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 2019

The AIH Transcript for February 27, 2019

Hosts: Susan Bonner and Karen Gordon

Prologue

SUSAN BONNER: Hello I'm Susan Bonner, sitting in for Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening. I'm Karen Gordon, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

KG: Tonight...

SB: Demotional baggage. In stunning testimony, Jody Wilson-Raybould says the PMO did pressure her to interfere in the SNC-Lavalin case -- and she believes she was shuffled to a different cabinet position because she wouldn't.

KG: Shredding the needle. Across Toronto, dozens of billboards questioned the necessity of vaccinations -- and while they've since been taken down, our guest wonders how they went up in the first place.

SB: Not without Cohen-troversy. Republicans scoffed at the testimony of Donald Trump's former lawyer today -- but our guest found Michael Cohen's incredible claims about the U.S. president disturbingly credible.

KG: A knock-down, drag-out fight. Pakistan shoots down two Indian fighter jets and takes the surviving pilot into custody -- further inflaming an already tense situation between the two countries.

SB: He didn't intend his remarks to be tongue-on-cheek. After a comedian licked CBC Toronto's Chris Glover while he was reporting a story, he didn't just feel uncomfortable -- he felt unsafe.

KG: And owl hell breaks loose. The owner of a 15-thousand dollar Picasso vase painted to look like an owl gets off a train in Germany -- and discovers he's left his precious bird on board. As It Happens. The Wednesday Edition. Radio that's not great with names, but never forgets a vase.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: CBC reporter Chris Glover felt 'humiliated' after being licked during live TV hit

SNC-Lavalin: Jody Wilson-Raybould

Guest: Susan Delacourt

KG: Jody Wilson-Raybould said she faced "veiled threats" and "potential consequences" over the SNC-Lavalin affair. And she's got the receipts to prove it. In a stunning 30-minute opening statement at a House of Commons Justice Committee hearing today, the former Justice Minister and Attorney-General laid out explosive details of political pressure over four months last fall. It was the first time she responded to allegations in a Globe and Mail story three weeks ago. Sources told the Globe that officials in the prime minister's office had placed heavy pressure on her to intervene in a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin. Ms. Wilson-Raybould said today she believes she was shuffled out of her role as justice minister because she refused to back down on the SNC-Lavalin issue. Here's part of that opening statement where she talked about a meeting she had with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on September 17th.

SOUNDCLIP

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: The prime minister again cited the potential loss of jobs, and SNC moving. Then to my surprise, the clerk stated or started to make the case for the need for a DPA. He said quote, "There is a board meeting on Thursday, September 20th with stockholders." Quote again, "They will likely be moving into London if this happens, and there is an election in Quebec soon." At that point the Prime Minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that quote, "I am an MP in Quebec -- the member for Papineau." I was quite taken aback. My response, and I vividly remember this as well, was to ask the Prime Minister a direct question while looking him in the eye; I asked quote, "Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision, as the attorney general? I would strongly advise against it." The Prime Minister said, no, no, no -- we just need to find a solution.

KG: Later she detailed another meeting she had with a PMO staffer, Mathieu Bouchard. Here's how she described that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Mathieu said that if six months from the election SNC announces they're moving their headquarters out of Canada, that is bad. He said quote, "We can have the best policy in the world, but we need to get re-elected."

KG: Ms. Wilson-Raybould appearing before the House of Commons Justice Committee today. Susan Delacourt has been watching it all. She's a political writer and columnist for the Toronto Star. We reached her in Ottawa.

SB: Susan in all of your time reporting on the Hill, have you ever seen a committee hearing like the one we're seeing today?

SUSAN DELACOURT: No. I have never seen a minister -- not just a committee meeting -- I have never seen a minister leave so explosively. And she's not left government -- but I've never seen anything like this.

SB: Jody Wilson-Raybould said today, repeatedly, that she faced a sustained-consistent-inappropriate effort of political pressure from 11 people over the course of four months to intervene in a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin. Which of the examples stood out for you?

SD: First of all, the way in which she did it. She was taking names and taking notes, the entire time -- and she came well-armed to the committee with them. She also painted some visual details: looking the prime minister in the eye, and saying, 'what are you asking me to do?' I think I was struck by the stories that she told of being inside the prime minister's office and being told that he was worried about jobs in Quebec -- and that's a very real concern and she acknowledged that was. She was worried about the law. And the prime minister brought up elections in Quebec, and the fact that he was a Quebec MP. And I think while we all expect prime ministers to play politics, the way in which these were all looped together and the extensive notes that she took of these conversations, kind of blew me away.

SB: She referred to veiled threats, political consequences. Do you think she provided evidence for that?

SD: Well it's hard to imagine how -- I've been trying to think into the future and what is the rebuttal to this because we did hear last week the clerk of the Privy Council -- who by the way sounds like he was very political in all of this too: he was talking about the election in Quebec, there were already questions last week about the clerk's partisanship, I think there will be more after this -- I've been trying to think how do you rebut or refute what she has described? Because she has come here with a lot of detail, and well-armed. She is a lawyer and she has come here with her case.

SB: So she definitely paints a picture of what sounds an awful lot like political pressure. But in the end, the Deferred Prosecution Agreement was not awarded to SNC-Lavalin -- as the government wanted according to her. So how relevant is that Susan? Regardless of how much political pressure there was.

SD: Well I think what she's saying is that she stood in the way, and had it not been for her, it would have been. One of the stories she told too was -- that when she was going to be moved from justice her deputy, I believe, was told that one of the first things for the new minister of justice would be this on the agenda. So four months of sustained pressure ended when she left. But it's hard to imagine that it doesn't.

SB: If Jody Wilson-Raybould was so unnerved by all of this pressure, she felt it was so inappropriate, why did she remain the Justice Minister -- let alone a Liberal MP?

SD: The story she told today was that she kept reporting it. She looked the prime minister in the eye. She had a meeting with Gerald Butts and Katie Telford -- the two most senior people in this government, in which they talked about you know let's not get fussed about legality or -- there's going to be some interference involved. I think to people outside the process -- maybe this is the way sausages are made in government -- but it sure sounds bad to people outside.

SB: I haven't heard her speak about why she didn't feel the need to go public with what was happening or why she resigned as the Veterans Affairs Minister.

SD: She said she can't talk about that.

SB: How important is that question do you think?

SD: Well I think we're all still kind of reeling from what she said today. It is going to take a few days to even process that. You could see before this committee that the opposition was winding up to make that the focus because she wasn't going to talk about it. But she said so much in her opening statement: a detailed chronology, timelines, that there is tons there for them to sift over. And I do think we have to hear from the prime minister himself on this. He has said the sum total of nothing on this and it's not sufficient that the clerk speaks for him. I think the prime minister is going to have to say something. There may need to be a real need for an inquiry.

SB: What about the Liberal caucus -- how might they take all of this in and process it?

SD: I think they're going to be angry at a bunch of people. I think they are already angry with Jody Wilson-Raybould for bringing this up. There is an election -- basically it's going to start in the summer. I think there was some simmering resentment in caucus anyway about the prime minister's office as there always is. But I think the story that Jody Wilson-Raybould says, I think other members of this government will have their own stories to tell of feeling marginalized. So I think her story is resonating with some of them, and they will be angry at her too. But this is Wednesday night in Ottawa, and it's a big social night. You might remember that...

SB: Vague recollection, yes.

SD: [Chuckles] Yes. It's a big night for people to go out on the town. And I would imagine this town will be noticed -- not just buzzing, but roaring with post-game analysis at the bars and receptions.

SB: You know at the end of her 30 minute statement she says her family taught her quote, "Be careful what you say, you cannot take it back." It was kind of an ominous way to end her statement. How much do you think the Liberal government may have underestimated Jody Wilson-Raybould through this entire affair?

SD: Somebody I was talking to this morning who had actually worked with her said that this is a case of misjudging her. And I think that there was some underestimation of what would happen. There will be questions raised: would we have ever heard about this if they had not moved her? You know, can we go back and blame Scott Brison for leaving cabinet? But I think I'm not sure -- I have never been sure. And I think we've all kind of assumed that whatever was being leaked to the Globe and Mail -- which broke this story and kudos to them -- whoever helped do this story was doing so with a bit of cooperation -- from somehow -- from Jody Wilson-Raybould. I was never sure what her endgame was on this. I am less sure now today. I don't know: was it her intention to destroy her government? To destroy its chances of re-election? To get revenge? She doesn't look particularly vengeful. To do the right thing? Of course. But this is politics and there is going to be a cost and a huge cost to her government over this -- and I seriously do not know what her endgame is.

SB: Well Susan thanks for taking a crack at explaining it all to us today.

SD: Yep. Mostly just speechless.

SB: Thanks. Bye bye.

SD: Bye bye.

KG: Susan Delacourt is a columnist and the Ottawa bureau chief for the Toronto Star. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music]

Michael Cohen testifies

Guest: Berit Berger

KG: Today Michael Cohen went before Congress -- and took direct aim at his former boss, U.S. President Donald Trump.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL COHEN: I am ashamed of my weakness, and my misplaced loyalty of the things I did for Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him. I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump's illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience. I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is -- he is a racist, he is a con-man, and he is a cheat.

KG: That was Michael Cohen -- President Trump's former personal lawyer -- speaking before a House committee in Washington this morning. Republicans on the committee spent most of the proceedings questioning Mr. Cohen's credibility. Here's Kentucky Congressman James Comer.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES COMER: Mr. Cohen you called Donald Trump a "cheat" in your opening testimony -- what would you call yourself?

MICHAEL COHEN: A fool.

JAMES COMER: Okay. Well no comment on that. Mr. chairman we said we were in search of the truth. I don't believe that Michael Cohen is capable of telling the truth. And I would hope that as this committee moves forward that when we have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses, we subpoena witnesses that are not recently disbarred, are not convicted felon, and witnesses that haven't committed bank fraud and tax fraud.

KG: Republican Congressman James Comer questioning Michael Cohen in Washington today. Berit Berger is a former U.S. federal prosecutor with the Southern District of New York. She's now at Columbia Law School. We reached her in New York.

SB: Ms. Berger what did you learn from Michael Cohen's testimony today that you didn't know before?

BERIT BERGER: I think what he told the committee today was first of all very consistent with the narrative that's been told so far. So the charges that he pled guilty to in the Southern District of New York. He testified about the basis of those charges. That was all very consistent. One of the areas that I think was new and it was certainly, I think, explosive when we all read about it was what he said about the knowledge that the president and Roger Stone had before Russia actually dumped those Hillary Clinton emails. So Cohen testified that he was there and he overheard a phone call between the president and Roger Stone in which Stone says that he had actually spoken to Julian Assange at WikiLeaks. And this is significant, and something that we hadn't known before. So to the extent that that is a piece of information that could be corroborated and backed up -- that certainly would have some significant legal implications for Roger Stone and possibly for the president as well.

SB: Well we should say for the record that Roger Stone and Julian Assange both today said that Cohen's testimony was just not accurate on that point. But a lot of the debate today that we heard was that Mr. Cohen is not credible. Given that he has admitted that he has lied repeatedly in the past -- that he has lied to Congress, that he's a convicted felon on his way to jail, that he has been disbarred. Do you think he was believable?

BB: Yes. He definitely came in with a big strike against him for exactly the reasons that you identified. Not only is he a convicted felon, but one of the crimes he was convicted of was actually lying to Congress. So he comes in with really an uphill battle of proving his credibility here. Today, I actually think he did pretty well as a witness. And I think there's a couple of reasons for that. Number one: one of the sort of hallmarks of when a witness is telling the truth is that they don't go too far. So he did not seem to be sort of embellishing things -- you know saying oh I was at a meeting when he just heard about the meeting, putting himself in places where he wouldn't have been. And he was very clear about what he didn't have information on. So he was very clear that he did not have information about the Russian collusion element. So you know the argument that prosecutors often use is you know if he was going to lie, he would have lied better. And that's one of the reasons that I think that he does deserve a little bit of credibility from today's proceeding. The other is: you know just sort of the human element. He really sounded like a broken man. So he was remorseful. He you know took a lot of responsibility for the crimes he had committed. He wasn't trying to shirk that responsibility. And he really gave a pretty detailed description of how his involvement with Donald Trump, and all the crimes that he'd committed, had really ruined both his life and the lives of his family members. So I think he did come across as a pretty sympathetic witness and his testimony was compelling.

SB: At one point he was asked by Republicans, what proof he has that Donald Trump himself directed payment to the adult film star, Stormy Daniels, to cover up allegations of an affair: did he have any emails or texts or a recording. He provided a cheque signed by Donald Trump -- does that matter?

BB: It certainly does. I mean I think for the reasons we discussed earlier because he is somebody that has so little credibility at this point coming into the hearing -- you know his real value is when his evidence can be corroborated. So any little pieces of evidence that tend to back up what he's saying are pretty crucial.

SB: What about his contention that even though Donald Trump may not have been explicit in directions, he had a way of making it clear to Mr. Cohen what he wanted done without directly saying so -- that he talked in code was I think how Mr. Cohen presented it. How does Congress see that?

BB: I mean look as a former prosecutor, it does ring true to me. I think that there have been many cases that I've personally worked on where the leaders of an organization would not speak explicitly and would not tell an underling outright, 'please I'd like you to go commit a crime.' So that does track with my experience. However, it does make it more difficult obviously. If you are trying to hold somebody accountable for orders that they gave, it is more difficult when those orders weren't explicit and you have to have somebody to rely on saying, no -- well when he said this, he really meant that. There's a reason that many criminal defendants do this and it's because it definitely makes it more challenging for prosecutors to hold them accountable.

SB: At one point today Michael Cohen actually had a warning for members of Congress. He said, and I guess it was beyond them to anyone who was listening, he said that those who follow Trump blindly, as he did, will suffer the same consequences. What do you think he meant by that?

BB: Look I actually thought it was one of the most compelling parts of his testimony. I mean his message is basically that you know this type of blind loyalty to somebody that you know gives you orders and with questionable ethics and sort of toeing the line of criminality or even you know crossing over that line -- to be aware. And it doesn't matter that that person is politically connected or wealthy. You too could find yourself being held to account for those actions. And it's an important message for both: members of Congress and members of the public -- that usually wrongdoing is uncovered, and you know sunlight being brought to these issues is incredibly important.

SB: Ms. Berger thanks for your time today.

BB: Absolutely. Happy to do it.

KG: Berit Berger is a former U.S. federal prosecutor with the Southern District of New York. She now heads the Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School. She was in New York.

[Music]

Harassed reporter

Guest: Chris Glover

KG: It's the kind of live stand-up reporting CBC Toronto's Chris Glover does every day.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRIS GLOVER: Well so essentially what they're doing right now is a soft launch. And what they will do ultimately will be a hard launch -- that's not going to happen until later on this spring. But as you can see a lot of people are rallying around them and they are hoping that this town hall will stop this transition to Just For Laughs from happening. But things are getting a little awkward out here so I'm going to pass it back to you Dwight.

DWIGHT DRUMMOND: Yeah that's a little strange and really unnecessary. Just move away from that gentleman.

KG: That was CBC reporter Chris Glover covering the merger between Sirius XM's Canada Laughs radio station and Montreal's Just For Laughs, at the Toronto Comedy Bar last night. In that same video, you can see a man behind the reporter who appears to be harassing him -- in what many are saying is a sexual way. We reached Chris Glover in Toronto.

SB: Chris what was going through your mind as you were doing that live report last night?

CHRIS GLOVER: So much confusion, and I just felt overwhelmingly uncomfortable in that moment. It's tough for me to listen to. I've tried not to watch it or play it back too many times. And I think you could hear it in my voice -- I wanted out.

SB: Well you said that at the end. But in the clip you sound so professional even as there is this man behind you harassing you. For people who haven't seen it, what's actually happening?

CG: So I was doing the end of my live hit, my live report, and I was at a comedy bar. We were welcomed there by the organizers of a town hall -- it's a bunch of comics who are outraged with a move from Sirius XM that's going to see less Canadian content on the airwaves of Sirius XM. That's their fear. And so the camera shot the room, and I did my live hit. And as I was standing there, I could feel somebody approach from behind. And sometimes that does happen -- as a journalist doing a live hit, you'll feel somebody is a little bit too close for comfort.

SB: You could sense the presence, is that what you mean?

CG: I could sense his presence behind me. I could also smell alcohol on his breath. And I could smell his breath, which was disconcerting because it meant he was so close to me. And so that immediately made me feel a little bit uncomfortable. And I could feel something on the back of my neck, and on the back of my head. And I didn't really know what that was at first. I've since been able to watch the video and see from the audience's perspective, it was much clear -- he was licking the back of my neck.

SB: So there was actual physical contact?

CG: Yeah. And then not just on the back of my neck and head, but then he moved around to the left side of me and he started to nibble, lick, kiss my ear and my neck from the side. And that was the point where you heard -- I mean I'm glad that you didn't feel that I lost my composure, I felt like I was about to. So I was just thinking I need to get out of this moment. And that was when you heard me say, I just feel like this is getting a little awkward. We'll send it back to you Dwight.

SB: And then what happened?

CG: So after the hit was done -- immediately I looked around to find out who was this, what had just happened. I'm still in a state of confusion, shock, and I'm looking to see: am I safe? My camera guy and I tried to find this guy with our eyes -- just looking to see is he still in our proximity. We didn't see him. So we finished up our work. You know just headed for the exit and got into the car at that point.

SB: Has anything like this ever happened to you before?

CG: I've had things yelled at me while I was on-air. I've had people touch me. I had somebody hit me from behind one time -- seemingly accidental. But nothing like this has ever happened. I think in his mind he was trying to be funny. That's the only thing that I can assume. But I felt humiliated. I felt embarrassed. And I felt I just wanted it to stop. So no, I've never had any experience in my 10 years of doing live hits on television -- I've never had anything like that happen before.

SB: CBC is identifying this man as Boyd Banks -- a Canadian comedian. Had you heard of this man before?

CG: I have not. No.

SB: Are you going to press charges?

CG: I did report the incident to police.

SB: There have been so many people on social media who have seen this video, who have commented on it, and who have said they would not have been able to remain so calm -- including other reporters and journalists. What do you say to that?

CG: I think that it's a compliment, and I think that it's coming from a place of kindness that they think I acted professionally in that moment. But I do think that there's a little bit of problematic thinking when people are saying things like, well I wouldn't have done that -- I would have punched him, I would have done this or that. Because A) until you're in that circumstance and until you're in that moment, you don't know how you're going to react because as a journalist who's just trying to present a story live on TV -- you're already in a bit of a vulnerable perspective or a vulnerable stance. And I think the other thing with that is that we need to not put the onus on the individual who's having the thing done to them. And we need to rightly put the onus on the person who's doing the thing that is wrong.

SB: We've covered other news stories about reporters being harassed on the job -- many of course were women who've had sexual profanities yelled at them. Why do you think this is so common?

CG: I think that it's a shame that it is so common. I think that it is a problem in our society that a lot of us are paying attention to. I can only speak for myself -- and what I experienced last night was deeply concerning. And I've had so many people reach out to me across the country about this. And I think at the end of the day, I'm a journalist just trying to do a job and share this story, and it is getting sadly side barred by this circus.

SB: So you've had this day of trying to absorb all of this, you talk about the reaction, and the support pouring in. Now that you've had time to process what happened, how are you doing?

CG: I'm good. It's unsettling to be sure, but I have great support both in my home life and in my work life. And I'm feeling very supported by the people who are around me which is the most important thing.

SB: Well Chris thanks for telling us about it, and take care of yourself out there.

CG: Thanks Susan.

KG: Chris Glover is a CBC reporter. We reached him in Toronto. After the interview we reached the comedian Boyd Banks. He said what he did was supposed to be a joke, but quote, "There is no excuse for my behaviour last night. I want to apologize to the stand-up community in Canada, and of course the reporter who was doing his job." For more on this story head to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: FBI finds thousands of Indigenous bones in raid on elderly missionary's home

Vaccine ads

Guest: Joe Cressy

KG: "How many is too many? Who decides?" That's one of the messages that popped up on 50 digital billboards in the Toronto area from a group called Vaccine Choice Canada. One of these billboards sat outside the Eaton Centre in downtown Toronto. They were meant to sow doubt about vaccinations. Joe Cressy is a Toronto city councillor, and the chair of the city's Board of Health. We reached him in Toronto.

SB: Councillor Cressy what do these billboards say?

JOE CRESSY: Well just starting yesterday there are about 50 different digital billboards that are popping up and using different words and different language. They seek to make the case that there are harmful side effects associated with vaccination. Whereas the proof is simple: in Ontario there were 8.5-million publicly funded vaccine doses given last year -- and of the 16 adverse responses such as vomiting and diarrhea -- those were relatively insignificant. And so it's kind of like saying that we should stop providing lifesaving surgeries because there are small risks associated for 3 in 1 million cases. So you know I'm not prepared -- I chair the Board of Health in the City of Toronto -- and I'm not prepared to write these off as innocuous-simple-advertising messages that due to freedom of speech we have to accept.

SB: One of the billboards says, educate before you vaccinate. So if you've got education -- if the education is on your side, what's wrong with asking that question?

JC: These ads misrepresent vaccines. They seek to sow doubt. But let's be clear and not parse words here that those who seek to sow doubt in the critical public health role of vaccinations don't do so because they want people to become educated on the minuscule risks associated with it. They do this -- and we've seen this in Europe, we've seen this in the United States, we're seeing it now in Canada -- they do this because they don't believe in the evidence.

SB: The messages on these billboards -- the messaging is quite sophisticated: how many is too many? Who decides? Sounds like reasonable questions. How effective can this kind of a campaign be in sowing doubt?

JC: Well if we look to where misinformation campaigns have been waged publicly in other jurisdictions -- we've seen the consequences. So in Europe where we've seen a decline in vaccination rates directly correlated to false messaging has resulted in outbreaks of measles. We are seeing this as well in the United States. And the proof is right here in our country right now -- in British Columbia -- where we have 18 cases. And you know the question here from a public health framework in principle is as it relates to advertising. We have federal legislation to prevent tobacco and cannabis advertising because we know of the severe health risks associated with tobacco and the risks associated with cannabis now that we've legalized it. And so the notion that the most important life saving measure -- that's of immunization -- would not have the same level of protection in the advertising world as tobacco and cannabis is out of date. And so my view here is very clear that we will seek to vigorously and publicly confront this misinformation campaign, but we will also seek measures to stop.

SB: What kind of measures? What can you do?

JC: So when it relates to advertising -- when there are advertisements that are done on city owned property such as on the buildings we own whether that's our public housing buildings or our other facilities -- we have direct control over who can advertise there. And so the medical officer of health in the City of Toronto and myself have initiated conversations with city's legal and other staff around restrictions on anti-vaccination advertising on our own property.

SB: What about on private property?

JC: On private property, is where it is harder. So we are in conversations with legal as to what grounds we have -- and we do not have a firm opinion at this point. But there is precedent that I would flag and it's a precedent that as Canadians we all understand -- that you can no longer advertise for tobacco because we know of the impacts if kids start smoking early. And so we don't allow that advertising in this country because we know it has profoundly negative impacts on kids. We also know that misinformation campaigns to discourage people from vaccinations equally has profoundly negative impacts on kids and adults alike. And we are exploring ways, legally but also at the legislative level working with our provincial and federal counterparts, to stop them.

SB: There are discussions underway with the provincial and federal government about these billboards?

JC: There are sadly -- and I say sadly because in 2019 we shouldn't have to do this -- there are sadly conversations underway. These ads that have popped up in Toronto in the last 24 hours have spurred us at the municipal level here to act. But we know and we've had conversations through the medical officer of health in our city with provincial counterparts in B.C. that they also -- as they deal with their own measles outbreak -- have serious concerns. And early conversations have taken place with the federal Ministry of Health as well. I mean listen, people have a right to voice their opinions and I appreciate it -- but when public speech becomes publicly harmful misinformation, governments should step in and act.

SB: Councillor Cressy thank you.

JC: Thank you very much.

KG: Joe Cressy is a Toronto city councillor, and the chair of the city's Board of Health. We reached him in Toronto. After our interview with Councillor Cressy, Outfront Media -- the company that owns the digital billboards -- told the Globe and Mail that the anti-vaccine ads would be removed, but would not comment on the decision to remove them.

[Music]

Selma Blair

KG: On Sunday night several actors were celebrating their Oscar wins. For Selma Blair, the evening was a different kind of victory. With a bedazzled cane in her right hand, the actress walked her first red carpet since she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis last August. Ms. Blair had suffered from fatigue, balance issues, pain, and muscle spasm from the neurological disease for years before she was finally diagnosed. Because, she says, doctors weren't listening to her. Ms. Blair was on ABC's Good Morning America yesterday. Here's part of her conversation with host Robin Roberts.

SOUNDCLIP

SELMA BLAIR: I was drinking. I was in pain. I wasn't always drinking, but there were times when I couldn't take it and I was really struggling with how am I going to get by in life. And not taken seriously by doctors. Single mother, you are exhausted, financial burden, blah blah blah -- hormonal, pre-menopausal, post-menopause. I mean no one said maybe you should get an MRI. Maybe we should just check it out.

ROBIN ROBERTS: You would ask for that and they would...

SELMA BLAIR: I would, and they would just say no no no. And I even got to the point where I said I need to go to work and I have to stay awake. I dropped my son off at school a mile away and before I got home I'd have to pull over and take a nap. And I was ashamed and I was doing the best I could -- and I was a great mother but it was killing me.

ROBIN ROBERTS: When you were first diagnosed, what initially went through your mind?

SELMA BLAIR: I cried. I had tears. They were tears of panic -- they were tears of knowing I now had to give in to a body that had loss of control. And there was some relief in that because ever since my son was born I was in an MS flare up and didn't know. And I was giving it everything to seem normal. I wasn't totally worried, but I did have about 10 minutes of crying and then immediately I got on the phone with my manager because I had to be in Atlanta the next day to finish a movie. What propelled me to really come forward was authentic gratitude for all the people that were holding my secret at Netflix and on the movie "After." When it's a huge thing for people with disabilities minor or major that you can still find a way hopefully if you believe and persist to still get to work. If I can help anyone or help anyone be more empathetic to someone -- that might seem like me or a lot worse God forbid -- then you know that's the least I can do right now.

KG: That was actress Selma Blair on ABC's Good Morning America yesterday talking about being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

[Music]

Indigenous bones

Guest: Tim Carpenter

KG: Some 2000 human bones belonging to approximately 500 individuals. The grisly find wasn't uncovered in a mass grave. Those bullets were looted from Native American burial grounds over decades -- and then housed on a private farm in rural Indiana. They were collected by Don Miller, an eccentric Christian missionary and scientist. A man who also fancied himself an amateur -- and some would say illegal -- archaeologist. Along with the human remains Mr. Miller's at-home collection included jade from the Ming Dynasty, an Egyptian sarcophagus, and thousands of other priceless relics. Don Miller died in 2015. But not before his property was subjected to an FBI operation -- the largest recovery of cultural property in the bureau's history. Special Agent Tim Carpenter is the head of the FBI's Art Crime Team. He led the operation in 2014. We reached him in Indianapolis.

SB: Agent Carpenter why is it that today you can reveal that an operation you made years ago turned up thousands of human bones and remains?

TIM CARPENTER: Well as you know we've been working on this investigation for about four years now. The goal of this investigation for us has always been the repatriation of these artifacts and the human remains that we recovered. We've set up various mechanisms to do that -- not only to deal with the native tribes within the U.S. and the Americas but also with the portion of the collection that is international in scope. But you know unfortunately we've not reached as large an audience that we had hopes and our goal I think in releasing this story today and talking a little bit more openly about the case is driven by an interest to shed new light on the case and renew interest in it and to remind the nations, the Native Nations, and our foreign partners that we're here and that we seek their assistance in helping us identify the pieces so that we can start the repatriation process.

SB: Thousands of human bones were part of this collection that you obtained when you conducted this operation. What is the origin?

TC: Well predominately Native American.. But we do have human remains from other parts of the world. That process of identifying human remains is a complicated process, and you know it's more complicated by the fact that we won't do -- typically -- we won't do DNA analysis on the bones. And that's out of respect, and at the request of Native tribes that we've consulted with. Because you know taking DNA analysis requires some invasive procedures that is further offence to the ancestral remains. So we're not willing to do that. So we rely largely on osteological analysis. And that can only give us a piece of the picture. Maybe we aren't able to further delineate you know specific regions or specific tribal groups to those that the remains belong to. So it's a very complicated process and it's imperfect.

SB: Tell me more about Don Miller and how this man came to amass so many priceless artifacts from around the globe.

TC: Well Don -- he was an interesting person, well-known community figure, a philanthropist in the community, did a lot of missionary work abroad. His claimed to us early on -- based on his participation in the Manhattan Project during World War II. He told me that he got his passion or his interest in archaeology or collecting artifacts from walking the deserts around Los Alamos in New Mexico and finding arrowheads and pieces of pottery in the desert. That's kind of what got him hooked on it. And over the course of his life he was very enthusiastic, very passionate, about collecting really pretty much anything. I mean his collection, in his house, was fairly eclectic. It wasn't just Native American artifacts and it wasn't just foreign material, he had a lot of revolutionary war materials, some civil war material, he had paleontological material in the house. And so I think he just kind of had a passion and an interest in collecting you know anything kind of within this realm.

SB: Well the FBI has stated that sometimes he just outright looted the places he visited. Did he ever express any remorse to you in your conversations?

TC: You known I did have conversations with Don about that -- and what is clear to me is that, I think particularly later in his life, he probably did feel some remorse from this. And I know that he was very cooperative with us in our investigation. And it was a collaborative agreement that we had with him to let us come in and take inventory of the pieces and understand what was in the collection. And it was his wish that we return these objects back to the rightful owners. So I think we can discern from that you know he was trying to do the right thing at the end.

SB: So he invited you in, and you saw all of this laid out. Can you describe for me that scene and what it was like?

TC: Yeah. You know I tell people that it's kind of like that proverbial jaw dropping moment for me. You know early on in the tip that we got that led us to this investigation -- there were some claims that you know I think at the time to me where I felt maybe it was a bit outlandish that it was this really extraordinarily large collection. And I remember asking that individual well tell me what that means? What do you mean by "a large collection?" And I think the number that was used at the time was you know well maybe it is 200,000 pieces. And I'll be honest with you, I probably chuckled a bit. 200,000 seems really extraordinary. I don't think it's 200,000 pieces. Most museums don't have that kind of collection. And so I was skeptical. But when I walked into his house the first time and he took me downstairs -- and Don was very proud of the collection, he was happy to show it off and liked to talk about you know his exploits --but as I entered the basement and I start seeing just row after row after row of artifacts on you know ceiling and shelves, that was that jaw dropping moment like, are you kidding me? It really might actually be 200,000 pieces. And I think my first reaction was you know, who does this? You know of course we know now it was not 200,000 pieces, but it was a lot.

SB: Beyond the sheer scope, what surprised you the most about what you found?

TC: Well I think the scope, as you say it, was probably the most surprising. But clearly we were not prepared for the amount of human remains that we discovered on the property.

SB: Were you prepared for any?

TC: Yeah we were. We had reason to believe, and we had been told that there are a few human remains here and there. And that's not terribly uncommon in the collector world. You know maybe we will encounter a few sets -- maybe a dozen sets of human remains. But what we actually encountered was far different than that. And so no one on my team was prepared for the amount.

SB: And so it sounds like you're going to be busy with this for a long time.

TC: I suspect they'll be working on this case after I'm retired [chuckles]. It's going to be a very long term case.

SB: Well the best of luck with your endeavors. Thank you for talking to us.

TC: All right. Thank you Susan.

KG: Supervisory Special Agent Tim Carpenter is the head of the FBI's Art Crime Team. He was in Indianapolis. And you can find more on this story on the As It Happens website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Picasso Owl Jug

KG: Next time you were at the train station, keep an eye on the passengers as they're leaving their car. I guarantee you'll see multiple people stop short, frantically pat themselves down, and dig their hands in their pockets. And then you'll see the full bodied sag of relief when they find they didn't forget their phone on the train. Or the full body panic and visible nausea as they realize that they did. Well phones are small and we sometimes put them down and forget them -- because, yes, they're expensive and important, but they're so common they're not really special. You know what is special though? A ceramic jug made by Picasso -- painted to look like an owl. Part of his so-called "Owl Series." It is about 26-centimetres tall. And is worth about 15,000 dollars Canadian. Not the kind of thing you'd leave on a train. That's probably what the guy traveling with it thought too. And then he stepped off the train in the city of Hamm, Germany, and he realized he left his Picasso owl jug behind. That moment of realisation must have been like the I-forgot-my-phone moment multiplied by a million. And it must have been exponentially more dramatic when police informed him that the jug had vanished. They've put out a call to anyone who might have seen it. But there's not a lot of hope at this point. It's a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when you realize your phone is gone, but it's worse than a gut punch to realize that you've been dis-em-owled.

[Music]

Omar Khadr

KG: Omar Khadr was in court yesterday asking for his eight-year sentence for war crimes to be declared expired. Mr. Khadr was detained in Guantanamo Bay before being transferred to an Edmonton prison and later released. He's been out on bail for more than three years. And now, his lawyers want a judge to declare a sentence fully served. Meanwhile Mr. Khadr is still appealing the case in the United States. Samuel Morison is Omar Khadr's Pentagon-appointed lawyer. He was in Edmonton for the hearing and spoke to CBC's Tara McCarthy.

SOUNDCLIP

SAMUEL MORISON: So we're stuck at the intermediate level. We filed a brief five years ago. You know the court initially said well we're not going to deal with this right now, we want you to address some other issues. So we addressed those other issues separately, and nothing has been decided. And then eventually they put the case on hold -- pending the resolution of a different appeal in a different military commission case that could have affected the outcome in Khadr's case. Well that case has now been resolved and yet they still haven't restarted Khadr's case.

TARA MCCARTHY: So now Khadr is asking an Alberta judge to declare an end to his eight-year sentence. Do the courts here have jurisdiction over that?

SAMUEL MORISON: This is a bit of an unusual case because under Canadian law the courts have determined that he is actually a youth offender. So he then becomes -- and his case has to be handled just like any other youth offender under Canadian law. So if he'd been convicted of an offense in Canada, it would be handled the same way. That's really all we're arguing.

TARA MCCARTHY: After sitting through his hearing in Edmonton yesterday, how would you compare the process here to what you've been dealing with in the U.S.?

SAMUEL MORISON: I would say it's much less contentious -- as contentious as it might have been on occasion, it's less contentious than it is in the United States.

TARA MCCARTHY: Finally, what would you say to all the people who feel that Omar Khadr doesn't deserve a chance at clearing his name after getting a ten and a half million dollar settlement from the Canadian government? What's your response to that?

SAMUEL MORISON: Well you're talking about apples and oranges -- the two don't have anything to do with each other. The settlement was based on allegations that the Canadian government had engaged in some sort of misconduct in relation to his case. The United States law itself gives him a statutory right of appeal. So all he's doing is exercising his rights under the law. And if in fact his claims are well taken -- and we believe they are -- you know we're hoping that eventually he'll be vindicated. So he has every right to pursue that.

KG: That was Samuel Morison -- Omar Khadr's Pentagon-appointed lawyer -- speaking to the CBC's Tara McCarthy.

[Music]

Part 3: Indian pilot captured in Pakistan after airstrike

India/Pakistan: Air Marshal

Guest: M. Matheswaran

KG: Today the already high-tension between India and Pakistan rose still further. After the first cross-border air attacks between the two countries since 1971, Pakistan says it has shot down two Indian jets and it's providing video of the surviving pilot to prove it. Here's a clip of Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman being questioned by a Pakistani official about his treatment. And strangely, about the quality of the tea he's being offered.

SOUNDCLIP

ABHINANDAN VARTHAMAN: The officers of the Pakistani Army have looked after me very well. They are thorough gentlemen -- starting from the captain, who rescued me from the mob. This is what I would expect my army to behave as. And I am very impressed by the Pakistani Army.

VOICE: Okay wonderful. And are you married?

ABHINANDAN VARTHAMAN: Yes I am.

VOICE: You are married?

ABHINANDAN VARTHAMAN: Yes.

VOICE: I hope you like the tea.

ABHINANDAN VARTHAMAN: The tea is fantastic. Thank you.

KG: The tit-for-tat air attacks across the so-called, "line of control" in Kashmir come after a militant attack there that killed 40 Indian troops. M. Matheswaran is a former Air Marshal, and former Deputy Chief of India's Defence staff. We reached him in Chennai, India.

SB: Mr. Matheswaran how did you react to seeing the video of this captured pilot after being shot down?

M. MATHESWARAN: Obviously when you see that, initially, you do feel very concerned. It's disturbing. But given the environment it could have happened to anyone. So we wait for the better outcome for him to safely return back.

SB: I understand you know this pilot -- Abhinandan Varthaman -- personally you know him.

M. MATHESWARAN: Yes, very well. What we call you know a person with a lot of "Josh" -- a Hindi word which literally means a lot of enthusiasm for his work. A very accomplished professional fighter pilot. And you know it shows -- I mean you can see in the video that he has held himself very well -- extremely well.

SB: He looks extremely calm in the video. He says he's being treated well. Do you believe that?

M. MATHESWARAN: Well given the current situation, I don't think the Pakistani Army will take any chance of not treating him well. We have to believe that at the moment.

SB: So what should India's reaction be?

M. MATHESWARAN: Well the reaction is to get him out as quickly as possible, to get him safely back to India. And Indian has given a [inaudible] to the Pakistani ambassador in India and send the message to the government officials as well. And second is -- if there is a problem in getting him back safely, it indicates that the Pakistan side is wanting to escalate -- and India probably will be extremely well prepared for that.

SB: Wasn't that incursion that the planes going into Pakistani airspace -- wasn't that an escalation in itself?

M. MATHESWARAN: It's not an escalation. See you had earlier had the Mumbai attack. I'm sure the entire world is very aware of that. We had the parliament attack in 2001. And we had a Kargil intrusion. And then you have Pathankot. You have Uri. Supported by the outfits that are all being hosted, fed, and looked after by Pakistani government and institutions. And the army and the ISI in particular. And tackling all these cases, India all along has issued violence or issued you know the military action -- and has long worked towards dialogue and diplomacy and trying to resolve the issue. But I think all that has failed. Nothing has changed. And therefore there is no other option now but to say that from now on you're going to get punished.

SB: Pakistan's prime minister has said in fact that he's open to talks -- that he wants talks and he said quote, "All big wars have been due to miscalculation. My question to India is that given the weapons we have, can we afford miscalculation?" So given what he is saying today, do you believe that there is an opportunity here for real talks? Will India respond in that way?

M. MATHESWARAN: I think there is an opportunity for real talks. If Imran Khan someone means what he says then there is an opportunity for real talks.

SB: We are talking here about two nuclear armed countries. How worried are you about this turning into a full blown war?

M. MATHESWARAN: Not so much, because I think you know the nuclear issue has been -- Pakistan has been smart to use the nuclear card and sort of deter rest of the world and India until now -- and so that it continues its activities and supporting outfits like Jaish-e-Mohammad, LeT -- as well as mujahideen -- I mean these are outfits that the entire world should actually come down heavily on Pakistan to get them eradicated completely. I blame the international community for having been soft on these issues. The nuclear aspect on both sides is one of guaranting one's survivability. And I think that Pakistan -- India has always been saying, India is not out to dismember and destroy Pakistan. It has no intentions of that at all. And therefore they do not have to get worried on that score. And the nuclear weapons are not for weapons of war -- they are weapons of deterrence. So we are very clear on that. But if Pakistan thinks that because it has nuclear weapons, and they can actually keep using the unconventional warfare method, using terrorism, using mujahideen to carry on you know bleeding India -- I think it has to come to a stop at some point of time. And this is the time now.

SB: Some are saying that this conflict has the potential to help Prime Minister Modi -- who is up for re-election in April. Could this conflict have political motives behind it from the Indian side?

M. MATHESWARAN: Well that seems to be the obvious reference everybody will say. But let me put it this way -- I don't want to take sides or I don't want to bat for anyone. The response to the Pulwama attack is a national response -- the Government of India is rethinking on the strategy that it has followed for 30 years and says that we need to now change that. So I look at it as an absolutely sane decision taken by the Government of India. Now whether they want to use this for electioneering in the forthcoming general elections in April-May -- would be the political party's decision. And if they do that -- to take the military operation, the national security, related strategic decisions into electioneering battle -- that would be a huge blunder. And if they do that, it will be very sad in my opinion. But I hope they don't do that. And I believe they may not do that. They should not do that.

SB: Mr. Matheswaran thank you for your time today.

M. MATHESWARAN: Thank you. Thank you very much.

KG: M. Matheswaran is a former Air Marshal, and former Deputy Chief of India's Defence Staff. He's in Chennai, India.

[Music]

Movie reviews

KG: As some of you may know, I regularly review movies for the CBC Toronto program "Metro Morning." And here's a little glimpse into my process: what I do is, I go to a movie, and watch it -- like, the whole thing -- and then give my impressions. Now that's just my approach to the job. But not every film critic feels the same way. For example, in his recent review of the new Marvel movie, Captain Marvel -- Steve S commented quote, "Strong women, more Hollywood BS -- no thanks." Mr. S's critique is echoed by dozens of other angry male reviewers who did not enjoy the new Marvel movie or rather who will not enjoy it. My point is these reviewers take a different approach from mine. They've all expressed their strong opinions of Captain Marvel without having seen it. Because it hasn't been released yet. That hasn't stopped all kinds of men from logging onto the review site Rotten Tomatoes to criticize the movie for one reason: that a woman is playing the lead. And that a white man isn't. They did the same thing with "Black Panther" and "Star Wars: The Last Jedi." And now Rotten Tomatoes is finally doing something about it. In a blog post this week, the site announced a number of changes and updates. Among them, quote, "We are disabling the comment function prior to a movie's release date. Unfortunately we've seen an uptick in non-constructive input, sometimes bordering on trolling, which we believe is a disservice to our general readership." Seems like a good idea. In my experience, actually seeing a movie really helps you know if it's good. So if you haven't watched the screening process, you probably should be subjected to one.

[Music]

Solo rower

Guest: Kelda Wood

KG: This morning Kelda Wood made rowing history.

SOUNDCLIP

[Applause and cheering]

VOICE: Ladies and gentlemen straight in from the Atlantic -- 3,000 miles -- it's Kelda Woods! Let's make some noise!

KG: That's the sound of former para-canoeist Kelda Wood arriving in Antigua this morning. She's the first solo adoptive rower to complete the Talisker Whiskey Atlantic Challenge -- a grueling 5,000 kilometre race across the Atlantic Ocean, from the Canary Islands to Antigua. It's billed as the toughest ocean rowing challenge in the world. And Ms. Wood completed it in 76 days. That's earned her a place in the Guinness World Records. We reached Kelda Wood in Antigua.

SB: Ms. Wood that was the sound of you making landfall after 76 days alone at sea. What was that moment like?

KELDA WOOD: I'm kind of still processing a little bit. But it was fairly surreal. It was a pretty tough road to the finish line. And I have to say I crossed the finish line and slumped over and cried. But by the time I'd sort of go into the harbour where everyone was -- I had got over that, and it was just amazing -- the support that was there and the atmosphere was incredible. And just hearing it sort of played back then, you just realise how special it was. So yeah it was incredible.

SB: How are you feeling now?

KW: I think I'm running on adrenaline a bit because I probably had about three hours of sleep in the last five days or something. But it is starting to all sink in a little bit -- that actually you know we have done it, got across the ocean, and crossed the finish line. And I think I've been really bowled over just by the support from everyone you know. People have been amazing and it is starting to feel -- funnily I just said this afternoon, because it was really tough and you know there was a lot of it that I didn't enjoy, but I'm starting already after just 12 hours or whatever it is -- to kind of go, that was amazing!

SB: Why did you want to row across the Atlantic Ocean?

KW: Yes. The whole reason I took on the challenge was to try and reach and inspire young people. So I was trying to raise awareness about mental and physical trauma in young people and to raise awareness about charity -- Climbing Out -- which is a charity that I set up myself in 2010. So each day I was on the ocean, I was rowing for different young person -- sharing their stories, and the whole aim of every single day was to reach and inspire those young people.

SB: But in the meantime you were out there all alone and you spent your birthday, Christmas, New Years out there. What was that like?

KW: I really struggled with the solitude a lot more than I thought I would. You know I'm very much a people person, but I thought I got my head around the idea of being on my own. But on about day 2, I realised that I really didn't like it. And then 76 days is a long-long time in solitude. But I think the massive thing that I learnt out there was you know so many of the young people that we work with you know whether it be cancer or abuse or a victim of terrorism -- you know they get in a situation they don't want to be in, and they just have to keep going and they just have to keep taking one day at a time. And a lot of the young people sent me messages saying how many parallels they felt there were between what I was going through and what they've been through. So I actually think the fact that I found it so tough, made it all the more powerful because the young people that it was for really could relate to those battles and the fact that even though it's tough, you have to keep going.

SB: The weather was not kind to you. You had boat issues. How did you overcome those challenges?

KW: Well there wasn't much you could do about the weather. That was the other thing that I learnt -- that that was something completely out of my control. And as frustrating as it might be I just have to suck it up and get on with it. And yeah I had quite a few kind of little setbacks with the boat - but physically, I was fine. But mentally, I really struggled with the solitude and I really struggled with the frustrations of weather and the sea being out of my control. And because I kept on getting setbacks, my arrival time kept on getting pushed back. And mentally I struggled with that because I kept on thinking it's going to be over in three weeks’ time. And then actually you know it's not -- it's another five weeks. And especially as I got close to 20, it just kept on being pushed back and pushed back. And there did come a point where I just went, I have got to get off this boat -- I cannot stay on it anymore. But we put a [inaudible] in place and I think that gave me the confidence again to just keep taking one day at a time and keep pushing on and give it your best. You know once we kept going with that, you know we still got there. And that was the main thing.

SB: You're the first para-athlete to complete this challenge. And you're a para-athlete due to an accident which severely injured your ankle. How did that impact your life?

KW: It had a huge impact. My life revolved around sport -- it's very much kind of what defined me and the person I was. And after the accident I couldn't run anymore. So I couldn't play a lot of the sports that meant so much to me. And I spent a long time really struggling to come to terms with that. And that had a big impact on my confidence and self-esteem. But that journey that I went on was what led me to set up the charity and that really is kind of the whole inspiration behind the row because I now want to try and kind of show other young people who are maybe where I was all those years ago that you know there is a way forward. So you know with my ankle -- technically -- it would be very difficult to row for 76 days, but we adapted the boat and put a specific foot plate in. And my leg just wasn't a problem. It was brilliant.

SB: What's your message to everyone who's been following your journey?

KW: I think the big thing we really tried to put out there was it's just about being the best you can be. You know so the real message I tried to put out was you know I might not have been the quickest across the Atlantic but I rode my heart out every single day. And I could finish. Each day I would ask myself, are you proud of what you've done today? And I think as long as the answer was, yes, then that's great. And I think if young people -- they get so worried about not succeeding that it often stops them from moving forward. So it is kind of just you know be brave enough to give things a go. And as long as you are the best you can be, then whether it works or it doesn't -- it doesn't really matter. It's just about being brave enough to give it a try. I think the feedback I'm getting -- I'm still picking up everything up at the minute. We really have reached a lot of young people which is amazing, and what the whole thing was about.

SB: Well done. Congratulations. Thanks for telling us about it.

KW: Fantastic. Thank you. Good to chat with you.

KG: Today, Kelda Wood became the first adaptive rower to row across the Atlantic. We reached her in Antigua.

[Music]

Baby delivery

KG: Liz Verges certainly didn't expect to be giving birth to her son in a Prius. Last week in the early hours of the morning, she went into labour. So she called a neighbour and along with her 13-year-old daughter Baileigh Stowell, they started the 45 minute drive to the hospital. But you know how kids are in the car: the baby got impatient. Ms. Verges and her daughter Baileigh spoke with Shelley Joyce, host of "Daybreak Kamloops" about the experience. Here's a bit of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

LIZ VERGES: Yeah I realized I was in labour probably around 2:30 in the morning -- when I started getting contractions. Never did I think I wasn't going to make it. And I had everything all arranged. And everything was going as planned until we got about halfway to town.

SHELLEY JOYCE: Did you expect that you'd be counting on your 13-year-old daughter Baileigh as much as you did?

LIZ VERGES: Yeah. She stayed home from school for a few days just to kind -- she wanted to stay close to me because she wanted to be there for the birth. And yeah she's been pretty good taking care of me. And she stayed by my side until we got home from the hospital.

SHELLEY JOYCE: [Chuckles] Baileigh let's bring you in on this. You're only 13-year- old, did you know much before this about delivering babies?

BAILEIGH: Yes I did. I actually went to a calving clinic -- and I learnt quite a bit there about like giving birth -- and having a human baby is quite similar.

SHELLEY JOYCE: [Laughs] That makes sense. And then describe the birth itself, Liz. When did all of this just kind of happen? And I guess you must've just had to throw caution to the wind and go for it, right.

LIZ VERGES: When we turned off of my road onto the highway there's a brake-check at the top of Sheep Creek Hill. And I actually asked my neighbour to pull into the brake-check because that's when I was really starting to want to push. And then I told her just to keep going because I figured if we just kept going I might make it to the hospital. So I didn't. We only got halfway down the hill. And I just started pushing. And I kept telling them -- I'm pushing, like the baby is right there. They kept telling me, no it's not. And all of a sudden like you know, he was there. And he started crying. And I just put him up on my chest. It just happened so fast. Hard to explain.

KG: Liz Verges and her daughter, Baileigh Stowell, speaking with CBC Kamloops.

[Music]

Dorothy Masuka

KG: In 2014, legendary South African pop star Dorothy Masuka reflected on her life and career to the Mail and Guardian newspaper. She said, "The way of my singing is message. You send a message: it's love, it's sadness, it's everything." Dorothy Masuka died last weekend. She was 83 years old. Even as a young musician in the 1950s and '60s South Africa, Ms. Masuka didn't shy away from speaking difficult political truths. She overtly pilloried pro-apartheid politicians, resulting in the government trying to suppress her recordings. Eventually, she was forced into exile -- but continued to work for the African National Congress and against the apartheid regime.

February 27, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode