we had to be willing to sacrifice our lives for our cause. The walk from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to dramatize to the nation and to the world that we wanted to register to vote wanted to become participants in a democratic process. We were beaten, tear gas, some of us almost died on that bridge. But the Congress responded, President Lyndon Johnson, responded and the Congress passed a vote and it was signed into law on August 6th 1965. We have come a distance. We have made progress, but we're not there yet. There are forces that want to take us back to another place. We don't want to go back. We want to go forward it doesn't matter how Senator Sessions may smile, how friendly he may be, how he may speak to you. But we need someone who gonna stand up, speak up and speak out. For people have been discriminated against and it doesn't matter whether they are black or white, Latino, Asian-American or Native-American, straight or gay, Muslim, Christian, Jews we all live in the same house. We need someone as Attorney General who gonna look out for all of us not just some of us.

ATW: U.S. Congressman John Lewis testifying against Senator Jeff Sessions for the nomination of U.S. Attorney General.

[Music: Temptation Rag/ Piano]

Trudeau’s Aga Khan trip

Guest: Andrew Scheer

ATW: The Prime Minister says the Aga Khan is a longtime family friend. That's why Justin Trudeau says he and his family rang in the New Year on the wealthy religious leader’s private island in the Bahamas. But conservative MPs’ aren't celebrating. The Aga Khan Foundation is also a registered federal lobbyist and has received public funds. Conservative MP and leadership candidate Andrew Scheer filed a complaint with the ethics commissioner and since then, new details have emerged about that trip and who was there. We reached Andrew Scheer in Quebec City.

HM: Mr. Scheer, why do you feel the New Year's trip by the Trudeau family was a violation of the conflict of interest act?

ANDREW SCHEER: Well, it's quite simple the Aga Khan foundation receives around $30 million dollars of taxpayers money every year and the Prime Minister took a trip. He was a guest for some time in a luxurious private island. And he accepted that gift from someone who was directly linked to the foundation — the Aga Khan himself. And to me this certainly is enough to warrant an investigation by the ethics commissioner. I'm glad she's doing so and I look forward to her report.

HM: What do you find most concerning about the visit?

AS: Well, you know I think it was the whole way that it unfolded you know? There is a section in the activities of the ethics commissioner can be consulted in advance of these types of things. The Prime Minister chose not to clear it with the ethics commissioner then was very secretive about the details of his trip. Now it's come out that there was another MP and indeed the Liberal party president on that trip as well. So the whole thing starts to look pretty bad when you frame it in that light.

HM: Right. So your concern — your complaint — is specifically about the Prime Minister though going isn't it? Is it got anything to do with the Liberal Party president and MP Seamus O’Regan?

AS: Well, you know the ethics act does not apply to non-members of Parliament and Mr. O’Regan not being a minister is subject to a different part of the act himself. For ministers and of course the Prime Minister is a minister. They're not supposed to accept sponsored travel. It seems it looks like it may have happened here. We're not sure. So I think there's a lot for the ethics commissioner to look at. I just think you know coming on the heels of the cash for access fund raising, the dinner of the Prime Minister himself hosted for billionaires who have donated to his own personal foundation his family’s foundation [Cross talk: HM:] But he has distanced from that foundation we should make clear. he hasn't had any direct work with the operations of it for a number of years.

AS: No. Sorry to clarify. His family’s foundation — the foundation named after his family. But when you put it all together when you put those types of events together it starts to paint a picture that I think is becoming very troubling.

HM: Mr. O’Regan says no government business was discussed on the trip. Does that matter?

AS: No it doesn't because it's not about whether or not any anybody was lobbied or if or if there was government business. It's about receiving a benefit. About the reception of a gift, the acceptance of a gift by someone — from someone — who is linked to a foundation that that receives tax dollars. And that's the issue that the act is there to make sure there's not even the appearance of a conflict of interest or that members or ministers especially are receiving benefits gifts from people who rely on government support, on government tax dollars or who would benefit from government decisions and that's what we're dealing with in this case.

HM: The Prime Minister's office points out that the conflict of interest act allows public office holders to receive gifts from friends and family and Mr. Trudeau says that the Aga Khan has been a very close personal friend of his family — was a friend of his father's. Why is that not acceptable?

AS: Well, I think there's certainly enough there that the ethics commissioner should look into it. As I said I'm glad that she has agreed to do so and I think you know the way it was it all came about the secrecy around the trip. The Prime Minister could easily have just presented this to the ethics commissioner and said look it's a family friend I have this invitation is it OK or not? And could have followed the decision by the commissioner, but it's only after the fact that this has come to light. And that's why I think it's important that it is investigated.

HM: Would it change your position if the Prime Minister wrote to remunerate the Aga Khan for the money that the trip would be valued at?

AS: At first blush you know that may very well elevate the concerns. I would hope that the ethics commissioner looks into it and that obviously I would expect the Prime Minister to abide by whatever the prescriptions may be. Should she report back?

HM: Right. He says he will pay for his flight down there because it was an Air Force flight?

AS: Right. Which is the practice for Prime Ministers to reimburse at commercial rates. We don't I'm not sure yet what kind of value you would put on the luxury beach vacation on a private island, but perhaps that's something the ethics commissioner would do and say look you received a benefit that was worth approximately so many thousands of dollars. And it’s come on to you to pay it back if she in fact deems that there was a breach.

HM: The Aga Khan Foundation as you know is not like a business lobbyist. Their development network that supports humanitarian work that's well regarded it has been doing it for many years it received grants from the previous Cconservative government of which you are a part. Is it maybe not worthwhile for the government to have a good relationship with a network that does such good works?

AS: Look, the issue here is totally not with the Aga Khan himself or the foundation, in fact, I believe the Prime Minister has put the Aga Khan in a difficult position by accepting the gifts. The foundation those great work. You are very right to mention that previous government both Liberal and Conservative have supported the foundation. But there are a lot of foundations and entities and charities that do good work and receive government funding and it would be inappropriate for the Prime Minister to take a benefit or accept a gift from someone who was who ran one of those entities either. So I think it's possible to have good relationships with the Aga Khan himself and with the foundation without accepting these types of gifts. Prime Minister Harper hosted the Aga Khan extend invitation to address both houses of parliament which he did. It's not a necessary condition to accept those types of gifts that have a good working relationship with the Aga Khan.

HM: What do you hope is going to come out of your complaint to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner?

AS: Well, I hope that we'll get some clarity around the acceptability of the Prime Minister accepting and gift. More insistence on following the proper procedures. But I think ultimately, I hope that the media attention and the political pressure will open up this Prime Minister's office. A lot of this could have been avoided with a little bit of transparency and openness. I think they're damaging themselves by being so closed with information and you know acting like they are.

HM: Andrew Scheer, thank you for taking time to talk to us.

AS: Anytime. Thanks for your questions.

HM: All right. Bye.

AS: Thank you. Bye bye.

ATW: Andrew Scheer is a Conservative MP and a candidate for the party's leadership. He was in Quebec City.

Part 3: Simulated plane crash, HIV drug

Winnipeg refugee

ATW: On Monday, a Toronto doctor told As It Happens about the refugees he's seeing as patients. They had a severe frost bite after being dropped off on Toronto streets from the U.S. by smugglers. It's happening in Manitoba too. Asylum seekers are traveling through the United States and walking across the Canadian border in freezing temperatures. Seidu Mohammed is one of them. And he almost didn't make it. On Christmas Eve, as temperatures dipped to minus 20, the refugee claimant from Ghana walked from North Dakota into Manitoba before he was rescued. Now he's recovering from severe frostbite. At Winnipeg's Health Sciences Centre that's where CBC's Austin Grabish talked to Mr. Mohammad. Here's some of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

AUSTIN GRABISH: Are you in pain today?

SEIDU MOHAMMED: Yeah, when they are dressing me I got a lot of pains. But last night the pain wasn’t as bad as I expected, so I sleep last night and I felt very good last night and everything is OK now.

AG: What have doctors told you?

SH: They told me I would lose my fingers or arms. So they have to do some surgery on it. That is the only way that they can save me and they can save my arms.

AG: So will you lose all of your fingers?

SH: That’s what they say. They say I'm going to lose all my fingers. And also they told me I'll lose some of my toes. So they have to cut some of my toe. I know it's hard for me to say that because. I don't want to lose my toe. Because I was playing soccer, so that makes me frustrated and I'm thinking about it and I don't know what to do right now. And they have to cut some of my skin also. And after they cut my arms so that they can put that skin there for my arms to be some of them to be alive you know — to give them life. I was crying because I didn’t expect that. I didn’t expect anything like this before. And I've never experienced anything like this before, so I was crying. And all I think about was my family. Like when I lose my toe what am I going to do? What work will I do? So I was crying and thinking about my family.

ATW: Seidu Mohammed speaking with the CBC's Austin Grabish today at Winnipeg's Health Sciences Centre. Mr. Mohamed, an asylum seeker from Ghana, is recovering after surviving a near-death experience crossing into Canada from the U.S. by foot in freezing temperatures. Mr. Mohammed says he is claiming refugee status because he fears persecution because of his sexual orientation.

[Music: Days to Come/ Ambient]

Simulated plane crash

Guest: Maria Hanna

ATW: If you work outside the home, I'm going to guess that at some point, you've taken part in some sort of team building exercise. Perhaps you were asked to fall backwards and trust that your colleagues would catch you and perhaps that made you a bit uncomfortable. Now imagine that instead of falling backwards into the arms of Phoebe and Hector in marketing, you're asked to escape from inside an airplane that's sinking into the ocean. Actually, you don't have to imagine a company is now offering survival training including mock plane crashes to groups looking to build team morale. Maria Hanna is the president of Survival systems USA. We reached her in Groton, Connecticut.

HM: Ms. Hanna, you teach these classes, so I assume you have done the exercise yourself. How did you feel the first time you had to escape from one of these simulated plane crashes?

MARIA HANNA: It's exciting, it's different. And your first thought is a reaction of panic because it's new it's scary there's water coming in. But if you settle in and you follow the instructions you find that it really isn't that difficult. And then the more you do it you get acclimated to your fear reaction and you become able to work through everything.

HM: Can you describe your own physical response — your own fear — in the exercise?

MH: More apprehension, a little bit faster breathing, more mental games in my head thinking OK I have to do this. I have to do this. I have to do this. I've always been fairly comfortable in the water, so that part was less of a concern. My concern was more along the lines of I have to do all of this correctly.

HM: So could you walk us through the mechanics of this mock crash? How you do the simulation to begin with?

MH: We typically start the class by meeting with them in the classroom and we'll give them the academic information, whether it's the equipment, the procedures or what they're going to face staring at that thing and then in the afternoon portion of training we move into the training tank. Once they get through the majority of the training they will enter the simulator. When they sit down they'll buckle in, they'll fasten their harness, the simulator will go into the air and then they'll hear ditching, ditching, ditching. When they hear that they're going to assume a brace position because we want to prepare for the impact. And the simulator will begin going down into the water. It'll start a slow roll so that if it goes to a full inverted position. So we teach him about you know when to take their breaths, how to prepare, what kind of brace position to assume and then they're going to hold that brace position until the motion stops. And that really just means the wall of water has passed you by. So that now you can move underwater. So once that wall of water has passed you by. They're going to sit up out of their seat. They're going to use their outboard hand to use a reference to come on and find a handle that jettisons the door and they're going to jettison the door. That same hand is going to hold on to the airframe so that they know they have an open exit. Their other hand — their inboard hand — is going to travel to where the seat belt buckle is. It’s going to unbuckle the seat belt and then they're going to pull themselves out of the exit. Now those are the steps.

HM: Are you talking them through this at the time or are they relying on the training you've given them earlier in the day?

MH: They're relying on the training we've given them earlier in the day. So part of the classroom is walking them through those procedures, showing them videos of what it's going to look like, what's going to be expected. So you do several evolutions in the simulator and there's instructors riding inside with them instructors and probably no more than two feet away from them during all the evolutions.

HM: What else is going on at the time because I understand that you play loud pop song sometimes?

MH: We do that for the leadership in training courses. For those we try to make the environment a little bit less stressful. So it's they're doing life raft riding exercises we might play “Singing in the Rain” because the idea is to encourage morale, self-esteem, working together, camaraderie between the groups. If they're here for aviation training we don't play music, but we do environmental effects. So if they're flying in inclement weather they might see rain, thunder, lightning. So we'll have all of those effects going on in the facility. So it's basically the perfect storm inside the building.

HM: Now you teach these survival classes to people who actually might find themselves trying to escape a crash maybe they're members of the National Guard or police the army. This is a different situation though. You're now offering these mock life or death exercises as team building exercises. Where did that idea come from?

MH: We've been doing this as a family of companies for over 30 years. But in the states we've been doing it for about 20 years and we've always found the ancillary benefits of the training. So all the National Guard units and all the folks you just mentioned. Their morale was better, their team camaraderie was better, their team dynamics had improved, their self-esteem had improved. So we'd always consistently receive that feedback from the students. So we were approached about a year ago by a pretty large corporate body that was interested in doing this because they had been looking for different versions of team building and they asked us if we could develop something. So we did. And what we found is that the program has really taken off. It was a market that we hadn't thought of exploring. But we've been very pleasantly surprised and it's validated the feedback that we've been getting for decades.

HM: The description of the procedures that you gave us. You know one hand does one thing one thing does the I guess the ideal scenario if people follow instructions. How often does that not happen that people maybe panic and feel a little traumatized?

MH: I wouldn't say they feel traumatized, but I think it's more along the lines of people will make small mistakes along the way. Part of our role as instructors is to maybe intervene before they get to the stage of panic. And although that run may not be successful. If we've done our job correctly we've given them enough feedback that they can get back in the simulator and then the next run they can do a successful run.

HM: Do you worry about PTSD though?

MH: We haven't had any issues with that. If somebody says you know this is not something I want to do and I'm not comfortable with it. We can actually alter the requirements so that they don't have to participate in something that they feel is really beyond their level of ability to give.

HM: I guess you have to wonder though about the companies who pay for this training that they see it as a valid exercise. If one of their employees decides they don't want to take part because they're scared what about the fear of being labeled you know not a team player or someone who you know isn't really up to the job because they're unwilling to take these kinds of risks?

MH: We've already had that in the classes that we've done so far. They've all had participants that have identified either verbally or physically that they were uncomfortable doing it. And what we have found is that the rest of the group chimes in and helps them get through their fear. Doesn't force them to participate, but actually pull them into the group even more. They were actually in some ways looked at it in a slightly better light because they were willing to verbalize their fears.

HM: Are there people who are not suited to this? I mean do you make people undergo physicals before they do the exercise?

MH: Everybody who comes through for training is given a statement of health form and it ask some questions and that we will make sure that they understand the risks that they're being asked to take because we don't want to put them at risk.

HM: And they have to sign a liability waiver I'm assuming?

MH: They do, that's the case in any activity.

HM: All right. Well it sounds both interesting and kind of scary.

MH: Scary in a fun way.

HM: I guess for many people it would be. To think you know I actually know someone who survived a plane crash and can't even talk about plane crashes Never mind go through something like this. There has to be a point where someone has gone through a traumatizing experience maybe shouldn't be doing this?

MH: For some people I would say that's true, but I've also been one of the instructors inside the simulator and we've had a ditching survivor come back through training and they had flashbacks if you will of their actual crash and it wasn't traumatic for them. It was actually it was a catharsis for them let them kind of work through their own fears because they were able to comfort in the pool.

HM: Ms. Hanna, thank you for talking to us.

MH: You're welcome. Have a wonderful day.

HM: Bye bye.

MH: Bye bye.

ATW: Maria Hanna is the president of Survival Systems USA. She was in Groton, Connecticut. You can find that interview on our website along with photos and videos of people taking part in the simulated crashes at www.cbc.ca/aih. And you got something to say about this story? Tweet us @cbcasithappens. Or e-mail us at aih@cbc.ca and our talkback number is 416.205.5687.

[Music: Ambient]

Jane Fonda

She's been told by oilsands advocates that she's not welcome. But Jane Fonda continued her tour of Alberta today. The actress and environmental activist is on a trip organized by Greenpeace. She visited the oilsands yesterday. and as you heard on our program last night, some residents aren't too happy about her visit. Ms Fonda addressed those criticisms today during a panel discussion at the University of Alberta. Here's part of what she had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

JANE FONDA: It’s been an interesting couple of days. We've heard a few people shouting at us, “go back to where you came from, we don't want outsiders here”. You know but let's be real, the only people here who are not outsiders are the Indigenous people. I don't think we should forget that. We're not here to trash Alberta, to trash Fort McMurray or the men and women who work in the tarsands. That's not our purpose. We are at a moment in human history that is absolutely unique. This has never happened before. We're running out of time. Native people have been telling us for hundreds of years how we are supposed to live in relation to the land and we never listened. When I heard that your Prime Minister, the shining hope of the Paris climate talks. You know we talked so beautifully about needing to meet the requirements of the climate treaty and respect and hold to the treaties with the Indigenous people and so forth. You know such a heroic stance he took there. And yet he has betrayed every one of the things that he committed to in Paris. I guess the lesson is that we shouldn't be fooled by good looking liberals no matter how well-spoken they are. What a disappointment. You know Trump is no surprise. But Trudeau you know we all thought wow cool guy right? This is all going to be really good after what you've had up here for a while. What a disappointment. Let's see the popularity for your Prime Minister and our President-elect plummet. Let them plummet. Let them hit rock bottom. Let us expose these guys for what they are. We don't need new pipelines, not here, not at Standing Rock, nowhere.

ATW: That was Jane Fonda speaking earlier today in Edmonton.

[Music: First Air of Autumn/ Ambient]

HIV drug

Guest: Will Nutland

ATW: It started with one sexual health clinic in London, England. Clinic staff noticed that new infections of HIV in gay men in 2016 were down — way down. When the clinic went public with their numbers, other clinics in London revealed that they were seeing the same drop. Together for major clinics and the City reported a 40 per cent drop in new HIV infections in gay men in 2016 compared with the year before. But they did know why? Will Nutland thinks he knows the answer. He's a public health expert and co-founder of a group called “Prepster”. PrEP stands for pre-exposure prophylaxis.An HIV prevention treatment in England, the drugs involved are prohibitively expensive. But Mr. Nutland believes users are finding a way around that problem. We reached him in London, England.

HM: Mr. Nutland, what did you think when you first heard that the number of new cases of HIV in gay men was down so much in London?

WILL NUTLAND: Well, when I heard that the first clinic with the 5016 St. announced a 40 per cent fall in HIV diagnosis my first thought was Is this something that's peculiar to that clinic? And the answer to that is no it's not. So I started to ask what might this be about? What's changed? Have the number of people coming forward and the testing diminished? Has it been something to do with changes in services? And we don't think it's anything to do with that. The one thing that does seem to have changed is that we know that there has been an uptake in gay men who have started using PrEP or pre-exposure HIV prophylaxis.

HM: And this is a medication or a prescription tablet?

WN: It's a tablet and it's the same kind of medication that someone with HIV would take as an HIV treatment. We now know if someone takes that pill on around a daily basis it pretty much diminishes their chance of getting HIV.

HM: Now this is a very expensive medication not covered by the National Health Service. So how are gay men in London accessing this very expensive drug?

WN: So increasing numbers of people — myself included — are sourcing prEP online generic prEP from an online pharmaceutical companies and I buy mine directly from a company in India and it's nine times cheaper for me to buy it online than it is to go and buy a private prescription of prEP.

HM: Nine times. And is it complicated to get it delivered?

WN: It's not too complex. The website that I run called www.prepster.info has being involved with another website called www.iwantprepnow.co.uk and we've worked to help people to make it as easy as possible to get those drugs. So for example, we've done test runs on those websites so we know that people are going to get their debit or credit cards ripped off. We've done tests to make sure that the drugs arrive at the address you give. But most importantly we've done tests to make sure that the drugs they're buying online are the real thing they are quite naturally what they say on the bottle. This isn't like buying pills at the back of a seedy club or buying them out of the back of a car. These are online reputable pharmacies we're dealing with.

HM: So let's talk about the numbers here. If one was to get a prescription from a doctor and go through the conventional sources. How much would the drug cost?

WN: If someone went to a doctor and got a prescription — a private prescription — from a doctor it's going to cost you in the region of about five thousand pounds per year for that private prescription. The drugs that I buy online cost me in the region of about 45 pounds a month. So I'm about 500 to 600 pounds a year in total.

HM: Wow. Now this has been around as a prophylactic treatment for some time. So why did the numbers just drop over the last year?

WN: What I've been doing for the last 18 months with another handful of HIV advocates in London is that we've been going out and really educating key groups of people around the benefits of prEP. We've been saying that even though the drug isn't available through National Health Service that there are other ways of getting the drug and if you think that you are likely to be exposed to HIV and you can afford to buy the drug then here are the ways you can do that. So we think that what's been happening over the last year or 18 months is that gay men who are at the hub of sexual risk taking have been accessing prEP themselves.

HM: You know I was reading about the potential use of this as well in Canada and one of the leading doctors in the field has said this should be part of a package of protections for gay men for anybody who's at risk of getting HIV. But it's not the whole thing. And the suggestion being that many people might not even need to use this why do you advocate so strongly?

WN: I'm a strong strong advocate in condom use. I'm not saying for one moment that we should stop doing those other things that have been very very effective. But condom use on its own the strategies that we've been using for the last 10 or 20 years aren't pushing down HIV incidence. We're now starting to see that there's a technology that will not only start to diminish HIV incidence, but will be cost effective and cost saving and will prevent unnecessary HIV infections in the future.

HM: Given that, why do you think the national health services in covering the cost?

WN: Well, that's a big debate that we've been having and National AIDS Trust, one of our key advocacy organizations has taken NHS England to court twice in the last six months and they won that court case on both times. Those courts ruled that in fact NHS England has both the power and the right to commission prEP. Thankfully as a result of those court cases NHS England has now announced a ten thousand person trial that will start in the next couple of months. But I think that if prEP is really as effective as we are now probably seeing that a is it's time to move beyond trial and start making available to those people who need it as fast as possible.

HM: When you talk about the amount of money the health service would save preventing HIV as opposed to treating it what are we talking about?

WN: Well, the lifetime treatment costs for someone for HIV is around 350,000 pounds and that's without taking into consideration any other associated healthcare or social care costs that person might need. All of the mathematical modeling that's being done shows that if prEP is targeted to those people who are most likely to be involved in HIV exposure it's going to save in that the National Health Service money in the medium to long term.

HM: At what point do you see the generic less costly form of this drug being available in the UK and elsewhere?

WN: We do know that the formulation of prEP that is right now on international patents and is on international patent in the U.K. We'll start to come off patent in the next couple of years and that's going to really start to change the whole debate on cost. Because much cheaper, generic versions of prEP will then be able to be used by organizations like NHS England.

HM: Mr. Nutland, thank you so much for talking with us.

WN: It's a pleasure. Thank you.

HM: All right. Bye.

WN: Bye bye.

ATW: Will Nutland is a founder of the website prepster.info. He's also a public health expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in London, England.

[Music: Vancouver Divorce/ Rock]

Bull rider obit

ATW: He was one of Canada's best. The Professional Bull Riders Canadian Champion in 2016. A young cowboy at the top of his game. But on Monday, Merritt B.C.’s Ty Pozzobon died unexpectedly. He was just 25. The cause of his death has not been released, but his father said he didn't suffer. Cody Snyder is a world champion bull rider who has been Mr. Pozzobon agent in the past. Mr. Snyder spoke to CBC Calgary earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

CODY SNYDER: Well, it's just it's devastating the bull riding and rodeo world, the sporting world is in shock. It's just it's still unbelievable. I haven’t slept for two nights I mean it's going to put a massive, huge void into the professional bull riding and professional rodeo world.

DAVID GRAY: How did you two first meet Cody?

CS: I first met him when he was 16 or 17-years-old and we produced a bull riding event during the Global Petroleum Showdown on the Stampede Grounds and I'd heard about this kid from B.C there. They were talking about how good he rode and that's where I met him and it was raining that day and pouring down rain, the mud was about a foot deep and it was nasty. Know how that is. It's cold and you know hardly any people watching it was just a nasty day and he rode a great big, eliminating and hard to ride bull there wasn't a whole bunch of Pro guys who wouldn’t have been able to ride him. And he rode this bull easy I thought man this kid is the real deal and he was everything and more. I mean that was the first time I seen him and he turned out to be an unbelievable bull rider.

DG: He had success didn't he?

CS: He sure did and you know, Dave, not just in the arena it was outside the arena as well. I mean the guy was loved by everybody. He was a good looking, talented guy. You know he just got done. We've seen him he did a national Ford commercial. You know he just had an infectious smile and everywhere he went people loved him and he was just you know he was just a ranch kid — ranch- raised kid — from Merritt B.C you know great parents and great family and that's just how he was just an awesome guy and everybody loved nobody ever had a bad word to say about Ty Pozzobon. And you know and he was just things were really rolling for him here.

DG: No one knows what happened here. I'm sure there's lots of questions in the community. So how do you move forward with this when you talk with others? How are you going to remember him?

CS: Guys like this, David, don't come along in any sport very often. I mean he's a guy who almost transcended the sport. He was just get to that point where you know his name was in the mix to win the World title this year and the PBR I mean we're talking with you know J.B. Mooney and Cooper Davison. This is like losing Jordan Speith in golf or Sidney Crosby in hockey. I mean this is devastating. I mean we're just in shock. You know Ty Pozzobon is the best bull rider that's come along and can in the last decade. he was a stud I mean Ty was loved by everybody.

ATW: That was Cody Snyder speaking with David Gray the host of the Calgary Eyeopener on CBC Radio. Mr. Snyder is a former agent for bull rider Ty Pozzobon. Mr. Pozzobon died this week. He was 25.

[Music: Country]

Dateline: Polish foreign minister

ATW: Dateline New York.

[Music: Dateline Theme]

ATW: The nation of San Escobar is appealing to the United Nations or would be if it really did exist. And while its nonexistence may not be news to you. It was to Poland's Foreign Minister, Witold Waszczykowski. The minister was at the UN yesterday lobbying for the upcoming Security Council seat. He told reporters that he had met with officials from 20 or so countries including some from the Caribbean such as Belize or San Escobar. A spokeswoman quickly corrected his error saying the minister had simply suffered a slip of the tongue. But mockery ensued especially in the UK press. Now though Minister Waszczykowski appears to have support of none other than @rpdsanescobar on Twitter. As happens with surprising speed after similar mistakes, the Twitter account was opened by the Office of what purports to be the People's Democratic Republic of San Escobar They've warned quote, “UK press calls #SanEscobar nonexistent again. These acts of our former imperial overlords will not be tolerated. Either Her Majesty's government stops the anti-San Escobar push or we'll use our EU influence to force an immediate hard Brexit, end quote.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Jan. 11 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode