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 June 13, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Home groans. Despite the PM's insistence that Canadians should have the right to cultivate their own pot, Quebec passes its own law banning people from getting high on their own supply.

JD: One hostile climate to another. First, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees fled Myanmar. And now, monsoon rains are bringing catastrophe to their camps.

CO: A man of firsts gets sixty seconds. Jim Egan was a defiant voice for gay rights. And now, the late activist is the subject of a Heritage Minute.

JD: A successful pitch, and we're pitching in with pitches. We're going to co-host the 2026 World Cup. And a former national player hopes that will give Team Canada the kick-start his team just missed.

CO: An open-and-shut-up case. Decades before this week's summit, a meeting between the U.S. and North Korea was a lot more hush-hush — and ended with two generals just silently glaring at each other.

JD: And speaking of high-profile summits: for hours, a lone climber's gruelling journey up a skyscraper in Minnesota transfixed the world. And tonight, we'll speak with a journalist who helped elevate that stubborn raccoon to superstardom.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Wednesday edition. Radio that's not sure why she did it, but assumes she's washing his hands of the whole thing.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Marijuana announcement, rescued raccoon

Marijuana announcement

Guest: Jean-Marc Fournier

JD: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau isn't backing down on his plan to let Canadians grow their own dope. The Senate has returned the marijuana legalization bill to the House of Commons with some serious changes. One is a provision that would allow provincial governments to ban private cultivation in people's homes. But today, the Prime Minister showed no patience for that proposal. Here's Mr. Trudeau, this morning in Ottawa.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We have spent months and indeed years talking with experts, reflecting on the best path forward on the legalisation of cannabis because the current system doesn't work. it doesn't protect our kids, what we actually have. It doesn't prevent organised crime from making billions of dollars in profits and impacting communities. We’re making the changes to keep Canadians safe. And one of the strong recommendations by experts was that we insure personal cultivation of four plants at home. We understand there are questions and concerns about this. And we understand also that it'll be important to study the impacts of what we're doing and whether there can be changes made in three years. But we need to move forward on better protecting our communities.

JD: That was Prime Minister Trudeau this morning in Ottawa. There's a problem: Quebec's National Assembly passed its own marijuana legislation yesterday. And it includes a total ban on growing at home. Jean-Marc Fournier is Quebec's Minister for Canadian Relations. We reached Minister Fornier in Quebec City.

CO: Minister Fournier. We just heard the prime minister; he has advice from experts that having four plants at home would help to ensure that kids are protected, and that organised crime is kept at bay. What do you say to him?

JEAN-MARC FOURNIER: Well, you know the federal government put that on the table after the election. They are legitimized to do it. They had an election on the decriminalization of cannabis. But at the same time, they cannot have the answer for everything. That's the reason why in every province and territory, the laws have to be adapted because we are in the federal system. So we respect in Quebec, as other provinces, we respect the decision of the federal government to open the market for cannabis. But at the same time, we are asking for the same respect of the federal government of our decision. When Mr. Trudeau said that about personal cultivation they had many consultations, you will not be surprised that since last year we had a lot, and a lot, and a lot of consultation in our province. I think it was the same thing elsewhere. So it's like you know I not seeing a lot of respect about the consultation we had in our own province. Not a lot of respect about the exercise of our own jurisdiction.

CO: So aside from respect, which I understand. What are your objections? What is the problem with growing the four plants?

JMF: So now the main problem is the fact that the product became so normal. It's an encouragement to use it. It's just normal, and we are not there. Mr. Trudeau said that they are going to study the impact. OK in three years, they're going to study the impact. Very good. If you open the door today, how can you be able in three years to close it? If you open it very slowly — it is what we are doing and Manitoba is doing — in three years, we'll be able to look at it again. And I will give you another thing. When you’re at the federal government, and you want to study the impact, and you are in the federal system, the best thing is to have different solutions applied by different province. So in three years look at what was the result? What was the best solution? So I think it's like the federal government is thinking that it is the only government in Canada. That is not the case, and I think that is not respecting the spirit of federalism. And he is not helping citizens by delivering in three years the best solution.

CO: The Trudeau government though is saying that what we need is some kind of a balance between allowing cannabis to be available online and in retail stores, and also to have some homegrown cannabis. And that's the best, according to them, to displace the criminal market for marijuana. What do you say that?

JMF: This is not the conclusion that we had in Quebec after consultation. It was public consultation. People can go back to the tape and look at that. So I understand that is what they are saying. This is not what we are saying. And we are saying if we want to open the door, if the federal government is opening the door, this is what we are doing. Opening the door for cannabis, OK, and we respect that. How big that there will be open? And we prefer for the beginning to open it not in a large way. And I think that's OK that's correct that that's legitimate for us. Why is it so tough for the federal government to recognise that we also had consultation, we arrive at a conclusion that it was zero plant. We will look again at our laws in three years. They want to look at them in three years. Why is it so difficult to accept that in a country so large as Canada, that different community — in fact a nation in Quebec — that we can use our own jurisdiction and make a decision? Why is it so tough to say we will have a different solution being applied so we'll be in a position in three years to know what's the better deal for Canadians for the future? We will share that with the provinces. Why is it so tough?

CO: Is your decision, is your choice to do this, about money? Because there is a fair bit of cash to be made . Not just from the taxes that will be applied to the marijuana, but also from legal businesses, from the stores, the producers employment, the employment that it’s going to create. There’s a lot of money potentially going to go into the coffers of provinces. Are you worried that this home grown aspect might cut into your revenue stream?

JMF: Not at all. It was not the situation. If you want to talk about money, let's talk about the fact that the ambiguity that the federal government is sending in the population will cost money to citizens. Because of that ambiguity, it's possible that some Quebecers might find that oh, I can have one, two, or three plan even if our laws is saying zero. So they will be sued and they will they will say well, we didn't know. And they will have to go to our lawyers for that. So it's the ambiguity will cost us money for a citizen.

CO: This is a constitutional issue for you. It's about being a distinct society, about doing things.

JMF: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's not a distinct society. Manitoba have the same decision, and in Ontario something else, and BC have something else. It's not about Quebec is always the one that is not doing the same thing. Nunavut is doing the same thing. It's about the fact that in the federal system you've got provinces who have jurisdiction. And in that jurisdiction they have to make decisions. This is what we get we done. The federal government cannot decide that the decision we took in our jurisdiction well they prefer something else because they had another kind of consultation. I'm sorry, this is not about distinct society. It's about the fact that we have a jurisdiction. We are exercising it. In fact, we are exercising it because we respect the will of the federal government to open the door to cannabis. It was not our choice. It's them. It's in their jurisdiction with criminal code. OK, we'll do that. It’s because we want to do things differently and always differently. It's the fact that we had consultation, and we want to protect our youth. And so to do that, we want the opening of the door to be very narrow at the beginning. That's it, and nothing else.

CO: Minister Fournier, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JMF: Thank you very much. Have a great day.

JD: Jean-Marc Fournier is Quebec's Minister for Canadian Relations. We reached Minister Fournier in Quebec City.

[Music: Ambient]

Clement on Bernier

JD: The big news out of the Conservative Party today is that Maxime Bernier has been booted out of the party's shadow cabinet. Just last year, of course, Mr. Bernier came within a hair's breadth of winning his party's leadership race. Now he's out, because he posted a chapter of an unpublished autobiography online. And the problem was the part wherein he blamed what he called, quote, "fake Conservatives" for his loss. It's kind of an interesting story. But it wasn't what Tony Clement wanted reporters to be talking about. Here's how the Conservative MP responded to questions earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Was it right for Mr. Bernier to be removed from his role?

TONY CLEMENT: Absolutely.

REPORTER: Why?

TC: Well, because he disobeyed caucus.

REPORTER: How so?

TC: I think that’s something that the leader is responsible for. He took a difficult but necessary decision. I've spoken to Maxine Bernier about it; he understands the decision. So I know you're all excited about this, but really, this is an internal decision. Max is still a member of our caucus, of course, and very valued. He’s a friend of mine. I still value his friendship. And if you're asking me do I condemn Max Bernier? I don't. I think we should offer grace and compassion to people in this situation, or in other situations that we find ourselves. So don't even don't even try to get me to condemn Max Bernier.

REPORTER: But you’ve known Max for a long time. Were you surprised that he — after caucus explicitly told him that they wanted him to shelve that book — that he then went and released the chapter again?

TC: Look, you're asking me to judge people.

REPORTER: No, I’m just asking if you were surprised.

TC: He made a decision. I believe it was the wrong decision. The leader believes it was the wrong decision. Max acknowledges it was the wrong decision. So I know you all want to make a big to do about this. There's no to do here.

RPORTER: You say have compassion, compassion for what?

TC: Because he's a human being that makes mistakes. And you know you make mistakes in your life. I make mistakes in my life. I know it's hard to believe that you mistakes, but we all make mistakes. So let's get off our high horses here. I know we want to make a big about it. I'm here to say I'm not here to condemn him. You're here with the cameras on me. You're here making all of these questions. I'm not here to condemn.

REPORTER: We’re not asking you that. We’re asking you what happened.

TC: I think Mr. Scheer is a great leader. He’s doing a great job. He’s a unifying force in our party. He'll be a unifying force in our country. Mr. Shceer is going to be the next prime minister of Canada — full stop, period. That's what I'm telling you.

REPORTER: MR. Bernier represented 49 per cent of the members in the vote.

TC Forty-nine per cent is not good enough. To win the leadership, you need 50 per cent plus one. Maxim Bernier knows that, the party knows, that everybody knows that, and we're still having this discussion a year later, which is not quite frankly what Canadians care about. They care about the economy. They care about trade. They care about public safety and security. They care about affordability. That's what the public cares about — even if you don't care it. I think I’ve said enough.

REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Clement, your leader took the decision. It’s our job to ask questions about them.

TC: And I answered them.

JD: That was Conservative MP Tony Clement in Ottawa, earlier today.

[Music: Folk]

Gay Heritage Minute

JD: It was still "the love that dare not speak its name" when Jim Egan spoke about it. At a time when consensual sex between same-sex adults was still illegal in this country, Mr. Egan was a powerful and a persistent voice for gay rights. Back in 1949, he began writing regular letters to newspapers, criticizing their inaccurate portrayals of gay and lesbian people. And in 1964 — still five years before homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada — he was anonymously featured in a Maclean's article titled "The Homosexual Next Door." And when he reached retirement age, Mr. Egan's fight for same-sex rights took him to Canada's Supreme Court, where he argued that his partner John Nesbit — also known as Jack — should have a right to spousal benefits. Now, Jim and Jack's struggle is the subject of a new Heritage Minute from Historica Canada.

SOUNDCLIP

JIM EGAN: I never thought I'd know that feeling: To be in love. Because for us, it was a crime. Someone had to respond to tabloids, so I wrote letters, challenging every misconception about homosexuality. Nine homes, seven dogs, 47 years together. And still not spouses under the law. So we took our fight to the Supreme Court.

SPEAKER: Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit await a verdict on their fight for spousal rights.

[Sound: A phone rings]

JE: Hello. We lost our case, but we made a difference.

NARRATOR: As a result Jim Egan’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation is protected under the Charter of Rights. A landmark victory for the LGBTQ2 community.

JD: Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit are a gay couple who took their fight for spousal pension benefits to the Supreme Court in the '90s, and paved the way for greater recognition of same-sex rights in Canada. In November of 1994, the couple spoke to Peter Gzowski on CBC Radio's "Morningside" — from different parts of the country — about why they were so determined to issue their challenge.

JE: The four basic freedoms under the Charter are equality before the law, equality under the law, equal benefit of the law, and equal protection of the law. Well, obviously we are not — neither Jack or myself, or any other same sex couple — receiving equal benefit of the law when the legislation designed to bestow those benefits is worded in such a way as to completely exclude any same sex couple from the benefit.

PETER GZOWSKI: Well, you sound like one of your own voluminous letters to the editor.

JE: Well, I've been doing this for…

PG: A long, long time.

JE: Forty-five years.

PG: I know. Now you and I said John — you call him Jack.

JE: Well, I alternate.

PG: You know him better.

JE: Yeah.

PG: First of all, you had a chance to say hello since we hooked you up?

JE: No, we haven't. Are you been there, Jack?

JACK NESBIT: Yes, I am.

JE: Oh, good. How are you?

JN: I miss you.

JE: I miss you, John.

JN: Yeah. Well anyway, Hi, Peter, how are you?

PG: Hi, John, how are you?

JN: I'm fine thank you.

PG: It's interesting. You've been a sort of in the background while Jim has been out there swinging the cudgel and looking for rights almost all of your lives together, haven’t you?

JN: I'm a very background person, yes. The whole idea of equality for gay people has always been on my mind, but I don't express myself as well as Jim does.

PG: Did anyone ever propose? Or did just evolve as a couple? Or did you say let’s be a couple?

JN: Just evolved. No, it just evolved. We both we discussed what we both wanted out of life. I was a very romantic type. Jim is a very practical type. But we both agreed that we would like a lifetime relationship, where, hopefully, we would die together in old age. Like, not now, but much, much later.

JE: At about the age of 90, after a fabulous orgasm.

PG: Jam.

JN: Anyway, and so it's worked ever since.

JD: Well, they didn't quite make it to ninety, but Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit did spend their lives together — both passed away in the year 2000. The director of the Heritage Minute will be on "q" tomorrow. That's on CBC Radio One — 10 a.m.

[Music: Sad piano]

Rescued racoon

Guest: Tim Nelson

JD: In this day and this age, when anyone can become a celebrity, even raccoons see an opportunity to blow up on social media. Granted, it did seem like the daredevil raccoon in St. Paul, Minnesota was really focused only on the tasks it had set itself. First, it was spotted on top of a downtown office building. Later, it made its way onto an even taller building, which, for some reason, it climbed. And climbed, and climbed. The raccoon's solitary ascent drew the attention of scores of Minnesotans, and thousands more on social media. Tim Nelson is a reporter for Minnesota Public Radio News. He watched the raccoon closely, he provided live updates. We reached him in St. Paul.

CO: Tim, how much of your time did you spend watching this raccoon?

TIM NELSON: I have been up and looking at this raccoon for almost 36 hours now — at least until 10:00 o'clock this morning, when the wildlife management company that trapped this raccoon went up and got it off the roof of this office tower. I went with them to look at it. It was an undramatic end, but welcome I think.

CO: So you stayed up all night to watch this little creature?

TN: I had to. I had to find out how this story ended. I watched this raccoon take the first story of an accent off the street level here on Tuesday. And then watch it in some horror as she continued up the building. And worried greatly about what would happen to her up there. We felt like you know one slip of the paw, and It would be a raccoon potpie at the bottom of the building there.

CO: How would you describe they call this the “Spider Raccoon”, or “St. Paul's Spider Raccoon”. How would you describe this journey?

TN: Well, it was a halting one. You know she sort of took this a Florida time and now would crawl up the pillar between sets of windows. And then kind of hop off onto the window ledge next to each pillar and rest for a while. Sometimes they were very brief rests. And sometimes they were very languid and casual rests. I actually got to observe one on the top floor — on the twenty-third floor — and I have never seen a more relaxed wild animal. She was sort of doing a downward dog pose with her eyes closed and her whiskers twitching in the breeze, 250 feet above the street.

CO: I mean some of the pictures — and you saw it live — she's clinging to the side of a sheer wall.

TN: It defies imagination or explanation. There are hundreds of thousands of raccoons in Minnesota. I've lived here for 50 years. I've seen hundreds of them, if not thousands of them myself. I've never seen anything like this.

CO: How many buildings and how many floors did it scale — did she scale?

TN: Well, there it's sort of like a birthday cake. There's a very large plaza-type building that covers about half a city block that's two stories high. That's where we initially saw her in a niche on the side of that building. The attempt to rescue her forced her up that wall and onto the roof of that building. We thought she might pause there, but looked on in horror as she took off across the roof and started heading up the office tower. It’s twenty-three floors above the street level to the very top occupied level of the building.

CO: Why was she going there? Did anyone have any theories as to what the goal was?

TN: Well, the city is connected by sytems skyways, and those were retrofitted into many of the buildings. And, unfortunately, the junctions are less than perfect in many places. And they left places and spaces for pigeons to lay eggs. And I suspect that this raccoon thought that those pigeon eggs might be quite tasty. And that was what originally brought her off the street and to our attention.

CO: But all these people watching, I mean it was just for hours people studying that. Why do you think it was so fascinating to people?

TN: Well, you know all of us have made what I call poor life decisions that sometimes play out in public in distressing ways. And I think there's some of that. That you know, people look with some empathy at the predicament that this poor animal had gotten herself into. And hope that like themselves perhaps, she might overcome it. But you know the other part of this is it's been a very fraught spring and summer here. We have hard-fought midterm elections coming; the summit in Singapore that brought together President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader. There's a lot of angst I think out there right now. And just for this day, we had a very small, furry, nine or ten pound creature to root for as she you know climbed for her life right before us. It was a drama. You know I was up last night. The racoon got up to the very top level about 4:00 yesterday afternoon, and about 1:00 o'clock in the morning, started to come back down. And we thought oh, she had come to her senses. And she got about six stories down, and then turned around and went back up. Literally, people were standing on their ground going no, no, turn around, turn around.

CO: Actually talking to the racoon?

TN: Yes. Unfortunately, she was so high up I don't think she could hear us. And even if she could, you know the wildlife folks said that it's fear that really drives these animals up. That's their natural response to danger is head up and away.

CO: Anyway, so they trapped her on the roof, and where is she now as far as you know?

TN: Well, Wildlife Management Services took her down, put her in a pickup truck, and drove her away. We saw that they took her to a southwest suburb of the Twin Cities; we believe it's probably Shakopee, and released her on private property there. They didn't want to tell us where she was, so people wouldn't go hunting for her.

CO: All right. Thanks, Tim.

TN: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

JD: Tim Nelson is a reporter for Minnesota Public Radio News. He watched the raccoon closely, reported on its journey. We reached Tim Nelson in St. Paul.

[Music: Percussive]

MLB ejection

JD: Two years ago, New York Mets pitcher Noah Syndergaard got tossed from a game against the Los Angeles Dodgers. At the time, umpires ruled that he had thrown behind Dodgers batter Chase Utley. Pretty standard ejection; nothing too dramatic — except ejections are always dramatic, aren’t they? This one's even more so, now that video has resurfaced, featuring audio of the whole thing, from on-field microphones. Here is what it sounded like when Mr. Syndergaard was ejected.

SOUNDCLIP

TOM HALLION: You’re down. And you can’t do that. Not in that situation, man. I know you’re going to say that, but that ain’t going to happen. That’s the wrong time to do it.

NOAH SYNDERGAARD: I’m not trying to do anything. I’m trying to throw a pitch.

TH: It is what it is. But that ain’t going to happen. We don’t do something there. I’m just telling you that. Everyone knows what the situation is, okay?

JD: After his pitcher was ejected, Mets manager-at-the-time Terry Collins quietly accepted the decision. Just kidding: he launched a spectacularly profane tirade. Here's part of Mr. Collins's confrontation with umpire Tom Hallion.

[sc]

TH: Terry, Terry, Terry!

TC: This is [censored]

TH: Terry, get a handle. Come on, let’s go.

TC: That’s [censored] and you know it. You got to give us a shot.

TH: You know what? Terry, listen to me. Let me hear what I’m saying. You get your shot. You had your shot right there in the situation. You know the situation, Terry.

TC: Why don’t we get a shot Tommy.

JD: That's audio from a 2016 game between the New York Mets and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Former Mets manager Terry Collins hasn't commented on the re-emergence of that clip. But as for his approach to the umpire, I'm sure he still swears by it.

Part two: Rohingya monsoon, Canada World Cup

Rohingya monsoon

Guest: Daphnee Cook

JD: It's only the beginning of monsoon season in Bangladesh — and it's already been deadly. Rains have caused mudslides in several areas, including Cox's Bazar. That's where hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees live. As you've heard on this program, the Rohingya fled to Bangladesh last year fearing persecution in neighbouring Myanmar. According to The Guaridan, at least three Rohingya refugees have died following the rains in Cox's Bazar — including a young boy. Several others have reportedly died in other areas. Daphnee Cook was in Cox's Bazar earlier today. She is a spokesperson for Save the Children's Rohingya response. We reached her in Dhaka.

CO: Ms. Cook, just first of all, tell us about this boy — this Rohingya boy who died. What happened?

DAPHNEE COOK: We understand that the little boy was at home with his mother, when the side of their shelter collapsed into them, and seriously injured his mother, and tragically, crushed the little boy. I understand that his mother was in hospital last night. His father is obviously absolutely devastated at what's happened.

CO: You left some hours ago this area is called Cox's Bazaar, which is sort of the centre of where these Rohingya refugees are. What was it like? Describe that for us, would you, the conditions that you saw today?

DC: The conditions have been extremely concerning. I feel like that’s not enough of a word to describe it. But basically the situation in the camps has gone from bad to worse over the last four days. As you said, I was out this morning, and just witnessed the immediate aftermath of some landslides — where you just see like latrines and sandbags had just tumbled down the hillsides. Damage is everywhere. There's shelters on the side of hills. There’s damaged toilets. I saw dozens of children playing in floodwaters. You know the risk of disease in these camps cannot be underestimated.

CO: We've been saying for months, well reporting what people like yourself have been saying, which is that people knew these monsoons were coming, that these people were in extremely vulnerable place when they should arrive. What preparations were they able to put into place before the rains and the winds began?

DC: Yes, so as you said, this isn't a surprise. Bangladesh is one of the wettest countries in the world, and Cox’s Bazaar is one of the wettest parts of the wettest country in the world. What we didn't know was how the land that the Rohingya people were living on would respond to the rain. So it's really untested territory when 700,000 people arrived. They had to find room somewhere. They chopped down a whole bunch of tree, and put up their shelters on this sandy ground. And what's happened is yeah, as I said, it's fallen apart. But we did have time to prepare. So there's been a lot of shelter strengthening, helping people to make their houses secure as possible. We've done a lot of Hillside strengthening with sandbags. And really importantly, we’ve done a lot of supporting of access routes.

CO: Some parts of the camps were cut off. Is that not true? That the access points were flooded out?

DC: Yeah, so basically in the middle of a camp, a central access route. And that road was closed on the second day of the rains. That's because one of the sides of the road just collapsed and became inaccessible. But then what's happened is, again, in preparation, our teams have all been trained to become mobile. So the mobile teams kicked in, and all our teams that are walking into the camps to deliver those services house to house from preposition supplies.

CO: Are there injuries? Are there people who have been washed out of their homes?

DC: The latest figures that I have say that they've had over 30 injured people, so that's not including the three fatalities. But then over 2,700 people have been displaced. And that means that their houses have been damaged so badly that they've had to go and move into someone else's house. So that's extremely concerning — displaced people of an already displaced population. We know that over 3,000 shelters have been damaged or destroyed. And almost 300 latrines have been damaged or destroyed. And this is only after four days of rain.

CO: We've been hearing from people like yourself — from the aid agencies — for some time that Cox's Bazar, this area, cannot hold this many people — 700,000 people can't stay there. What are the discussions about relocating people from the area? So an agreement has been signed between the Bangladeshi government and the Myanmar government to agree for the eventual repatriation of the Rohingya to Myanmar. And ultimately, what everyone wants is a long-term sustainable and safe situation for the Rohingya people to live, and for the Rohingya children to grow up in a safe environment. However, you know we're all very conscious that any repatriation needs to be voluntary. It needs to be safe for children and their families. It needs to be informed, and it needs to have all external actors at the table, like the UNHCR, and humanitarian agencies like Save the Children. So once all these processes are in place, we do hope that there is a safe long-term solution for the Rohingya people. Hopefully, in the homes where they came from.

CO: But that's a real hope, isn't it? Because there is no movement within Myanmar to at this point that would allow that to happen. And the discussion we're hearing is that the possibility that Bangladesh may move refugees to an island. And what do you know about that?

DC: As I said, basically any option on the table that is safe, is voluntary importantly, is informed, and allows humanitarian actors there the space to be able to provide support to people where they need it. You know we're open to any suggestion. At the moment, we're really the focus on responding to the immediate needs of Rohingya families and children in Cox's Bazaar while other players work out these longer term situations.

CO: What would you say to Canada? What petition would you make to this country as to what it should do for Rohingya?

DC: Look, I would say yes thank you so much for the support that you already so generously provided. But that it’s only I believe it's only about 22 per cent of the overall funding ask for has been met. And that’s just not enough. That funding ask is related to saving people's lives. It’s related to rebuilding houses after they tumble down the hill. It’s related to making sure kids have access to vital nutritional supplements, so they can grow up healthy. So you know while some has been done already, we do ask the international community and you know governments like the government of Canada to really you know commit to this response, and to supporting Rohingya families and children.

CO: We will leave it there. I know you have much work to do, and you must be very tired. Ms. Cook, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DC: Thank you.

JD: Daphnee Cook is a spokesperson for Save the Children's Rohingya response. We reached her in Dhaka.

[Music: Jazz]

New Brunswick fishermen

JD: New Brunswick fishermen are reaching the end of their ropes. For the sixth time this season, the federal government has announced the closure of one of their fishing grounds. This fishing ground was closed after a group of five right whales was spotted between Miscou and the Gaspe Peninsula. But many fishermen say they've never seen the whales in that area before. James Stewart is a lobster fisherman from Miscou. Last night, he spoke with CBC reporter Gabrielle Fahmy.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES STEWART: I got a hard time to sleep, really. Hard time to sleep, and I’m smoking cigarettes like hell.

GABRIEELLE FAHMY: Have you ever had to deal with anything like this? How bad is this?

JS: Never. Never. Like I said, I'm 41 years old, I've been fishing for 25 years, and never seen whales never, never, never inside where we're fishing right now.

GF: You know on Friday you're going to have to remove your traps?

JS: Yes. But I hope they give us a few days because there's big winds tomorrow and Thursday too. So If we can get at least one or two days extra, that’d be all right.

GF: How man traps do you have there?

JS: I got probably half of my rig right there — 150 traps. I'm going to move them where there is another area, and there’s like another village that fishes there. So we're going to be tight really. Really tight.

GF: What do you think of the solution that was offered by Ottawa to have a fall fishery instead?

JS: I'm against that. Really against because we get two months to fish, and if we're fishing summertime or fall, we're probably fishing and catching everything. Like us we, were fishing spring right now. There's a lot of fishermen. If we’re fishing fall, the traps are going to be full of lobsters that's for sure. And we'll probably ruin the lobsters for good.

GF: And how many fishermen you have on your boat?

JS: Us, we’re four. Me, and my wife, and my cousin fish with me, and my deckhand.

GF: How do they all feel about it?

JS: They’re really on their nerves right now. They're really nervous. But if we move, we can still fish. But we probably won't catch as much lobsters.

GF: Are you worried like everyone's going to get in each other's territory, and there's going to be arguments?

JS: Yes, yes, for sure because we already had problems with the other fishermen, and that's where we're going to go and fish because that's the only zone open right now. And I've got good friends in the other area too, so they don't want that fight with nobody. But we're going to have to go and fish there.

JD: That was New Brunswick lobster fisherman James Stewart speaking with the CBC's Gabrielle Fahmy yesterday.

[Music: World music]

Canada World Cup

Guest: Alex Bunbury

JD: It's the largest sporting event in the world. And it's coming to Canada — with or without vuvuzelas. Today, FIFA announced that Canada — along with the U.S. and Mexico — will host the 2026 World Cup of Football. The tournament has never been held here before. The national Canadian men’s team has only qualified to play in the World Cup... once. Thirty-two years ago. But now, as host country, it's expected that Team Canada will get to participate again. Alex Bunbury played for Team Canada when they came oh-so-close to qualifying for the 1994 World Cup. We reached Mr. Bunbury in Egan, Minnesota.

CO: Alex, the World Cup is coming to Canada. Can you believe that?

ALEX BUNBURY: It's big time! What a special moment. I'm lost for words because our country needed it. And I mean this is going to be awesome for our country — awesome for all the young boys and girls who have aspiration of playing at a higher level when it comes to soccer. And just the fact the notoriety that it's going to bring to Canada worldwide. It's an awesome moment. It's historical. I got emotional when I got the first call. And I'm still a little bit emotional.

CO: You played about a dozen years for Team Canada, didn't you?

AB: Yeah, I played quite a while. I started my international career with Canada when I was 14 years of age at a youth level, and worked all the way through until I retired at the age of 32. So it has a special place in my heart.

CO: I want to play a clip for you. This is a 17-year-old Team Canada player Alphonso Davies, and he was able to make a final pitch to the FIFA World Congress before they made their vote — their decision. And I want to play for you what he had to say because I think it might bring some memories back for you. Here's Alphonso Davies.

SOUNDCLIP

ALPHONSO DAVIES: My parents are from Liberia, and fled the civil war. I was born in Ghana, in a refugee camp. It was a hard life, but when I was five years old, a country called Canada welcomed us in. And the boys on the football team made me feel at home. Today I am 17 years old, and I'm playing for the men's national team, and I'm a proud Canadian citizen. And my dream is that someday compete in the World Cup — maybe even in my hometown of Edmonton.

CO: Okay.

AB: Wow, goose bumps!

CO: I know. What comes to mind when you hear a young Canadian player make that pitch to the world?

AB: Well, I could have been the person speaking when I was 17 years of age. I'm an immigrant. I come from Guyana; migrated to Canada — Montreal when I was nine. And the country gave me and my family so much. And the football family — the soccer family — gave me so much. Playing for the Hamilton Steelers, what a great organization that is, and the people there. I mean the list goes on. When we played in Edmonton, we played in Vancouver, we played in Toronto, the national team, the support we got from so many people. And to think that soccer in Canada is a secondary sport when you compare it to hockey. I think the fever is coming. And having a bit of the World Cup being in our backyard — being in our yard, not our backyard. I think it's just going to elevate the level of play. It's just going to put soccer right up there. And I'm so excited for this.

CO: Getting back to that 17-year-old because you are that age when Canada qualified for the World Cup, the only time it did in 1986. But you didn't play. What happened?

AB: Well, it's a long story. I got called up because I was playing the World Youth Championship in Minsk, Russia. Go figure, huh? Look at this! And that that was in ’85, and the senior World Cup was ready for ’86. And I got called up because of my performance at the Youth World Cup. And I thought it was going to make, but the coach at the time told me that no, Alex, you know you have a bright future. You're going to be involved in many World Cups in the future. And it never happened. It never materialized. And we came very close to it in ’94. And for us to have this now for these young players that are coming in, it's fantastic. I’m so very proud of all the people that put in all the hard work to put that bid together. They made us all proud. I'm still emotional.

CO: Everyone wants to see Canada play. And you mentioned all the trouble it’s been trying to get in to qualify for the World Cup. Came close in 1994, what happened there? How did Canada come to be eliminated at that point?

AB: Well, we got eliminated because you know this is soccer. We were playing in the playoffs, and we lost in penalty kicks to Australia to get to the World Cup. And so that’s how close we came in ’94. And we had some world-class players on that team that I was really proud of being a part of.

CO: Does that stay with you losing on penalty kicks?

AB: Yeah, it does because I was one of them that missed a penalty. Unfortunately, I missed one, and it really haunts me from time to time. So this is this really sweetens it up for me because I think now that Canada has the opportunity to play in the World Cup for the second time. And who knows, they might even make it before the 2026 World Cup. But being guaranteed that they're going to be there. Wow. Just incredible!

CO: You mentioned Canada the game here is Hockey. But many people wonder why soccer — why football — isn't so big here, much bigger than it than it is? Because it's a country of immigrants. So many people bring that love of the game here. And you've played for Canada. What's it like to play for a Canadian crowd when you're playing soccer?

AB: They were very loyal. We were supported like you can only imagine. You could have been in Europe for that matter because of exactly what you stated. We do have supporters. We have the ethnicity of many, many countries obviously. People coming from Europe, Asia, South America, you name it, the Caribbean. We had that support. So it's very hard to ascertain why the game is not bigger. And I guess because of this now, I think it's going to put us in the right direction. I think people are going to realize how incredible this sport is. It's not only for young boys; it's for young girls as well. And it teaches us so many good values. It teaches us about tolerance. You can come from any part of the world, from any demographic, it doesn't matter the colour of your skin, it does not matter your religion, the game loves you. And if you put in the hard work, it rewards you. And it rewarded me. I'm so grateful for it. I'm so grateful that I'm a Canadian citizen, and I'm so honoured now that we are going to be hosting the game because Canada deserves it.

CO: Alex, it’s lovely to talk to you. Thank you.

AB: OK, Carol. Thank you. All right take care.

CO: You too. Bye.

AB: Bye bye.

JD: Alex Bunbury is a retired soccer player. He played for Canada's national team for eleven years. We reached him in Egan, Minnesota.

[Music: Light rock]

North Korea meeting 1969

JD: Whatever your thoughts on the recent summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, you do have to admit there was actual talking, which is a distinct improvement on a meeting that took place 49 years ago. Between 1953 and 1969, the U.S. and North Korea met in the DMZ zone 289 times. As you might glean from that number, the meetings were...not productive. A U.S. National Security agency document describes the get-togethers as, quote, "primarily a forum for exchanging insults and charges." As the website Weird Universe pointed out this week, that 289th meeting in 1969 was not a breakthrough. In fact, you could call it a breakdown — except there were no breaks at all. The main officials at the meeting were American general James B. Knapp, and North Korean general Ri Choon-Sun. General Knapp had some demands — including that North Korea shrink its army and stop attacking South Korea. General Ri was not receptive. The meeting lasted 11 hours and 35 minutes. That whole time, neither man ate or left the room, not even to use the bathroom. And it ended with an unbelievably long period of stubborn silence. According to an article in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin from April 11th, 1969, quote, "The American general and the North Korean general glared at each other across the table, and the only sound was the wind howling across the barren hills outside their quonset hut...They sat there, arms folded, for 4-and-a-half hours. Not a word. Finally, General Ri got up, walked out, and drove away." Unquote. So, like I say, at the very least, these latest talks were talks. Because talks without talking get you nowhere, which goes without saying.

Part three: Encore Stephen Reid obit

Dudley inquest

JD: In 2008, when Erwin Adam heard gunshots near his home in Mission, British Columbia, he did what he should have. He called 911. But as an inquest is hearing this week, the officer dispatched never got out of his car to investigate. Mr. Adam's neighbour, Lisa Dudley, was inside her home. She had been shot in a targeted attack. But she was still alive for four days — but unable to move. She later died. The coroner's inquest is looking into that police response — or lack of it. And Mr. Adam has been attending the inquest. He told CBC about that day, beginning with what he and his neighbour did after he called 911.

SOUNDCLIP

ERWIN ADAM: Right after that, we turned off the porch light, and we stood out there, and tried to listen is there any further sounds? Is there anything at all that would give us a sense of what was going on? And it was just completely quiet. And you know that whole time we were standing on the porch there, we’re not wanting to be terribly obvious because you never know. I mean is there somebody who wants to shoot at us maybe? And we weren't about to go running out into the street trying to be the Crime fighters in a rural area.

RAFFERTY BAKER: And you didn't see any police you testified at all. You waited for 20 minutes, and never saw any sort of response from the authorities?

EA: To the best of my recollection, and those that were there at that time, we believe we waited at least 20 minutes — some say longer — before I went and took my son over to our house. I think that's where the communication between my neighbour and I was incomplete, and where we failed Lisa. Because Lisa, in hindsight, we now know was still alive, and nobody came to find her. And I think through this inquest I was looking for some absolution that the doctors would say she wouldn't have made it anyway, or something like that. But I don't think that was to be. Not that I didn't want her to make it, but in the sense that it absolves myself and my neighbour of not having followed up again.

JD: That was Erwin Adam speaking with the CBC's Rafferty Baker about the coroner's inquest into Lisa Dudley's murder in 2008 in Mission, British Columbia.

[Music: Ambient]

Encore: Stephen Reid

JD: Stephen Reid was both a legendary bank robber and a celebrated author. He was a devoted father and grandfather. And he struggled with addiction. It was announce today that Mr. Reid has died. He was 68 years old. His criminal career began in the 1970s with the Stopwatch Gang. It robbed more than 100 banks in Canada and the U.S. While in prison for his crimes, he wrote a book — and met his wife, poet Susan Musgrave. After his release, they lived happily for more than a decade — before he relapsed. He went back to prison in 1999, and while behind bars that time, he wrote his award-winning collection of essays "A Crowbar in the Buddhist Garden." We spoke to Mr. Reid on “As It Happens” shortly after he was granted day parole in 2014. Here is an encore presentation of that conversation.

CO: Hello Stephen Reid, welcome to As It Happens.

STEPHEN REID: Thank you.

CO: You've been out since last Wednesday.

SR: I have.

CO: And how are you adjusting to life outside?

SR: Just quite step-by-step. Just spending a lot time with the grandkids, as much time as I can with the grandkids. And there's a huge stimulus overload when you first come out. You know, traffic lights and those kind of things. So I just you know stay conscious of it and aware. And you know not get sort of overwhelmed by stuff.

CO: But as you are released now at the age of 63.

SR: I am, yeah.

CO: You spent most of your adult life in prison though haven't you?

SR: Most of it, yes.

CO: And do you imagine yourself now never going back?

SR: I do. I do, Carol. I'm finished. You know there's nothing left in the addiction. The addiction has taken me back time and time again — the choice to get addicted. I believe now that I'm clean. If I use, it's a choice, and I've got several things going for me. And I just tend to do each morning get up and go. And you know recognize or acknowledge my addiction. And do things about it that day. And move on. But I feel really confident right now. And you know I even watch that because you know I don't want to be too confident. Just stay aware of it.

CO: In this latest book, “A crowbar in the Buddhist Garden”, which you published last year. It's a beautifully written book. Very poignant and painful to read, and funny in many places too. But you describe the last time you got out of prison and starting a new life. And so convinced that this is where you were going to be. You had married Susan Musgrave while you were still in prison, you were now out, you had all kinds of friends, literary friends, you’d gone from being in the pen to being a member of PEN. You had a grass trimmer, and a house, and and a child. And then there you were back doing it again. Do you think you can avoid what led to this return?

SR: I think I can. I believe I can. I think I carried a lot of the stuff out with me, Carol. You know the stuff about image, and presenting an image, especially with media attention. It's very seductive and intoxicating. And I held a great deal of media attention because of Susan. You know marrying her. And you know I had a good novel out there that did well. The times were a little bit different. And I think I fell into the sort of the toxicity of fame. Like, I started to actually believe the stuff — sort of like the Wizard of Oz stuff. And began to speak from behind the curtain. And still felt that really small, mostly insignificant person behind all that. And you know so I lived with a lot of fear in those days. I think I've looked at that. I talked about things in this book. I often feel very naked when people say oh you know I've read your book, I’m reading your book because you know I kind of put it out there in this book. And so I have a self-consciousness also about it. But I thought you know I have to. And I have to get these things out of me. And in those things that own me since I've been a child. And so I feel really free of fear, which is you know a greater freedom than being free of prison or anywhere else. My intentions before were great. I mean you know I was just raising a child.

CO: And so much love around you. I mean you had this incredible marriage. You had these two daughters, who adored you. You had everything going for you. But that wasn’t enough to hold.

SR: No, I don't think, in fact, I think it makes it in some ways lonelier and harder, you know? Because you want to try so much for them; It's much easier when you don't have the responsibility of love and responsibility of fathership.

CO: What happened, and what you document in this story, and also known from the news, is that you fell back into addiction, and then fell into debt, and then fell in with the wrong folks. And then you ended up doing not a Stopwatch Gang bank robbery. Just going to play a bit of the news report from June 10^th, 1999.

SR: OK.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: They had multiple firearms to choose from. We know they used a shotgun. My information was that the 44 magnum was used at least five times.

REPORTER: One man was quickly arrested, but a second holed up in an apartment building. Six hours later, police arrested Stephen Reid. Police say they seized four weapons from the men they arrested. Stephen Reid and Alan McCallum have been charged with armed robbery and attempted murder. And Reid will undergo a psychological assessment.

SR: That’s the first time I heard that.

CO: Because you wouldn't have heard that. You were in custody at that point.

SR: I was in a deep, dark hole right about then.

CO: But did you recognize the Stephen Reid that they're talking about in that clip?

SR: Well, I have to recognize it certainly you know been very difficult to acknowledge and accept you know that person. It very much feels like someone outside of my body. And you know I don't use the excuse of an addiction. But I’d started injecting cocaine with the heroin. And I got into a place where they call it the psychosis. And you know I was into those kind of places. I don't think I'm capable anymore more of that kind of action — unless I was butchered on drugs. But you know I don't throw that out there as an excuse. I made the choice to do the drugs. And I made the choice to rob the bank. And shoot it out with the police. And there's a lot of really terrible things that happened that day.

CO: You took two people hostage.

SR: I did, yeah.

CO: You shot at the police.

SR: I did.

CO: And you describe in the chapter where you describe that because you are not with the stopwatch Gang at this point. You're doing this on your own, and you've got a pretty bad driver — a getaway car that can hardly move. And you have a clever disguise, except you're wearing some ridiculous mask. And you get a glimpse of yourself in a window, looking like a Barbie doll. Do you remember that moment when you actually looked and thought is this me? Is this the Stephen Reid with the weed whacker and the library card that's now headed into this bank?

SR: Yeah, and I have bits and things of really strong images of the day. I remember thinking asking myself you know what am I doing? You know, like I just was so separate from the world at that moment. And I was too deep in to turn back at that time. And it is Stephen Reid. I don't say that wasn't Stephen Reid who did that. It was Stephen Reid. But I have to really look at those things harder than a lot of people look at their dark side because there's consequences to them. And there's consequences for other people. So you know I had to figure out ways not to go there. And it's actually quite simple, you know? Just don't get loaded. It's just that simple.

CO: But then you describe how difficult that is to keep. Even addiction to cigarettes is a struggle.

SR: Yeah. It's that simple and that complex, you know? Like you know I was smoking cigarettes after heart surgery. I mean it's the insanity of addiction. I've never figured it out. It's not an intellectual thing to be figured out. You just have to come to terms with it. A lot of people you know it's a spiritual answer for them. And that's a difficult one for me. I can be spiritual in some ways. I think that I'm deeply spiritual, but I really wrestle with higher powers. I really wrestle with a capital-G “God”, etc.. So you know I don't have an easy answer for myself out of this. But I have one that I'm willing to address each and every day. And that's you know the best that I can do for today. I'm 63. In the Ojibwe teachings, we call that the age of second understanding. It means you've seen most things once. And if you gain wisdom from that, it's by understanding those things. So I hope that I've got you know some wisdom out of some of my experiences by examining them, and looking at them, and by writing about them, you know? They’re very difficult to write about, you know?

CO: I’m speaking with Stephen Reid. And he's just out of prison. And we're talking about his book that was published and written while he was there, “A Crowbar in the Buddhist Garden: Writing from Prison”. You do point out that things changed between the two times you spent inside. And that when your William Head Institution, that you went from being a prisoner the first time you were incarcerated now to being an inmate. And there were programs. And that there was a perhaps you know can you call it a kinder, gentler prison system.

SR: Well, it was. When I came back there was program and things. And I was determined to see you know like why would I go out and do what I did with the kind of friends, and the love as you described earlier. Why would I do this? I mean I'm a smart guy. It was inexplicable to me. And so I took the programs. Our system for quite a few years it was really good at addressing it. We have violent offender programs. We have drug addiction things. That's all dying now under Harper, but I think we're going back to the way it used to be. Which is really a shame because people can't look at themselves when they're being hurt, you know? You're going to stay with that anger, and you're going to stay with the hatred or whatever, and the callousness. It inhabits all of our prison system. A place like William Head allowed you to be you know a human being. They offered you know different programs. They offered things you could do. And you know it allowed for introspection, and it allowed for change. And even out there it’s starting to die now. Even that is beginning to die. You know everyone is a much harder line because you know the place that prison employees are going to be rewarded is leaning towards the government line now. Those are the people who are going to get promoted. And those are the people who are going to do well within the system — those who take a much harsher line. We used to be studied in this country. People used to come here and study our correctional system because it began to work. The recidivism dropped. And even when people did go back, it didn't tell the whole story. They went back without a crime. They went back because usually for an addiction. For testing hot and things. And you know that's a much lesser evil than what was going on before. But now you know Harper is determined, and Vic Toews before him. I don't even know who's in there now.

CO: But the tough on crime, which is what the Stephen Harper government is saying. But not just being tough on the criminals. But the line is that the victims have not been acknowledged. That there's more attention given to the perpetrators of crime than the victims. And that you had victims. You had these two people who were taken hostage. You had people over all your bank robberies. People who were traumatized. You didn't kill anybody, but you were shooting at them. Yeah. The question that they say why should anyone care about Steven Reid?

SR: Well, I'm not asking anyone to care about me. I mean I've done 15 years in prison, so I'm really not asking for anyone's understanding, or forgiveness, or any of those kind of things. The two people that I took hostage came to my house. He was a Serbian freedom fighter, and he came out to my house after I was in prison, met my daughters, and you know I used to get Christmas cards from Kathy after John died.

CO: They sent you Christmas cards?

SR: Oh yeah. Things aren't always as you know as evil or as black and white as things are made out to be. And I think you know this is almost sacrilege for me to say, but I'll say it. The song about victims being ignored is an old, old song. And I think they have a bigger place in the justice system — a much bigger place. They're not ignored anymore. They're the central figures in all you all our hearings. all their statements are brought in. The problem being that our justice system is set up as adversarial. So the state takes the place of the victim. And the victims don't get this really feel anything happened for them in court. And it’s nothing that an offender can do about that.

CO: But also characters that we meet to this book that just so many of them that the stories they describe they are victims. I mean it's a cycle, isn't it?

SR: Yeah. We have a conservation of violence in our lives. I mean if you heard the stories of offenders, and you know guys who are in for you know B&Es, robberies. And some of the most horrendous things — guys like me. So you've got this whole really messy human drama going on. And politicians you know and victims’ lobbyists are getting in, and black-and-whiting there's really complex and really you know messy gray area. It's not as simple as you know the victims are being ignored, and the offenders are being treated well. Because you believe me, offenders are not being treated well in Canada in 2014. We get the longest sentences of almost any western country, except for the United States for what we do. And it's ridiculous. Like I said, we get the second longest sentence in the western world. I'm not asking anybody to forgive me I'm not asking for the understanding of anyone. I hope that we can push understanding forward. And I hope that people can get on with their lives. And if there was something I could do for the victim of my crime, I would.

CO: I just want to ask you one last thing. And you are now back with this extraordinary wife of yours, Susan Musgrave, and these two daughters, Sophie and Charlotte, I'm going to ask in a moment after we're done to read something about that.

SR: Yeah, and don't forget my two darling granddaughters.

CO: And your two granddaughters.

SR: Lucca and Beatrice. They're just beautiful.

CO: What would you say is the biggest challenge you face now?

SR: Being a full human being with the responsibilities of a father, and a grandfather, and a citizen of the community and the world. And putting back into the world you know what good I can at this time. And you know I think that I can. So I guess that's my biggest challenge is to stay on a path that helps you know helps put things right or better for people. So I do some work in some areas that I think does that. So, yeah.

CO: Stephen Reid, welcome back to the outside world.

SR: Thank you, Carol.

CO: And we hope to see you here for a long time.

SR: You will. Thanks.

CO: Bye bye.

SR: Bye bye.

JD: That was an encore presentation of our 2014 conversation with Stephen Reid, who was a member of the legendary bank-robbing Stopwatch Gang. Mr. Reid's death was announced today. He was 68 years old. After that 2014 conversation, we asked Mr. Reid to read a passage from his book "A Crowbar in the Buddhist Garden."

[sc]

SR: I have not been in a natural presence of my daughter since she was ten years old. We talk on the phone, write letters, our time in visits seems all too fleeting. Never long enough to get down to the ground of what really hurts her out there in the real world. We have our occasional heart-to-heart, but mostly, we make small talk; an unacknowledged pact not to disturb much below the surface. Sophie notes with the clarity of a 14 year old that I can only go to those places where she lives in the abstract. I see how fiercely she wants to shield me from her burdens. It is her way of loving me now; protecting me as if I were a child. I was in the delivery room where she emerged into this world. Saw how wide her liquid eyes opened for the first time. That morning, an unbreakable filament of love connected us forever. In the ensuing months, I warmed to formula's, mashed her carrots, I change a thousand nappies. I watched her learn to crawl and stand for the first time. I heard the first words she ever uttered: more. I pushed he in strollers. Dozed through glued to my chest like a pygmy tree frog. I read “Goodnight Moon” until she knew where to spy the mouse on each page. We tee-tottered in every park. We survived the stages where she wouldn't be caught wearing clothes in public. Where it was lullabies on demand, until I fell into a dreamy sleep beside her. I slid coins from the tooth fairy under her pillow. Hid chocolate bunnies in the garden at Easter. I drove to swim lessons, and jazz, tap, and ballet classes. Patched bicycle tires. Placed kisses on her bruises and bandages on her knees. And slept beside her when she was sick on a cot in the children's hospital. When my daughter grew older, we fished our quota of Dourado in Mexico, and waltzed in a Cuban ballroom during a wild lightning storm. Ever since I can remember, Sophie has made me cards for Father's Day. She decorated them with buttons, tiny seashells, or bits of macaroni, painted in splashy colours. Now that she is older, she's dispensed with the decorations, but the cards haven't stopped. And the message inside hasn't changed. We remain bound to one another in a primal way — as any parent and child — by our experiences, our love, and our DNA. In 1999, the dragon that has haunted me my entire life reared its fearsome head again. Within months, I was living with a monster heroin and cocaine habit. Crazed and desperate, seeing no way out, I lit my life on fire. I harboured no romantic notions of what took place. Only the sad admission that I robbed a bank and shot at a motorcycle cop, barely missing a woman bystander. Of all the people I harmed that day, Sophie remains my most enduring reminder of an innocent victim. Early in my bit, I pondered the idea of taking myself off the count. A psychiatrist, one for whom I have a great deal of respect, was conducting a pretrial assessment. And saw through to my private thoughts. This isn't about you anymore, he told me. You've had your life. You're going to prison for a long time. This is about a ten-year-old girl. You have to show her that no matter how badly you screw up your life, you can survive — maybe even find redemption. This is the one gift you have left to give. There are days when the memory of those little button and macaroni cards filled me with a terrible caring. And I am overwhelmed with a numbing regret of it all. Then my name is called for a visit. Tough Sophie has learned to live with the fact that her life has been diminished in some ways, her love is relentless. It jumps over the razor wire. I go back to my cell, lifted by the knowledge that everything she needs is already there inside her.

JD: That was bank robber and author Stephen Reid reading from his book "A Crowbar in the Buddhist Garden" on “As It Happens” in 2014. Stephen Reid's death was announced today. He was 68 years old.

[Music: Country]

Vuvuzelas v.s. spoons

JD: In 2010, this was the sound of World Cup excitement.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Hello vuvuzela, my old friend]

JD: But in 2018, the buzz of triumph will be replaced...by the Spoons of Victory.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: How jaunty]

JD: Now, the phrase "Spoons of Victory" may not sound very victorious at first. Sort of like the "Forks of Conquest" or "Butter Knives of Total Success". But remember: before South Africa held the World Cup eight years ago, we didn't even know the word "vuvuzela". And now they're synonymous with soccer excellence, and watching the greatest athletes on Earth play the beautiful game with the sound turned off. If you were wondering whether this year's World Cup in Russia would come with its own persistent, monotonous sound — good news. The official instrument of the event is the lozhkas — spoons that look sort of like salad tongs, which you clickety-clack together exuberantly. The Russian government funded a designer to mass-produce the instrument, under the inspiring-but-not-totally-convincing name "Spoons of Victory". Reuters alleges that the lozhkas will, quote, "beat out an insistent, but quieter rhythm". Unquote. Well, anyone familiar with Russian soccer fans can certainly agree they're insistent. As for the "quieter" part — tens of thousands of people clacking spoons in an enormous stadium doesn't scream "quiet" to me. So when you tune in tomorrow, as the tournament begins, don't get overexcited about the likelihood of gentle lozhkas clacking. Because it's more likely to be a case of too much, two spoons.

June 13 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode