Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The AIH Transcript for August 29, 2018

Hosts: Helen Mann and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello, I'm Helen Mann sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight…

HM: Milking his trip for all it's worth. We'll reach a Manitoba dairy farmer on his way to board a plane to Washington, D.C. where he will urge Canadian NAFTA negotiators not to put dairy supply management on the table.

JD: Time NAFTA time. With just 48 hours left for Canada to get some kind of trade deal in place a government spokesperson tells us how hopeful he is about finding resolution on a lot of unresolved issues.

HM: A knockdown drug out fight. The B.C. government wants to recoup some of the enormous costs of the opioid crisis, so it's taking dozens of manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors to court.

JD: She didn't bear false witness but she was a false witness to bears. A woman is camping in Newfoundland when she hears the grunting of many ravenous bears — or does she? No she doesn’t.

HM: Double check please. In L.A. a guy met women on a dating app, ate expensive meals with them and then took off without paying. And one of his alleged victims tells us how she helped turn the tables.

JD: And…Red-dy to go. After 50 plus years as the most popular apple in the USA, Red Delicious finally has been bumped from the top and you just know that that bump left at all gross and bruised. As It Happens: The Wednesday Edition. Radio that guesses the Red Delicious is about to learn that it's bumpy at the bottom.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: NAFTA: dairy farmer/Canadian government, New most popular apple

NAFTA: dairy farmer

Guest: David Wiens

JD: Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland says she is locked in quote “extremely intense negotiations” with the U.S. over NAFTA today. Reports today in The Globe and Mail say Canada is ready to make concessions on dairy in order to hammer out a deal. President Donald Trump has long complained about supply management saying that it unfairly protects Canada's dairy industry and it hurts U.S. farmers. Earlier this week the president threatened auto tariffs on Canada if it did not compromise on dairy. But today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested, again, that he would defend Canadian dairy farmers.

SOUNDCLIP

PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Our government, and I personally, will stand up to defend supply management and defend our dairy farmers. That is something we have made very, very clear to the Americans even though it has been very obvious that the Americans want us to get rid of supply management. I have said that that is not acceptable to us but the negotiations continue. I said from the very beginning no NAFTA deal is better than a bad NAFTA deal. And we are going to remain firm on the principle because Canadians expect us to stand up for them and that's exactly what this Government's going to do.

JD: That was the prime minister speaking from Kapuskasing earlier today. In a moment we're going to hear from Andrew Leslie, the Parliamentary Secretary to the foreign affairs minister. First however, another Canadian on his way to Washington. David Wiens is a dairy farmer from Grenfell, Manitoba and the chair of the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba. We reached him in Winnipeg.

HELEN MANN: Mr. Wiens, are you worried that Minister Chrystia Freeland could sell out dairy farmers in order to get a deal on NAFTA?

DAVID WIENS: Well, we're always concerned that these agreements — we are not part of them so from what we're hearing there certainly is a reason for concern but on the other hand we do have the prime minister who clearly stated his support for supply management in the dairy industry and as late as yesterday. So we expect that they will hold true to those words.

HM: The prime minister, as you say, is offering reassurances to farmers like you. But he hasn't been that specific about whether he sees supply management as having to be exactly as it has been up to this point. You are on your way to Washington, D.C., that would suggest to me that you're concerned.

DW: We are always following whether it's NAFTA or other trade negotiations we are present at the negotiations and now that Canada is participating in that discussion and the negotiations again then we will be there at the talks. It's important for us to have a presence there. Both to remind our government of the value of supply management in dairy, not only to farmers, but also to that country as a whole. And I think that they need to also be very much aware that this is a very sensitive issue and that we are there and we're following this minute by minute.

HM: We know though that the Canadian government is facing a pretty strict deadline here that has been set and particularly given the negotiations that have gone on between Mexico and the U.S. Experts are saying that are observing this that while it looks like Canada won't completely dismantle supply management for the sake of a deal it is possible some changes could be on the table. Are there any concessions that would be acceptable to you?

DW: We've not had those kind of conversations with government. I mean, certainly we expect that they will defend us. It's been clearly stated that through other trade arrangements they have conceded some market access to the Canadian dairy market to achieve those agreements. Yet when the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, was reached it was within the context of the U.S. being part of it. Now after the fact they pulled out of it. And yet the access was given as part of that arrangement. So that has always been our understanding that the U.S. could have access to the Canadian diary market through the TPP, which of course we know they're not a part of at this time.

HM: So let me just ask you about the issue that seems to be the one at risk for you, a concession that would allow American farmers to export ultra-filtered milk to Canada without facing tariffs. Would that be a concession that you could deal with?

DW: There's actually been many products that have had tariff-free access in the past and the way it is right now Canada it already favours the U.S. by a margin of 5 to 1.

HM: I just want to really get to this point though, whether you are willing to give on anything. Would you be willing to accept that change if it achieves a NAFTA deal?

DW: We're not prepared to accept changes from where they are. Enough is enough. I mean, at some point if access is given away it actually undermines our industry and it creates sustainability issues for the dairy industry in Canada.

HM: If dairy access isn't a concession that you think the government should be willing to make, what is? What would you see on the table if they have to give something up in order to achieve an agreement?

DW: I can't comment on how the government should approach this in terms of I don't know how they're there they're treating this, but certainly supply management in Canada is extremely important. Our dairy industry creates 220,000 jobs across the country, particularly in rural areas. We contribute 20 billion dollars to the GDP, our industry pays almost four billion dollars in taxes every year. We are producing products for the Canadian marketplace and the kind of products that our consumers expect us to in terms of quality, food safety, animal care and environment. Those are really important values. It is absolutely worth protecting rather than simply giving it up to another country that is simply demanding access when they themselves are much more protected than we are where. We allow 10 per cent of our market to be filled by imports today and the U.S. is at 3 per cent. There is a major difference. In fact, Canada has been the more open country.

HM: If by Friday you learn that Canada has made any kind of concession on this issue even a small one when it comes to dairy, how do you think you will feel?

DW: It would be a major disappointment. Certainly the Prime Minister has very clearly stated his support for supply management and to us to support it also means to continue to have an industry here that is not undermined, you know, with every trade agreement that comes along where there's market access given. And that clearly is our understanding and that clearly is what we've projected to our government.

HM: Mr. Wiens, I know it's a busy day for you, I really appreciate your time. Thank you.

DW: All right, thank you.

JD: David Wiens is a dairy farmer and chair of the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba. He is on his way to Washington, D.C. today. We reached him in Winnipeg.

NAFTA: Canadian government

Guest: Andrew Leslie

JD: Andrew Leslie is the parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. We reached Mr. Leslie in Ottawa.

HM: Andrew Leslie, a Manitoba dairy farmer just told us that he is confident your government will not make any concessions on dairy at these talks. Can you guarantee that?

ANDREW LESLIE: Our position on dairy has not changed and we started supply management and we're going to continue to defend it.

HM: But saying your position hasn’t changed is not necessarily saying that it won't at the table.

AL: Right now what is happening is Minister Freeland is meeting with Ambassador Lighthizer to review the day's progress. The Prime Minister's been very clear throughout the last year. The Liberal Party where the party was the party that brought in supply management for very good and legitimate reasons and we're going to continue to defend it. But the teams are down in Washington right now so declarative statements about this, that or the other thing would be negotiating in public at a critical and sensitive time and I'm not going to do that.

HM: I'm wondering about concessions. You know, we've heard very clearly President Trump wants Canada to give something up on dairy. How do you get a deal done without bringing something to the table?

AL: NAFTA has literally thousands of line items included in its overall complexity, organized in 28 tables are negotiating teams. The Mexican teams and the American teams have been working hard for the last couple of months. Obviously we've been keeping a very close eye on what's been going on. Right now we're getting down to arguably what is the most politically sensitive and the most comprehensive and time-compressed cycle in the entire yearlong process. So there are literally thousands of things that are being discussed to see where we can move the yardsticks ahead. And quite frankly, I think that the good work that's been done by the Americans and the Mexicans vis-à-vis the automobile tariffs arguably the most complicated of all is going to set us all up hopefully for the win-win-win.

HM: Canada has throughout the process drawn a red line under Chapter 19. That is the dispute resolution clause that allows this country to bypass U.S. courts, resolve issues through an independent panel. How hard are you willing to fight to keep that?

AL: We've all been very clear that Chapter 19 has served all three of our nations well. Having said all that, in a related and not directly focused NAFTA issue the U.S. trade tribunal composed of U.S. citizens has just ruled that the groundwood paper for newsprint, the countervailing duties placed on that by Department of Commerce the United States was not valid. So they've essentially thrown that out just to show you that there's a whole level of redundancy in the long-established links that our three countries have had in terms of dealing with trade disputes.

HM: For months your government's been telling Canadians that you've been making progress in these negotiations. We have this image now of Christa Freeland having to cut short a trip to Europe and rush to Washington to try to meet the U.S. deadline for a deal. It does appear that Canada was blindsided.

AL: Look, we've been working hard with our American and Mexican colleagues for a whole year. I, myself, went to a bunch of the trade rounds and thousands of items have been discussed, a whole bunch of really good work has already happened. It was appropriate for the U.S. and Mexico to resolve their huge differences, especially in the automobiles rules of origin and the per hour cost of labour inside Mexico, which we are led to believe has been done. That is a dramatic step forward, now allowing Canada and the United States to sit down and go through hopefully what will be the final steps leading to some sort of successful conclusion. But the Prime Minister said we're not going to sign a deal unless it's in the best interest of Canadians.

HM: But why did this become such a last minute rush to get a deal and to get Canada to join these two?

AL: Well, we've always wanted a deal. I think all three of the leadership teams of all three countries have always wanted a deal as quickly as possible because the uncertainty is not necessarily good for consumer confidence or future investment.

HM: But it does look like a pretty slapdash and people are being forced to kind of cancel plans and get to this table in a hurry.

AL: Well, you know, the U.S. has asked for a certain timeline. They themselves came up with this accelerated process based on their most recent analysis of when they had to get it through, taking into account the transition in power between president elect of Mexico and the current president — and as well their own looming mid-term. So it's a reasonable request and by the way, the teams are ther,e they're doing superb work and initial feedback is positive. And as a matter of fact as mentioned the ambassador is meeting with Minister Freeland right now.

HM: Yeah just that these other sticking points have existed for many months now. And now the discussion is being compressed into 48 hours. That does seem like a particularly tight timeline.

AL: But no one starting from scratch. There's been a whole bunch of dialogue around all of these issues. And as is natural, I'm told by for example our trade team, who I would argue are amongst the very best in the world — the more complex the issues the more towards the end of the process there are actually results. And here we are.

HM: Our prime minister has said no deal is better than a bad deal. If you are left — if we are left with no deal by Friday — how do you explain that failure to Canadians?

AL: I'm not going to speculate on possible worst cases. The Prime Minister was very clear. We are doing that which we can and that which we must make sure that we get a good deal for Canada and Canadians. And the finish line is in sight. Everyone's got the right attitude and energy to get it done, an Army term, and we're going to do it.

HM: But in saying that no deal is better than a bad deal, is the prime minister himself not acknowledging that that's a possibility?

AL: Well, I think everyone should be prepared for a contingency wherein Canada and Canadians may not get that which they've asked for. We're all working really, really, really hard to get a good deal for everybody. But the Prime Minister has not said anything consistent with the very first words he said vis-à-vis the NAFTA negotiations over a year ago.

HM: President Trump is threatening this country with very severe auto tariffs. How difficult is it to negotiate with a political gun to this country's head?

AL: Look the president has said a variety of things on social media, on CNN, on whatever — Fox News and that is his entire prerogative. We respond to that which is actually on the negotiating table. We respond to that which is part of the formal discussions and I'm not going to comment on what another national leader might say.

HM: Andrew Leslie, I appreciate you talking with us. Thank you very much.

AL: Thank you, Helen.

JD: Andrew Leslie is the parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Lo-Fi]

New most popular apple

Guest: Simon Thibault

JD: It's frequently mealy, easily bruised ultimately bland reign has ended. In some startling news from the produce world, the Red Delicious is no longer the most popular apple variety in America according to the U.S. Apple association. It has been knocked off the top of the pile by these usurper Gala variety — of which by the way — U.S. growers will produce 52.4 million boxes this year, up nearly six per cent from last year. Red Delicious has been the best-selling Apple in the U.S. for more than five decades. Now many are welcoming its long-awaited decline. Simon Thibault is a food writer and a cookbook author who comes from a long line of apple growers. We reached him in Halifax .

HM: Mr. Thibault, what were your first thoughts when you heard the news that Red Delicious was no longer the top apple?

SIMON THIBAULT: It's about time. It is about time. I mean, it's been sitting around for the longest time just kind of being the most sold apple and the only real reason that was was because of its colour and because of how easy it was to ship. And that's about it.

HM: Yeah there's been a chorus of cheers online and even in certain editorial settings with people saying that this is a tasteless disappointing apple. Is that fair?

ST: I mean, it is to what the Red Delicious is now. When it first came up on the scene in the late 1980s, it was a Quaker farmer in Iowa who actually found it and, I guess, he saw it, he tasted it like ‘Maybe I'll keep it. But I'll see if it grows well.’ So he actually chop the tree down three times before he decided ‘Yeah. It keeps coming back. It must be a sign from God. I'm going to keep it.’

HM: Do we know if the apple tasted different in those days than it does now?

ST: It did. It actually was — according to records of the time — pleasantly sweet. We do know that it was crisp and that it was perfumed. But through a little bit of breeding a little bit of time the apple became redder in colour. But by doing that flavour of it and the texture of it was lost as well because farmers, especially apple farmers, were basically paid for the colour more than the flavour.

HM: So that's got some people calling it a Judas fruit. Saying it's deceptive that it's a tissue of lies. Because when you bite into it it isn't what maybe it should promise you.

ST: No, and, I mean, like when it was first brought about, I mean, it was marketed as the quote-unquote “delicious.” It was only later on it became known as the Red Delicious when the Yellow Delicious was brought about. But the flavour, as I said, was lost due to time, due to breeding and due to all kinds of other considerations. But one of the things that we don't really think about with apples is that we now here in the 21st century live in a time where apples tend to be stored for longer than you think. That Red Delicious you're buying at a grocery store may have been in storage from anywhere from two months to six months depending on when and where it's grown. If it's the middle of April or May and you want to buy Red Delicious it probably came from Australia. It probably came from South America. And so think about the amount of time it takes for that to be shipped all the way to you and for that to be sold. And that really affects the flavour — all these little delicate flavour compounds known as esters and arguably a Red Delicious could have a relatively one-note sweetness if you picked it off the tree — but you're not going to, you're going to be buying in the grocery store.

HM: Is the Red Delicious more durable than other types of apples?

ST: That's how the Red Delicious really made its mark. You see, unlike certain varieties of apples, especially early varieties, they don't bruise easily. If you were to pick an apple right now that actually was in season you would touch it even if you press it a little bit too firmly you probably bruise it pretty easily. These apples basically withstand industrial shipping and industrial packaging and all this work, so you could have a particularly pleasing, almost like the platonic ideal of an apple, in a grocery store that would be uniform to distribute, uniform and looks and uniform and taste and texture across North America.

HM: Who is buying all these Red Delicious apples?

ST: Well, that's the thing. I mean, thankfully now we know that less people are buying them. But one of the things that actually helped support the market in red delicious for the longest time has been institutions — schools, cafeterias, universities — because they have to provide a nutritious meal for various reasons. And what do you need? You need a fruit or vegetable that can be harvested industrially as well as distributed in an industrial manner without causing any detriment to the aesthetic or the looks of it or the texture of it. And so that's where the Red Delicious fits absolutely perfectly. So that's pretty much why when you're sitting in a hospital bed and you've got an apple on your plate it's probably a Red Delicious.

HM: I have to ask is a Yellow Delicious any better?

ST: I feel Yellow Delicious has pretty much fallen within the same context of what the Red Delicious has. It's been manipulated to a certain degree for aesthetics rather than flavour. And I think that's one of the big problems that we now have when it comes to apples. A lot of people are tearing out or at least chopping down their old trees and grafting on Honeycrisp because you get more money out of them and also because you can have them shipped relatively easily. But it's a one-note sweetness. There's no beauty to it unlike other varieties. Here in Nova Scotia, Gravensteins who are about to come into season and those are beautiful apples.

HM: But most have never heard of a Gravenstein.

ST: Yeah, it's unfortunate. I mean, if you were to talk to someone, let's say your parents or even your grandparents, if they were living in a rural area here in Canada they probably had an apple tree in the backyard or at least a neighbuor did. And some people even had small family orchards with 15 to 30 trees. And you would go and pick what was in season. So right now you be picking things like Yellow Tranparents and Jersey Macs, Quintes. Later on you get the Macintosh, Gravenstein and the Courtlands and then even further in a year you'd have Northern Spies and Winesaps — and each apple would have its own variety of flavours, textures, uses — whether you want to be making pies or apple sauces or even using them for pectin. Every Apple had its role and its a place.

HM: What's your favorite Apple?

ST: Right now I am a fan of Jersey Macs because they’re one of the early varieties and they’re nice and tart. But later in the season when it comes to like November I'm very happy to be eating a Winesap or a Russet.

HM: I know your feelings are pretty strong I gather from all of and guessing about this Red Delicious. Any fears that it could regain dominance in U.S. orchards?

ST: No. In fact, if you were to talk to people who were in what are known as pomological circles, very few people are even planting those trees or grafting them. I don't know. I think we might still however be stuck with uniform sweetness if that's all we think about looking at. And that's unfortunate.

HM: All right, Mr. Thibault thank you for sharing your knowledge and your love of apples with us.

ST: Thank you so much for having me.

JD: That was food writer and cookbook author Simon Thibault. We reached him in Halifax.

[Music: Ukulele]

Cuomo/Nixon Debate Temperature

JD: Back in 2011, after a State of the State speech in Albany, New York state Senator Diane J. Savino said quote “I actually think he would have gotten more applause for some of the things he said, but people were sitting on their hands to keep them warm.” She was talking about Governor Andrew M. Cuomo. Even back then people knew he liked a cold room — like meat locker cold. Back then a former Cuomo staffer told The New York Times quote “Rooms get warm when there are a lot of bodies.” Well, there will be a lot of bodies present tonight for the first and only debate between Mr. Cuomo and his challenger in the New York governor Democratic primary, Cynthia Nixon. It will be broadcast on WCBS TV. And already the challenger's campaign is saying the network has acceded to all of Mr. Cuomo's demands — including his preferred frigid temperature. So in an e-mail, a Nixon strategist has made a bold request, her candidate would like the temperature in the boat debate hall at Hofstra University to be 76 degrees Fahrenheit — 24 Celsius — pretty hot. In making that request the strategist mentioned quote “notoriously sexist workplace temperatures” which may have been a reference to a 2014 study cited today by the Washington Post which suggested quote “Thermostats in offices are based on the assumption that all workers are male. Specifically a 40-year-old male weighing 154 pounds” unquote. Now the Cuomo campaign is claiming it has no idea what temperature the room will be. The Nixon campaign is saying 76 degrees was just intended as the start of a back-and-forth that would eventually end somewhere above meat locker. And I'm not taking sides when I say everyone should just probably chill out.

Part 2: Opioid suit, Date-and-dasher

Opioid suit

Guest: Judy Darcy

JD: The government of British Columbia says it's time that quote “opioid drug companies take responsibility for the human and financial toll their products have taken” unquote. Today, the province announced a lawsuit against dozens of opioid manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors. It's an effort to recover the province's health care costs related to the ongoing crisis. Experts say this is the first time that there has been a lawsuit like this in Canada. Judy Darcy is British Columbia's Minister of mental health and addictions. We reached her in Vancouver.

HM: Minister Darcy, you are taking on more than 40 different pharmaceutical companies in this lawsuit. How were you alleging that they have contributed to opioid addiction in your province?

JD: Well, in a number of different ways. And interestingly, this case has already been proven — a very similar case has been proven in the United States. Now it was against Purdue in particular in May of 2007 where there had been legal action taken against this major manufacturer of pharmaceuticals including Oxycontin. And as part of the settlement Purdue signed an agreed statement of facts with the Western District of Virginia and it said, and I quote “produce supervisors and employees with the intent to defraud or mislead marketed and promoted Oxycontin as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications.” So we're alleging that over 40 manufacturers and distributors aggressively marketed these products and they continue to do so after the risks were known, after the risks had been proven. And that's had enormous consequences — it's had human consequences — but it's also very importantly had consequences for the healthcare system and for the health costs of government. And that's what we're pursuing through this legal action.

HM: Of course the U.S. case is different. I mean, Purdue Pharma Canada has said, at least in the past, that its products have been marketed according to the rules. Is it maybe not up to government to make sure that those rules on marketing were properly enforced in this country?

JD: Well, what I can speak to is what we're doing today. We've been in office for a year now. We have from day one, we have been really, really aggressively responding escalating our response every single day, every week, every month to the overdose crisis — focused of course primarily on saving lives and connecting people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible. We invested $322 million in that. Our province has led in the past on tobacco litigation and we thought it was an important part of our responsibility to say to these pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors you have to take responsibility.

HM: Can you paint all 40 manufacturers with the same brush?

HD: Well, that will be the issue that the attorney general and the legal team that's been assembled on this will be dealing with. So the statement of claim does — or the legal action that was filed today does list all of the manufacturers and the distributors and the case will be made against those manufacturers and distributors as the legal case proceeds.

HM: But don't doctors also deserve some responsibility? Don't they have to take some blame for the overprescribing of these opioids?

JD: We saw pharmaceutical companies aggressively, aggressively marketing these products. They marketed them to healthcare professionals. They marketed them to patients and to the public. And we think that they are the people who would need to accept responsibility in this.

HM: But why not? Why not target the medical community as well? Because, you know, we're not just talking about street drugs a lot of people say they got addicted because they were prescribed these by the by medical personnel.

JD: I think it's fair that there has not been adequate education of physicians and other health professionals or members of the public about the dangers of these drugs. I refer to something that was published back in 2001, an advertisement that showed a photograph of a very fit looking jogger with a tagline — and this is about Oxycontin — said quote “one to start and stay with.” Another full page ad that says quote “When you know acetaminophen will not be enough, take the next step in pain relief.” These pharmaceutical manufacturers knew the dangers, they did not inform physicians or the public about it, and in fact, they disputed claims that were being made by health professionals that were sounding the alarm saying ‘No, no these are less addictive than other drugs,’ and also advocating that you could use increasingly greater amounts of these pharmaceuticals without any danger.

HM: Aren’t you taking doctors off the hook though?

JD: Well, I can't speak for doctors across the country. I know that in British Columbia the medical profession is taking this very seriously. The College of Physicians and Surgeons here has issued guidelines when the dangers became known. They've since modified those guidelines because it's critically important that people who legitimately need opioids for pain have access to the medications that they need. What we want to ensure, and the kind of work that is happening now, is that we're far more closely monitoring provincially prescribing patterns, people who might go to more than one physician, who might go to one more than one pharmacy to try and prevent duplicate prescriptions. That system is certainly taking effect. We want to be very careful as we do this that people who legitimately need opioids or who become addicted to prescription opioids are weaned off these medications appropriately so that they don't end up turning to street drugs which are laced with fentanyl and other variations of synthetic opioids — because that is part of the phenomenon that we've seen — people turning to street drugs because they become addicted. So it's a big and complex picture. And we are working on the issue of prescription monitoring and have been now for some time. But today's action is about saying pharmaceutical companies have to start putting people and lives and human beings before profits. And we're saying they didn't do that and they knowingly deceived the medical community, they knowingly deceived the public about the risks of these pharmaceuticals.

HM: You mentioned the high costs of addiction to individuals and to your province. How much of a financial strain has this put on your health care system?

JD: Well, that's part of what will be calculated in determining what costs and what damages we're seeking in this process. I can tell you that the number of people who are admitted to emergency rooms as a result of opiate poisoning has gone up dramatically. We know about the resources that we are putting in now in order to fight the overdose crisis is enormous. We know there were significantly increased cost of treatment and recovery programs to emergency responders, first responders in general. So the costs are enormous and that's part of what will be calculated in the course of this legal action.

HM: Are you seeking support from other provinces perhaps seeing if they want to join your suit?

JD: We are having conversations, the attorney general is having conversations with other provinces because it is certainly possible and we hope that other provinces will join this action.

HM: Judy Darcy, I appreciate you talking to us. Thanks a lot.

JD: Thank you so much for your interest.

HM: Bye-Bye

JD: Bye

JD: Judy Darcy is B.C.’s Minister of mental health and addictions. We reached her in Vancouver. We reached out to Purdue Pharma LP in the United States which is listed as one of the defendants. We did not hear back by deadline.

[Music: Ambient Tones]

Newfoundland ‘Bear’ Attack

JD: When Penny Maguire took off for a weekend of hiking on Newfoundland's East Coast Trail her biggest worry was running into bears. And on Saturday night her worry swelled into fear. After she and her son put up their tents turned in for the night. She heard the unmistakable sound of a large snuffling animal — or several. But for reasons that will become obvious she was unharmed and available to share her story with the CBC’s Sarah Smellie.

SOUNDCLIP

PENNY MAQUIRE: I was scared. Oh yeah, because I couldn't see because they were at the end of my tent that doesn't have screens. So all I could hear was first of all this herd crackling through because it's old wood and branches and I heard all of this heavy — it was like a thunder coming through the forest. I knew it was animals and I knew it was big animals. And then I was thinking to myself ‘Gosh I hope they're not coming to me,’ and before, as I'm thinking that they were on my tent. Like they were not on it but they were right next to it pushing into it, pushing at my bag, pushing at my camp chair. And all I could hear was the sound of them breathing and sniffing and the noises that they made. I had my phone and my son was camped about 20 yards away and I didn't want to use my phone because I thought the light might scare them because I thought it was moose so I didn't use my phone I just lay there praying that I survived. I was just waiting for them to like step on top of the tent and I was petrified. And then out of the dark this light comes and my son comes up and all of a sudden the animals went away. And I said ‘Sam’ and he said ‘Mom are you okay?’ And I said ‘Are they gone?’ and said ‘Yeah, they're almost gone. Just give me a minute.’ So he left for another minute and then he came back and said ‘Are you okay?’ I said ‘What was it?’ He said ‘Cows!’ I was like ‘Cows’? He said there was like or and then Sam said ‘Well, what are you going to do?’ And he said ‘Do you want me to move my stuff over here? And I said ‘Yes please.’ I don't care if they were cows. I lost a life — one of my lifetimes is gone now. I have seven of the eight left because that was absolutely terrifying.

JD: That was Penny Maguire sharing her camping — cow camping story with Sarah Smellie of CBC St. John's.

[Music: Ambient Tones]

Date-and-dasher

Guest: Marjorie Moon

JD: The old dine-and-dash. On its own it is already a jerk move — but one California man is alleged to have added a new even jerkier twist. Enjoying the meal, running out on the tab and then leaving an unsuspecting date behind to pay — multiple times. This week, the alleged jerk pleaded not guilty on 10 charges related to dine-and-dashing on dates. Marjorie Moon is one of his accusers. We reached Ms. Moon in Santa Clarita, California.

HM: Marjorie Moon, is it fair to say this was your worst day ever?

MARJORIE MOON: It's fair to say, yes.

HM: Thank goodness, huh?

MM: Exactly.

HM: How did you actually meet this guy?

MM: I met him on a dating site called Plenty Of Fish. He wasn't physically my type necessarily but he seemed to be witty and charming so I kind of went with it and started speaking to him.

HM: Right. And what did you think when he asked you to dinner?

MM: Oh, we had talked about food. He enjoyed his food, so he told me. I told him about this nice steakhouse in Glendale, California. And he then the next day asked me to go with him. And I hesitated at first and then decided I'd try and find a babysitter and then went and met him there. He had said he was going to go with or without me. So I decided why not.

HM: Why did you hesitate?

MM: You know, looking back I think I had a gut instincts that I just didn't listen to.

HM: So what did this guy order?

MM: So we ordered some wine and then he ordered a chicken dinner. And then they had a side of two lobster tails — so he ordered that as well. And then once he was done with those he ordered two more lobster tails.

HM: What's going through your mind besides this guy really likes lobster?

MM: That I can't believe how small he is and he's putting all this food away.

HM: What did you eat?

MM: I had prime rib.

HM: So you eat the main course and then what happens?

MM: He did excuse himself to go to the restroom at one point but he did return to the table. And then he ordered coffee and a chocolate soufflé, which took about 30 minutes to cook there. At which point after a bit more conversation he excused himself to make a phone call and that's when the maître d' at the restaurant noticed he'd been gone and was concerned.

HM: What did the maître d' say to you?

MM: He asked me where he went. I told him that he had to make a phone call to check on his children. He then went out and came back and said ‘No, the hostess had seen him leave.’ I've never had anything like this happened before so I think I was just more embarrassed and shocked at the fact. The wait staff there was amazing and wonderful. You know, the waitress actually cried, she felt so bad for me.

HM: How much was the bill? I mean, did she have reason to feel bad for you?

MM: It was $250.

HM: That's a lot.

MM: Yes it was a lot. But I paid it. I just wanted to get home and get out of there so I paid the bill and I left and went home.

HM: What was going through your mind that night after you got in your door?

MM: You know, I called my best friend and we had a conversation that we were both shocked that anything like that happened to me. You know, the wait staff had said I was so classy and elegant they thought I seemed so nice. They couldn't believe it. They've never seen anything like that happen before. So that's when my friend suggested that I go to social media and go to Facebook and post about my date with his photos. And then that's what went viral and started this whole thing off.

HM: Had you thought the date was going okay before he took off?

MM: Oh yeah. He was very touchy-feely, hands on. You know he wanted to kiss me. He was telling everybody how — drawing a lot of attention to us — telling everyone how beautiful I was, wasn’t he lucky to be with me. So, you know, it seemed to be going very well.

HM: So after you post on social media when did you realize that you were not the only victim?

MM: Women started coming forward and messaging me through Facebook Messenger saying ‘Oh my gosh, I saw this from a friend of a friend and this happened to me as well. But he used this name,’ you know, they recognize his photos. So I had about 10 women contact me privately to thank me for coming forward and not being embarrassed and to put it out there that this man was doing this to women.

HM: Were you embarrassed?

MM: Oh, yes. I mean, extremely embarrassed, you know. I mean, it became a running joke. I’m an E.R. nurse and at the trauma unit everybody was joking around about it — the doctors and everyone. So, you know, I took my licks and I laugh about it now. But at the time it was pretty embarrassing.

HM: I guess, maybe does it feel better knowing that you weren't the only one to fall prey to him?

MM: Yeah, I guess it does in a way you have that camaraderie with the other women and you can kind of understand each other. So yeah, I think it did in that way at that time. But now, I definitely — you know, you learn a lesson from something, you definitely learn to look back on the situation and be able to spot things and it makes dating different after you go through something like that.

HM: Well, I was going to ask is it changed how you approach relationships?

MM: I mean, it's funny I'm engaged to be married now and my fiancee is amazing. And I met him online and he's wonderful but, you know, it did. I definitely would not meet a man for an expensive dinner right out of the gate. It would be more like coffee or a glass of wine to see how you click at that point and it makes you more leery of people, you know.

HM: Right. How did the police get involved?

MM: The news ended up contacting me out here in California. They ended up finding out that this man had also gone to beauty salons and done what they called a snip-and-ditch — that's where he’d get his hair dyed and cut and then walk out. So he was already famous for that so it just added to it. So the detective on the case ended up contacting me a year later after the incident and had been working on catching him for quite a while. He has a daughter and he said he didn't want his daughter to ever have to go through something like this.

HM: Yeah, no for sure. So he's now entered a not guilty plea on some charges. Are you going to be having another date with him — this one in court?

MM: Yes, exactly. Because of the not guilty plea it will go to trial and yes, I will end up having another date with him. This is a better one. It won't cost me $250.

HM: All right. Marjorie, thank you so much. It's nice to talk to you.

MM: It was nice to talk to you. Thank you very much.

HM: Bye.

MM: Bye-bye.

JD: We reached Marjorie Moon in Santa Clarita, California.

[Music: Whimsical Strings]

Rachel Hundley Failed Blackmail

JD: A warning to all would be blackmailer's — Rachel Hundley is not an easy target. Ms. Hundley is a city council member and a former mayor of Sonoma, California. Recently, she received an anonymous e-mail calling her quote “immoral and unethical.” But that wasn't the worst part. When Ms. Hundley clicked the link it took her to a website called ‘Rachel Hundley Exposed’ which featured photographs of her in her underwear. The sender warned her to drop out of the upcoming election. But Ms. Hundley did not bend to pressure. Instead she beat the blackmailer's to the punch. Here's part of what she had to say in a video posted to YouTube.

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL HUNDLEY: I am Rachel Hundley, your representative on the Sonoma City Council. On August 13th I received an anonymous e-mail that was nothing short of extortion. The e-mail told me to drop out of this November's city council election or else they would release a website filled with scandalous accusations and racy photos. The email included a link to what I found was a combination of outright lies and things I've proudly posted on social media. What was especially disturbing in this era of MeToo, was the attempt to slut shame me for celebrating my body and for my attendance at Burning Man, an internationally renowned arts and culture festival. Instead of challenging me on my votes, this website relies solely on unfounded accusations and slut shaming. Its purpose is to make me afraid, to silence another strong female voice by scaring me out of this election and denying you the right to make a choice. Perhaps this anonymous attacker is angry about the way I voted as your mayor. But instead of debating me on the important issues facing Sonoma today, my family is being threatened for who I am friends with and what I choose to wear. Strong women have been fighting these double standards and hypocrisy for years — fighting a culture that says our bodies and our lives are meant only for the consumption of men. This attempt at blackmail assumes I buy into these lies. But I am here today to tell my faceless bullies that I cannot be shamed into quitting because I am not ashamed.

JD: That was Sonoma city councilor Rachel Hundley — former mayor of Sonoma as well. Rachel Hundley responding to blackmailer's who wanted her to drop out of the upcoming election.

[Music: Jazz]

Sex Doll Brothel Response

JD: What is wrong with a sex doll brothel? On last night's program we put that question to Toronto councillor John Filion — an adult business called Aura Dolls is set to open in the north of the city next month. According to its website Aura Dolls will be staffed by six life-sized silicone dolls quote “curated for the discerning gentleman” unquote. Councillor Filion told us he plans to shut the operation down because the quote “scuzzy business” breaks city bylaws. After our interview many of you had your say online.

HM: On Facebook Alison Mackay wrote “It's not illegal to be scuzzy yet. Also I doubt there's any corner in Toronto that's not within a stone's throw of four schools and 25,000 people. I'm not sure why they didn't just locate this in an industrial park where clients could drive in with complete discretion.”

JD: On Twitter Mike Worland addressed councillor Filion directly tweeting. “Listen up councillor, the kind of person who will pay to visit a sex doll brothel is better off there. Leave it alone.” Facebook user Justin Burnett added quote, “Fascinating. Not a service I would be interested in but the councillors objections seem a bit over the top.”

HM: Also on Facebook Janine Tressa Brinkler wrote “Objectification of women. Some things never change. “And finally Lorraine Allen asked “Whimsically weird but no actual women involved so why not make money off of men who for various reasons can't have a life-sized sex toy in their home?”

JD: Thank you to everyone who wrote. To join in the conversation you can find us on Twitter and Facebook. Both those accounts CBC As It Happens. Our email is AIH@cbc.ca. And we do love to hear your voice — your real voice. Give us a call 416-205-5687.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

August 29, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode