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 2020

The AIH Transcript for September 23, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Healthy, wealthy and wise? That remains to be seen as the government outlines its plans to pull Canadians through the pandemic and into the future.

CH: One step forward and an untold number back. The EU has unveiled a long awaited migration pact that allows member countries to choose between settling refugees and deporting them.

CO: Left wanting. It's been a day of disappointment and frustration for many in Louisville, Kentucky, as a grand jury brings no direct charges against police in the killing of Breonna Taylor.

CH: Have Gundam can't travel? A Japanese theme park dedicated to the giant cartoon robot, Gundam, isn't opening yet, but this week a 25-ton version of the character in the park proved it can move its automa-tonnage.

CO: When there are nine. U.S. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was honoured at the Supreme Court this morning in a brief ceremony where her friends promised to continue her legacy.

CH: And failure to lunch. Richard Nixon eat only part of a sandwich 60 years ago, which our guest thinks is the best thing since sliced bread because it allowed him to swipe it and more surprisingly, to hang onto it. As It Happens. The Wednesday Edition. Radio that can appreciate the sub-terfuge.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: 'Justice is not served,' says Ky. state rep after no charges laid for Breonna Taylor's death

Throne speech

Guest: Blake Richards

CH: The Trudeau government packed promise after promise into today's speech from the throne. A million jobs, a national childcare program, a prescription drug program and extended emergency aid for Canadians as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Here are some of the government's speech read by Governor General Julie Payette.

JULIE PAYETTE: This is our generation's crossroads. Do we move Canada forward or let people be left behind? Do we come out of this stronger or paper over the cracks that the crisis has exposed? This is the time to remember who we are as Canadians. This is the opportunity to contain the global crisis and build back better together.

CH: And here's what the speech had to say to anyone with questions about what all this might cost.

JULIE PAYETTE: This is not the time for austerity. Canada entered this crisis in the best fiscal positions of its peers, and the government is using that fiscal firepower. On things like the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and on the Canada emergency wage subsidy so that Canadians, businesses, and our entire economy have the support needed to weather this storm.

CH: That was Governor General Julie Payette reading the Trudeau government's speech from the throne earlier today. The Conservatives have already said that they will not support it. Blake Richards is an MP and the Conservative whip. We reached him in Airdrie, Alberta.

CO: Mr. Richards, Justin Trudeau's throne speech says this is no time for austerity. What do you think?

BLAKE RICHARDS: Well, first of all, let me just say that, I'm quite disappointed, obviously, with the throne speech because what we're hearing here is sort of the same platitudes that we've always heard from this prime minister and really nothing in there besides talk. It's all just talk and nothing in terms of, you know, even concrete plans let alone action. You know, in terms of the idea of being fiscally responsible, that's something that I think any reasonable Canadian stopped expecting from him a long time ago unfortunately.

CO: Okay. But on the issue of austerity, what do you think? He says it's no time for austerity. You know, what we're going through right now with the pandemic and with the economy and the condition it's in. I think the statement was today that the economic impact of COVID-19 on Canadians has already been worse than the 2008 financial crisis. So what do you think that should be done instead if you don't like this?

BR: Well, I mean, first of all, it would be nice to see some new concrete measures put in place by the government. Let's start with that.

CO: Okay. Drug program, day care program...

BR: Well, again, these are talk, right? I mean, we've heard all of these things before from the Liberals. We've heard it many times before. And there's never been any action taken. And this sounds much like all the other times we've heard it. You know in terms of what we would do, you know, certainly, absolutely, first thing is we've got to make sure that we are providing Canadians with the personal protective equipment, the medical equipment, that is needed. So we are a self-reliant as a country. We'd like to see, for example, the natural resource sector, because our natural resource industries in Canada are global leaders, in terms of, you know, our ability to deliver a quality product with high environmental standards. And so why would you not encourage the ability for that sector to ramp up and help to pay for some of the programs that are needed to help people get through desperate times? You know, another area that I know is critically important for many people across the country, including for hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, is our tourism and hospitality sectors. And the government keeps on saying, as they did today in the throne speech, that there will be programs for that industry eventually. But they've been saying that for six months now. And, you know, there's nothing concrete in terms of the actions. So I think that's where the real challenge is here is that we've got a government that keeps promising things and they're not delivering on them.

CO: Right. But it is a throne speech. And so this is a sketch -- it's not the actual blueprint for action. So this is what happens in throne speeches. And then you get down to the nitty gritty in later announcements. Basically are you saying, what I think we've heard earlier from Conservative deputy leader Candice Bergen, the Conservatives are not going to support this throne speech?

BR: No, I mean, I don't see how we can. I mean, the first thing when we talk about, you know, having concrete steps and you're saying that, you know, it doesn't really come to the throne speech well at the very least the throne speech you would expect the key issues of the day to be addressed. And one of the really critical issues out there today are the feelings of Western alienation in my part of the country and the national unity concerns that are created by that. And that is something that our leader made very clear in the very first call we have with Justin Trudeau is that we expected that he must address those issues. And there's nothing to even mentioned those issues let alone address them in a throne speech. So it's absolutely impossible for us to support something like that.

CO: Okay. But one area, childcare, which is national -- the west and the east and the north are all affected by this issue right now because we're seeing the problem with so many people trying to get back to work is they need childcare. This is one of the things that was announced in this throne speech. Do you support that plan?

BR: Well, you know, as you say, there is a need to see details on things. And I'll be honest, I'm quite skeptical we'll ever see those details, because this is a promise that we've seen from the Liberals before. So, you know, until one see those, and I doubt we ever will, it's pretty hard to support it.

CO: And the prescription drug announcement in this throne speech. Do you think that that's something workers and business owners have said that they want and whichever part of the country you're in -- isn't that something that has been asked for?

BR: Well, again, another empty promise, because that's another one we've heard before. And you know what's most interesting about these two promises is that we've heard from time and time again from successive Liberal governments. And you know, it's always talk and there's never any action. So until one sees concrete plan, it's pretty hard to pronounce on anything like that until you see the actual plan, which I again doubt we'll ever see.

CO: The Conservatives willing to, perhaps, force an election on this issue?

BR: Well, you know, it's a challenging time right now, I think, for an election given the health considerations. But you know, we can't support the throne speech. And, you know, that's the main thing here, is that it's not the plan the Canadians need. So we'll put forward the plan that we think would be better. And we hope to work towards those things in whatever form that might take.

CO: All right. But do you think also because other parties are suggesting that they might support this throne speech, that you're sort of off the hook, that you can afford to oppose it?

BR: Well, you know, you don't make decisions about supporting or opposing key programs, key services, key decisions about the future of Canadians based on, you know, being off the hook on something. You make them based on whether you think they are the right thing for the country and whether you have confidence in this government's ability to deliver. And we certainly don't think that there's any confidence in this government's ability to deliver. So for that reason, we'll be opposing the throne speech.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr. Richards thank you.

BR: My pleasure.

CH: Blake Richards is the Conservative MP for Banff-Airdrie and the party's whip. He's in Airdrie, Alberta.

[Music]

Breonna Taylor charges

Guest: Attica Scott

CH: It was not the decision the family of Breonna Taylor was hoping for. Today, a grand jury in Louisville, Kentucky, indicted one former police officer for wanton endangerment after a raid in March in which the 26 year old Ms. Taylor was shot and killed. The charges relate to shots he fired into a neighbouring apartment, not the shots that killed Ms. Taylor. Two other officers were not indicted. Breonna Taylor's boyfriend says he believed the officers entering the apartment were intruders and fired his gun at them. Ms. Taylor's death has led to months of protests in Louisville. State Representative Attica Scott has been present at many of them. We reached her today in Louisville.

CO: Representative Scott, how did people at Jefferson Square Park react when this grand jury decision was released today?

ATTICA SCOTT: There was disappointment, although there was not one person here who was surprised. And everyone that I've spoken to, I have been very clear that justice was not served today.

CO: In what way -- just in a nutshell, it's hard to do this briefly -- but in what ways did it fall short?

AS: It fell short because only Brett Hankinson, who was already fired, received any charges. Mattingly and Cosgrove are basically getting away with murder. And no other officers received any kind of indictment from the grand jury. And so people, quite frankly, especially Black folks out here, are very clear that the system worked for these White officers the way that it always has.

CO: The Kentucky attorney general said that there was a no knock warrant -- one of these controversial warrants that had been issued to go into the apartment -- that they did not serve, one, that they did knock and announce themselves before they raided Breonna Taylor's home. Does that conflict with what you believe actually happened?

AS: Well, the reality is because they failed to turn on their body cameras, we have no footage from that moment of the warrant being served. So we don't really know whether or not they knocked.

CO: But the attorney general said that there was a witness that they had knocked on the door, that they had announced themselves.

AS: Well, you know what? There was one witness in that entire apartment complex who said that. And yet, you know, people were calling the police to say something's going on in an apartment in our building -- that contradicts that claim.

CO: Another contradiction is that their witnesses did see that they used a battering ram to get into the apartment. Has that been acknowledged by the police that they did that according to the witnesses?

AS: There really hasn't been any acknowledgment of that fact. Even if you had knocked on their door after midnight, who in the world is going to answer their door? And then you decide to use a battering ram to enter their premises. None of it is right. It just all told many of us that the system failed us yet again.

CO: Because key to what the attorney general said today, was that two of the officers are not being charged at all because they were justified, because they were returning fire when Ms. Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, he was the first to shoot and shot one of the officers in the leg. He hasn't denied that. He said that that's the case. Is there, in some analysis, some understanding of this that they were firing in self-defense -- the police?

AS: I just cannot accept that they were firing in self-defense. Kentucky has the castle doctrine, which is basically our Stand Your Ground law. So Mr. Walker had every right to defend the premises when he had no idea who was busting into his home - because they did not announce themselves. And so I just refuse to accept that claim by the officers that they were returning fire in self-defense. They should not have been there in the first place. And that's the conversation we need to be having, that they got it all wrong. The person they were looking for, they already had in custody. They should never have been there in the first place.

CO: Right. And Kenneth Walker, the boyfriend, he was not charged with that shooting and that his handgun that he had was legal. And also, we know that Breonna Taylor's family has received compensation. So does that indicate to you that the police recognize or the authorities recognize that Kenneth Walker truly believed that he was defending himself that night and Breonna?

AS: Yes. And they cannot deny it. It's very clear that he was defending his home, himself, and his girlfriend. They cannot deny that. And no amount of money will ever bring her back. And that's why we need to have real policy change because we cannot allow someone else's child to be murdered with impunity by police.

CO: But if the officers were returning fire and they thought that they were in a gunfight, then is it really where you need to start is with the police or is it with the whole reason why they were there that night and the decision to search the apartment and to the issuing of the warrant? I mean, is it that something much larger has to be investigated here than the single event that happened in that apartment?

AS: I believe that we have to be comprehensive in our approach, that we have to look at the judicial system. Judge Mary Shaw should never have signed those search warrants so quickly. You know, within 12 minutes and the officers signatures weren't even legible. So that should never have happened. So we have to look at the judicial system. We have to look at the issue of no knock warrants in the first place. We should not be issuing no knock warrants. And I have legislation Breonna's law to address that very issue. We shouldn't that have law enforcement walking around without body cameras and being allowed not to have those body cameras on in these situations. That is unacceptable.

CO: But do you think this is where they'll just say that, well, justice has been done, we have gone this far? Where do you see the possibility that a larger investigation, a larger look at the issues that you're raising is actually going to happen?

AS: It's definitely going to happen. I'm here in just Justice Square Park downtown, and it's full of people. And not one person here is acting as if this is it. We're going to continue to fight for justice. As a state representative, we're going to continue to fight for Breonna's law, for Kentucky to address all of these issues that we've just talked about, because that work has to continue. We have to address these policy issues. And we also have people who are already looking at upcoming elections and being very clear that we need to look at these judges and get some of these judges out of office who are making these thoughtless decisions.

CO: And we'll be following. Representative Scott, thank you.

AS: Thank you.

CH: We reached Kentucky State Representative Attica Scott in Louisville. For more on this story, go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Richard Nixon sandwich

Guest: Steve Jenne

CH: Research suggests that September 22nd, 1960, was not a very memorable day in history, but we do know something happened that changed Steve Jenne's life: Richard Nixon ate a sandwich. And Mr. Jenne is very very glad that the then future U.S. president didn't actually finish the sandwich that day. Steve Jenne is the proud and long-time owner of Richard Nixon's half eaten sandwich, which turned 60 yesterday. We reached Mr. Jenne in Warrensburg, Missouri.

CO: Steve, as it turns 60 years old, how is Richard Nixon's sandwich doing?

STEVE JENNE: Well, probably a lot better than I am because it hasn't aged at all. It's well preserved and at home safely in my freezer.

CO: Now, after 60 years in the freezer, there must be a fair bit of freezer burn there.

SJ: Well, it's inside a plastic bag and inside a glass jar that's well sealed. And all of that is inside another plastic bag stored away, tucked away in my freezer. And when I look at it through the glass, it doesn't look like it's shrunk or gotten moldy at all.

CO: And can you still tell if it's a sandwich?

SJ: Well, yeah. It's a bun with a couple of bites bitten out of it. So, yeah, if you know what you're looking at you can say, oh, yeah, that is a sandwich, isn't it? [Chuckles]

CO: And the couple of bites were actually made by Richard Nixon himself.

SJ: Right. I'm going to guess maybe three bites. By looking at the sandwich, there's more than one, maybe only two, but it looks like three bites.

CO: Right. We spoke with you back in 2006 and heard the story from you. But just some reminders of some detail. So you were a Boy Scout at the time in Sullivan, Illinois. How did you come to be in the company of then Vice President Richard Nixon?

SJ: Well, because back then there was not such a need for the security that we see today. Of course, in 1960, it was three years before the Kennedy assassination that changed everything, of course. So when they asked for security, our Boy Scout troop was available and I said, let's just put the Boy Scouts around the picnic table. I just happened to be the lucky one right behind Vice President Nixon. Everybody was jostling for a position and I was trying to keep people back.

CO: Okay, so you're 14 years old and you got a serious job there. You're the security man. So did do actually see him get the sandwich?

SJ: Yes, I did. Yeah, they had a young girl present him with the sandwich. What he was having that day was buffalo barbecue, like pulled pork, but it was buffalo meat. And then she stepped back and that's when he proceeded to take a couple bites. And for each bite, he made a nice comment. And I think that's probably why he didn't finish the sandwich, because there's only so many things you can come up with to say in front of thousands and thousands of people, if you take a single bite out of a sandwich. [Chuckles] So after three bites, he set it back out on the paper plate and excused himself to go elsewhere to make his political speech. And that's when thousands of people followed him. And that sandwich stayed there on the picnic table, on the paper plate, and nobody else thought about picking it up. So I decided that I would.

CO: Okay. So what went through your mind about that sandwich?

SJ: I thought, well, I'm going to take that. I put it on the paper plate, hopped on my bicycle, sped home and told my mother about it. And she said, "What do you want me to do with it? What you want to do to?" I said, freeze it. So she did. She put it inside a plastic bag and put that inside a musselman's applesauce jar. And it's been there for 60 years now.

CO: And your mother was never tempted to throw it away when thinking maybe you forgotten about it and it's just time to clean out the freezer.

SJ: Oh, yeah. She thought about it.

CO: But a single power outage, could have killed that little sandwich, right?

SJ: You're right. And it almost did. We had a huge blizzard on Easter Sunday, actually, as it was an ice storm that knocked out power. But my dad was always resourceful. So he already had a backup generator. And in fact, I think I drove out there through all the ice with that sandwich for that express purpose of having him put that into their freezer, which was hooked up to his generator. That worked. Yes.

CO: How old was the sandwich at that point?

SJ: Oh, gosh, it would've been 18.

CO: So it was 18 years old. Now, of course, we know all the things that happened to Richard Nixon after he nibbled that sandwich, including leaving the office under a cloud of an impeachment, everything else. I mean, so a lot worse things happened to him than to the sandwich. Why did it stay so important to you to keep Richard Nixon's sandwich?

SJ: I think just because, you know, year after year, I thought, you know, I've had it five years, I've had it 10 years, 2020 -- 60 years later, I can't get rid of it now. So yeah, I'm going to hang onto it forever.

CO: Okay. Now you have a new book which is called The Sandwich That Changed My Life. And what do you want people to learn from your experience?

SJ: I don't know if it's an instructional type of a book. It's more down home, small-town Americana.

CO: Well, your book sure sounds like a slice of life.

SJ: Good point. Yes, yes. Yeah, it's a slice of life. You can't get more Central America, central United States than Sullivan, Illinois. It gives you a glimpse into what we did back in 1960.

CO: Steve it is good to talk to you. Take care.

SJ: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

CH: Steve Jenne is the owner of a sandwich that Richard Nixon half eat in 1960. The half sandwich turned a full 60 years old yesterday. We reached Mr. Jenne in Warrensburg, Missouri.

[Music]

Mobile Suit Gundam

CH: It takes a couple of giant steps forward, takes a knee, rises, raises its enormous hand, stares out at the landscape and thinks, please deactivate me. It is Gundam, the giant humanoid robot from the Japanese animated series Mobile Suit Gundam, which told the story of a brutal future war and the plucky mechanic who pilots Gundam in battles against the Zeon forces. Here's part of the theme song. [Mobile Suit Gundam them song] The translated lyrics go "If you are still burning with furious rage, you must fight the towering foe. Fight, fight, fight. Bring to bear the rage of justice Gundam." So it's intense and popular. Mobile Suit Gundam became a phenomenon, spawning movies, manga, video games and now an entire theme park. Gundam Factory Yokohama. The centrepiece of which is a brand new 18 meter tall, that's 60 feet, 25 ton Gundam robot. The park was supposed to open next week, but the pandemic. So to appease fans this week, the people who run the park demonstrated the prowess of their 60 foot creation, which has been six years in the making, because a machine that size runs the risk of crumpling under its own ludicrous weight. It's impressive. And it's massive. But in most Gundam stories, Gundam saves the world, which will be very frustrating for this new real life Gundam. It's supposed to fly and blast enemies in a 2D dystopian future, not kneel and lift its hand in a 3D dystopian present. So it's cool, but it can't help us. Which has just a Gundam shame.

[Music]

Part 2: EU migration pact

John Ivison

Guest: John Ivison

CH: Justin Trudeau had a warning for Canadians tonight. Prime Minister Trudeau said he needed to address the country because of the surge in COVID-19 infections. But his speech came just hours after the government released a throne speech pitching a vision for getting the country out of the pandemic and into a better future. Here's some of what the prime minister had to say.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We're on the brink of a fall that could be much worse than the spring. I know this isn't the news that any of us wanted to hear. And we can't change today's numbers or even tomorrow's. Those were already decided by what we did or didn't do two weeks ago. But what we can change is where we are in October and into the winter. It's all too likely we won't be gathering for Thanksgiving, but we still have a shot at Christmas. The federal government will have your back, whatever it takes to help you get through this crisis. Maybe you are one of the almost nine million people who used the Canada Emergency Response Benefit this spring. We will continue to support all those who need it with a strengthened and broadened employment insurance system. Maybe your boss was able to keep you on the job or hire you back because the emergency wage subsidy helped with the payroll. People still need this program. So we're extending it right through to next summer. I know some people are asking how we can afford to do all this for Canadians. That's fair. Low interest rates mean we can afford it. And in fact, doing less would end up costing far more. While we're dealing with this pandemic, I don't want you or your parent or your friend to take on debt that your government can better shoulder.

CH: That was Prime Minister Trudeau making a special address to Canadians earlier this evening. His speech was followed by speeches from the leaders of the major opposition parties. John Ivison is a columnist for the National Post and the Ottawa bureau chief for Postmedia. We reached him in Chelsea, Quebec.

CO: John, we just heard a little bit of what Mr. Trudeau said this afternoon in some places this evening and others. What was the point of the prime minister's address to the nation?

JOHN IVISON: I'm not sure. I think he beguiled the television networks into giving him free airtime to address this issue of urgent national importance. But I think in the event he just delivered a party political broadcast on behalf of the Liberal Party reiterating the throne speech that had been delivered just hours earlier by the Governor General. I thought it was a little bit disingenuous on his part.

CO: And we know that he was giving those sort of pep talks, those daily events in front of his house during the spring. Do you think that he should be returning to that or do you think this was instead of that? Or what's your sense?

JI: Well, I think it worked for him during the spring. This was a, you know, regular occurrence -- every morning he would appear and they were getting really high ratings when it came to some social media when they would be replayed. So I think it was a good campaign device for him. We may be into a campaign within a week or so if the opposition parties decide not to vote for this throne speech. So maybe he was just getting out there early. Although to be honest, I think it may yet backfire on him because, you know, there's a poll earlier this month that suggested more than half of the respondents couldn't say whether they thought negatively or positively about Erin O'Toole, the new Conservative leader. Many more people will be aware of who Erin O'Toole is this evening after he made his own speech following on from Justin Trudeau.

CO: I just couldn't help thinking of the people we have spoken with -- a woman who spent three days going everywhere to try to get a COVID test for her kids. A woman who runs a restaurant who is seven days away from not being able to pay the rent and shutting down after 15 years. Others who just don't know if they're going to make it to Christmas and still have a job. Do you think that those people who I know were listening to the throne speech to hear whether their concerns were going to be met, did they hear anything from either of those events today?

JI: Yeah, I think the throne speech was reassuring to some of those people. You know, there are measures that in their -- child care, for example. I mean, a lot of this stuff is well intentioned, but it remains to be seen whether the government can get the provinces to agree to a national child care program in the timeframe that would be actually be useful for people, for women in particular, who've fallen out of the workforce. I mean, I think this is one major concern that the female participation rate in the workforce fell to levels we last saw in the 1980s. So there are genuine measures in there. You know, I think the emergency wage subsidy being extended to next summer will reassure a lot of people. But there's obviously an opportunity cost to everything that the government has done. You know, that is likely to cost somewhere around 50 billion dollars. If you look at the last six months, it cost 35 billion dollars for this wage subsidy. That's an awful lot of money to pile onto 400 billion dollars already. Were there ways that it could've been spent more wisely, perhaps targeting industries that were more acutely hit, like the restaurant industry, like the tourism industry? I think that is an argument that the opposition parties might want to make.

CO: You heard at the end of the clip we played that Mr. Trudeau is saying that you can't afford to take on any more debt, but we can. I mean, is he right in that regard, given the fact that the interest rates are low and that we have seen this week even that the international credit rating firms are still giving us triple-A ratings, including one has increased it to triple-A just on Tuesday. Does it not look like we're looking pretty good?

JI: Well, I don't think when we come out of this with a half billion dollars deficit in one year, that we're going to be looking good. You know, I think it's very generous of Mr. Trudeau to promise to back current taxpayers with the wealth of future taxpayers, because that's what we're talking about when we pile on more debt onto the national debt. There is this theory that governments are obliged to lock into these rates and borrow without much remorse, that the Bank of Canada is holding 60 percent of all of the Government of Canada's securities so therefore, it doesn't really matter if we upset credit rating agencies, we get downgraded -- people won't buy our debt in international markets. But I think, you know, the Bank of Canada is, they call it quantitative easing, where the Bank of Canada's buying a lot of the debt. That's a temporary measure. It's an emergency measure to make sure that rates stay low during the crisis. The idea that the Bank of Canada is going to continue buying government bonds indefinitely is, in the eyes of many people, false, and that we cannot bank on these rates being as low forever.

CO: I wonder what you said about the possibility of an election if they don't support this round speech, the Conservatives have already said that they don't support what was in the throne speech -- are the Conservatives prepared to fight an election at this point, do you think?

JI: I think that they're obliged to say that they're not going to support it. I can't imagine that they want to have an election when only half the voters know who their leader is. So I think that they will give the appearance of opposition. Jagmeet Singh has come out and said there's not enough in there for him to be impressed by it. I think he came out as far as saying he would vote against it. You know, these things tend to happen where there's a lot of saber rattling and then come the vote a lot of opposition members suddenly get, if not the flu then don't appear in the chamber or don't vote. So it remains to be seen. I would be shocked if there's an election over the throne speech.

CO: And we heard the third person who spoke this evening or this afternoon, Jagmeet Singh, gave a very convincing speech. He said, I know you're worried. But at the same time, what kind of a hand is he playing with at this point? I mean, he says he's looking for concessions, there's more things he wants. Do you think that he is really in a position to make those demands?

JI: I don't think. I mean, if you're going to cause an election over the fact that people who were on the CERB are now getting 400 dollars a week instead of 500 dollars a week, it does not seem that you've got much of a case there. I think that for the NDP, the big risk is that the Liberal Party are offering just about everything that the NDP could offer. I mean, it brings forward the question, what is the point of the NDP when the Liberal Party is moving into terrain that it's traditionally occupied? So I think it would be very rash of Jagmeet Singh to bring the government down on something so specious.

CO: John we'll leave it there. Thanks.

JI: Thanks a lot.

CH: John Ivison is a columnist for The National Post and the Ottawa bureau chief Postmedia. He is in Chelsea, Quebec.

[Music]

Lauren Holtzblatt

CH: It was a short and modest ceremony, much like the woman herself. Today, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was honoured in Washington with a ceremony at the U.S. Supreme Court where she served for nearly three decades. Hundreds of people gathered outside the court to mourn the trailblazing lawyer and feminist and inside family and friends sat masked as just two people spoke. Her colleague, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who called her a rockstar, and Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt, whose husband served as a law clerk for Justice Ginsburg.

LAUREN HOLTZBLATT: To be born into a world that does not see you, that does not believe in your potential, that does not give you a path for opportunity, or a clear path for education. And despite this, to be able to see beyond the world you are in, to imagine that something can be different, that is the job of a prophet. And it is the rare prophet who not only imagines a new world, but also makes that new world a reality in her lifetime. This was the brilliance and vision of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As Justice Ginsburg said, and I quote "Think back to 1787. Who were we the people? They certainly weren't women. They surely weren't people held in human bondage. The genius of our Constitution is that now over more than 200, sometimes turbulent years that we has expanded and expanded." This was Justice Ginsburg's life's work to insist that the Constitution deliver on its promise, that we the people, would include all the people. She carried out that work in every chapter of her life. As an advocate, arguing six times before this court for equal treatment for women and men. As a judge on the D.C. circuit and as a justice on this court. And as a path-marking role model to women and girls of all ages who now know that no office is out of reach for their dreams. Nothing could stop Justice Ginsburg's unflagging devotion to this project. Not even cancer. Justice Ginsburg, midor ledor -- from generation to generation -- we promise to carry forward your legacy. May you rest under the wings of the [inaudible], knowing that you have tirelessly served us and this great country, the United States of America.

CH: That was Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt speaking at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ceremony this morning. Justice Ginsburg will lie in repose at the U.S. Supreme Court for two days.

[Music]

EU migration pact

Guest: Roberta Metsola

CH: Today, the European Union unveiled a long awaited pact on migration. And for the thousands of refugee claimants waiting on the Greek island of Lesbos and elsewhere, it could not come soon enough. But critics are questioning the plan's approach, which lets EU members choose between admitting refugees and sponsoring their deportations if their claims fail. Speaking to reporters today, European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson said that choice is a fundamental part of the new pact.

YLVA JOHANSSON: There is no mechanism saying that you have to do, especially relocation. You can always choose a return sponsorship instead if you want. And that is because we need both relocation and return sponsorship. And that's a sure thing that we would also have that both of those. So we have a corrective mechanism, but that's what a total for relocation and return sponsorship together. There are rumors that at the end of the day a possibility where you have to take relocation instead of return sponsorship. But that's not the case. It's not in our proposal.

CH: European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson speaking in Brussels today. Roberta Metsola is a Maltese member of European Parliament and of the European Parliament Intergroup on Children's Rights. We reached her in Brussels.

CO: Ms. Metsola, the migration pact unveiled today in Europe, does it satisfy you?

ROBERTA METSOLA: Well, of course, it's the beginning of a very, very long and arduous path of negotiations that we are looking towards for the next few months -- hopefully just a few months. It has a very good solid basis. It is based on a tour-de-capital, as we call it, which means that the commissioner is responsible after all member state capitals and have tabled what they believe is something that although not perfect and that everybody will dislike in their own words, will lead to some sort of compromise.

CO: And what's your response to Ms. Johansson's explanation of the new pact that countries will actually be able to choose between helping to settle refugees or to deport them?

RM: Well, I can see where the commissioner is coming from. And that is a situation where forced or mandatory relocation has failed to date. And therefore, what she has had to propose is a solution which brings all member states on the table, so to speak, with an obligation that they are willing to live up to. We have a massive problem in the European Union where you have a lot of people whose asylum decisions, applications have been rejected. And yet there have been no mechanisms or no resources for them to be returned. Hopefully this proposal, bundled with relocation will start starts to shake those numbers down.

CO: A lot of people are scratching their heads trying to figure out how it is that the return of refugees, shipping them back to their countries, is a viable or acceptable alternative to accepting refugees. I mean, that seems like this is not really the decision that we were told what to expect from the European Union today.

RM: That is not correct, because the returns would not be of refugees, but they would be of failed asylum seekers. And there is a distinction. So once you qualify for protection, then, of course, you cannot be returned. But if you come from a country which is considered safe and if your asylum application has been rejected there we need to make a distinction because otherwise we will not be able to have a credible and holistic migration policy whereby if you are eligible for protection, you're given that protection. But if you are not, you will not be.

CO: But deporting people back even to a safe third country, how is that an alternative to accepting people? I don't understand, why shouldn't countries be responsible to do both, to find a safe place for people who have been rejected and to accept people who have been deemed to be credible refugees?

RM: Of course, one of the things that we have not yet mentioned here is that the fact that member states remain responsible for their own labour market. So one of the proposals on the table is specifically targeted to attracting labourers that will fill your market gaps even if under what we've just been saying, you would be otherwise been rejected for asylum.

CO: I don't think we're really getting an answer here Ms. Metsola. I'm asking you is why is this an alternative to accepting responsibility by these member countries to take in refugees, and when you switch to foreign workers programs -- we're talking about, a lot of these asylum seekers are women and children -- so how is that an acceptable alternative to accepting refugees that they should deport people? It's still not exactly clear to me.

RM: First of all, it is not rejecting refugees. If a person is eligible for a refugee status, then all member states are obliged to grant that person refugee status.

CO: Sorry. Where in the agreement does it say that all member states are obliged to accept those refugees who have been deemed credible refugees? Where do we see that?

RM: It is part and parcel with being an EU member state.

CO: But it's not in this agreement, though, is it? It's not in this agreement.

RM: It's a 50 year old Geneva Convention.

CO: Okay. But that was already in existence before this. And so those countries were refusing that obligation for the past five years as we've had this refugee crisis. What is in this is going to make them any more obliged to honour their commitment to the Geneva Convention?

RM: Well, what they were, let's say, not implementing and that is what the commission proposed today is the acceptance of asylum seekers from member states to another. And why those member states at the frontline are dealing with the influx and not finding any help from those member states that are not taking anybody. These are the processes we are trying to address today.

CO: The proof is in the pudding. You have 13,000 people in Lesbos. You have 13,000 people in Lesbos who are desperate, who are living in hell. It's like a prison. Will anything in this agreement change the status for those people in Lesbos. Will they actually be settled, the ones who are acceptable? Will they be settled?

RM: Well, we have seen quite a number of ad hoc bilateral agreements whereby the original numbers in Lesbos and I agree with you, that is a very terrible situation. It was terrible before the fires broke out, let alone now. The numbers have already been decreased by 10,000. So you have a number of member states that have taken them in. Unaccompanied minors have -- at last there was an agreement for them to be relocated across the member states. Now, what this package of proposed is come forward and as I started, this still has to be negotiated, there will still be a lot of resistance, but hopefully we can start to come to some sort of solution. The argument is that that's what we are going to try with this package to address, so that those people can finally be relocated to other member states. Things that have not been happening today. And that is this argument of community sponsorship in order to try to put member states in a situation where they are obliged to take people in.

CO: How do oblige them? What's to stop these member states from refusing to take the asylum seekers as they did before, from refusing again? What is to stop them in this agreement?

RM: The laws apply, right.

CO: Well they've been ignoring those laws for five years. So where are the enforcement of the laws that they have been ignoring for the past five years?

RM: Well the commission has powers to take these member states to court. It has taken a number of member states to court. Those member states lost their cases before courts and there are sanctions that's comfortable. So there are enforcement possibilities. Now will you tell me, can you put police men on the ground? The European Union has limited powers there. You expect, however, member states to live up to their political commitments.

CO: Can I just get one last yes or no kind of answer? And can they meet that obligation? Can they meet that obligation by helping to deport people rather than take people in? Is that how they're going to be able to meet their obligation?

RM: Well, we'll have to negotiate and we'll have to see.

CO: But that seems to be the case, right? That seems to be the case?

RM: I cannot tell you. I'm still going to start to negotiate this fact .that is something that the member states will need to answer for, and so do we as politicians once we have the final agreement.

CO: Ms. Metsola, we'll leave it there. Thank you.

RM: Thank you.

CH: Roberta Metsola is a member of European Parliament for Malta. We reached her in Brussels.

[Music]

Wanda Good

CH: A residential school in British Columbia closed its doors in 1986. And tomorrow, the building itself will be destroyed. For nearly 50 years, Indigenous children in Gitanyow attended the kid Kitwancool Indian Day school near Kitwanga, which is around 14 hours north of Vancouver. Wanda Good was one of them. She witnessed many instances of abuse at the school. Now she is the manager of the Indian Residential School Program in Gitanyow, providing mental health and emotional support to former students and their families. Wanda Good was on Daybreak North today to talk about what this moment means.

WANDA GOOD: I'm having a few mixed emotions leading up to the demolition. Having lots of memories, mostly bad memories, but a few good memories also of the school there and the experience. I started school there at four years old. I didn't speak English. I went there, had no idea what the teachers were saying to me. It was kind of really alien and then very quickly learned that school was not a happy place. The teachers seemed very angry and definitely now and looking back at it, it wasn't really an education.

CAROLINA DE RYK: The Kitwancool Indian Day school was officially closed in 1986, but it's been in use since then. What was it in use for?

WANDA GOOD: The school was taken over by the Gitanyow Band. It became the Band office. And then after the Band office moved to another location, then they started to utilize it as the local gas bar. And it's been the local gas for a few years now. It was a building initially of lots of challenges for former students that were there. It had been in place as a school for about 50 years. And it's time now to let those memories go and to create a better space within the community. The way that I had dealt with it was just to put it in the past and not really think about what really went down there. It's actually become a place of enjoyment for the communities. The building now has become in disrepair, is quite old. So the plans are to build a new gas bar there. The memories of the school, I think, have just been set aside and the building has been used for something better.

CH: That was Wanda Good speaking with CBC host Carolina de Ryk today. Ms. Good is the manager of the Indian Residential School Program in Gitanyow, and a former student of the Kitwancool Day School. The school we demolished tomorrow.

[Music]

Part 3: Human vaccine trial

Human vaccine trial

Guest: Alastair Fraser-Urquhart

CH: 18 year old Alastair Fraser-Urquhart is hoping that he'll have the opportunity to contract COVID-19. And he may get his wish soon. Today, the Financial Times reported that the world's first COVID-19 human challenge trial will take place in the UK as early as January. The controversial trial will intentionally infect volunteers with the virus in the hopes that it will speed up the development of a vaccine. Alastair Fraser-Urquhart is an organizer with the worldwide campaign 1Day Sooner, which is advocating for human challenge trials. We've reached him in Staffordshire, England.

CO: Alastair why you want to be deliberately infected with COVID-19?

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: So I'm volunteering to be included in a challenge trial. A challenge trial is a trial which differs from a regular clinical trial of a vaccine. And after having the vaccine, instead of being sent to kind of live my daily life and kind of with thousands of other people in the hopes that some of them will catch coronavirus just in their daily life, I'll be then deliberately exposed to it in the hope that they'll be able to test whether or not I will become infected.

CO: And are you worried about that?

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: It's definitely something which carries risks obviously. The risks of being infected with coronavirus, even for young, healthy people, while it's kind of not as deadly, it could have serious long term consequences. But for me, the benefits are that such a trial could vastly outweigh the risks.

CO: You're 18 years old.

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: Yeah, I'm 18. That's right.

CO: Do you know for sure that you will be part of the trial?

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: I don't know that for sure. I'm avoiding things that could exclude me. And obviously, the second that I can volunteer for a trial, I will do.

CO: But they say that challenge trials are controversial, that this is something that doctors say are risky, maybe too risky for reasons that we don't know. There's so many unknowns when you enter into a trial like this.

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: Yeah. But while there are loads of unknowns about a challenge trial like this, it's also fair to say that without running challenge trials, we expose other people to those risks, just those people who know that it will be in vain. You know, no one will have any scientific data from those people getting ill and they might be older or disabilities and far more likely to get much more seriously ill or to even die than just me becoming infected in a challenge trial.

CO: You know that the testing and the trials for a vaccine for COVID-19 have accelerated at a rate that people in the profession say they've never seen testing and trials move so quickly, that things are happening simultaneously. Normally this can take years. And for what's now been taking months. Do you think that a challenge trial like this could accelerate that even further?

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: Yes, though we've missed the opportunity in the timeframe to accelerate vaccine development even further. But what we think challenge trials can do is much more quickly narrow down the 160-plus other vaccine candidates in development. And it would be to me an absolute tragedy if we had, you know, something, say, which didn't need a booster shot or something, which you need to make far less in the Oxford vaccine or something that was easier to distribute or give to people. It would just be a tragedy if by running challenge trials, we could have vaccinated far more people than we did but we find that out too late, that we had a fantastic vaccine candidate on our hands that we could have run a challenge trial for but simply didn't.

CO: You put a lot of responsibility on yourself. What goes through your mind when you think of entering into something like this, which could be life threatening?

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: It's true, it's a big responsibility. But it just comes from my family. It's not for me to prioritize my life over thousands of others. And people are perfectly free to not even to go nowhere near a challenge trial to oppose challenge trials. But that's not personally my opinion. And that's why I've signed up. You know, along with everyone else seen just what this virus has done to the world. And I'm just so keen to do anything I can.

CO: What do your mom and dad think of this?

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: My dad was kind of really supportive. My dad has kind of the same opinion as me on that this is the kind of just such a good, robust, common sense idea. He's obviously worried about the risks, but they are minimal. My family thinks much the same thing.

CO: What does your mum think?

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: She's kind of much the same thing. She's definitely proud that I'm getting involved. We both sometimes wonder how I know from really not doing much at all in in June, have suddenly ended up being on stuff like Canadian radio and that kind of thing. You know, it's this ridiculous thing which has suddenly happened. But in terms of just the trial itself, she's just perfectly fine with it. She thinks it's a sensible, rational decision.

CO: They must be worried.

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: Yeah. I've got no doubt that they're somewhat worried. And I have no doubt that, if I get through screening and that kind of stuff, you know, it actually becomes real tomorrow morning, I'm going to be exposed to coronavirus, I'm sure that things will be a little more serious. There might be some serious conversations to have. I don't think I'm going to change my mind. I know my family well enough to know that they won't stop me. Though I will not pretend, you know, I don't think the night before, I don't think any of us will be getting much sleep that night. But that's just something I'm willing to do.

CO: It's a huge sacrifice you're willing to make Alastair. And I wish you well. I wish you health throughout it if you are chosen for the trial. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thanks.

ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART: Brilliant. Thanks for your time.

CH: Alastair Fraser-Urquhart is a volunteer with 1Day Sooner, which is also advocating for human challenge trials in Canada. We reached Mr. Fraser-Urquhart in Staffordshire, England.

[Music]

Saddle

CH: The cookhouse and dance hall called Ranchman's was a fixture in Calgary for decades. It was well-known for its line dancing, its mechanical bull, and for the unique saddles decorating its interior. Most of those saddles were loaned to Ranchman’s by local families, often to pay for food or bar tabs. But over the weekend, Ranchman's had to close its doors and the bank seized much of the decor, including the saddles. The tradition of the saddles were started by world champion calf roper and cowboy Jim Gladstone. His saddle was one of the ones taken by the bank. Zakary Gladstone is Jim's son, and he spoke to the Calgary Eyeopener this morning.

ZAKARY GLADSTONR: Basically, my dad, I think it was a year or two after 1977, after he won the world. He walked into Ranchman's and he brought his world champion saddle and he said, I want to have no line, no cover, VIP events, food tab and like a bar tab every day. We'll just take that as payment for display. And he's like, I want to be able to take it out whenever I need to. That was the deal. We all agreed that the saddles are going to be given to me and that I was going to take over for my dad at the ranch in there.

DAVID GRAY: So do you know why the bank seized everything? And what did you do when you realized the bank has got you dad saddle?

ZAKARY GLADSTONR: I get a call that Ranchman's has gone in the receivership. Now, when Bank of Montreal took over, they said everything inside is seized and like, we're not giving it back, these are all assets of the bar and we're going to keep them. But nothing in there, that was a trophy belonged to the bar. They were all from other people.

DAVID GRAY: Tell me why this saddle is so important to your family and your community.

ZAKARY GLADSTONR: My dad grew up on the Blood Reserves down in southern Alberta in the 40s right. Growing up on the Blood Reserve in the 40s was a very tough thing to do. You know, Native people weren't recognized as equal, right. So, you know, it was very hard. But my dad, he wanted to be a champion, right? He had been roping since the time he was a young boy, like 9 or 10 years old, calf roping. They always had an arena at home. And, you know, when my dad went down and start doing pro rodeo, he was the only First Nations first doing that at the time. And he paved the way for other First Nations cowboys to go out and do things that they want to do and do things that they love to do. These First Nation people now go to the national finals where only my dad was in the 70s. There was nobody else. Even from Canada there was nobody else. All you see is my dad's name, Alberta, Canada and everybody else around him in calf roping was either from Oklahoma or Texas. So really my dad winning the national title being the only Canadian to win the calf roping national title, and he was the only First Nation person to ever win the calf roping national title.

CH: Zakary Gladstone is trying to get his father's saddle back after the closing of Ranchman's Cookhouse and Dancehall in Calgary. He spoke with David Gray on the Calgary Eyeopener today.

[Music]

Seattle police defunding

Guest: Kshama Sawant

CH: Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan just can't seem to catch a break. On the one hand, she's facing the rumored threat of federal charges over a police free protest zone established in Seattle after George Floyd's killing. On the other, she's dealing with growing opposition from her own city council members who say she's not doing enough to reform policing. Yesterday, seven council members voted to override Mayor Durkan's attempts to veto three of their police reform bills. Kshama Sawant was among them. We reached her in Seattle.

CO: Ms. Sawant what will these bills actually change in the way that Seattle is policed?

KSHAMA SAWANT: These bills were the budget for the rest of this year, 2020, and by overriding the mayor's veto yesterday what the council has done is upheld the budget vote in August, which ensures at least the beginning of reductions for the police budget. It's not a de-funding by any means and certainly not anything close to 50 percent. But it does mean three million or so dollars that our movement was able to win away from the police department for community programs. And perhaps one of the most remarkable achievements of our movement to this budget vote has been the stopping of the ineffective and inhumane sweeps of our homeless neighbours. And, of course, we to make sure it's enforced.

CO: So the cuts, people wanted the cuts to be 50 percent of the police budget. And it's less than that, right?

KS: Always much less than that. It's actually less than one percent, actually.

CO: Okay. Now, you mentioned about what's called navigation team. And the mayor is defending that. She says because you've cut, that was something that was needed to help homeless people get out of encampments this year. So what exactly happens without that navigation team budget?

KS: Well, Mayor Durkan, who is a corporate mayor, she's really the mayor for big business, not for the ordinary working people in Seattle has continually engaged in this [inaudible] the navigation team as something that does something good for our homeless neighbours. But in reality, the navigation team itself is a blatant euphemism for what's actually happening on the ground, which is the inhumane and completely ineffective sweeps of our homeless neighbours, meaning there's been no real funding for affordable housing, for actually addressing the fundamental...what's at the root of the homelessness crisis. There's been very little funding for homeless services. And the mayor has pushed back against every attempt that the council has, and especially my office as a socialist has been pushing for. And then poses the navigation team as something that is beneficial to homeless neighbours. But I've not met a single homeless person who said, well, I was swept from where I was situated and that helped me get housing. In fact, all of the navigation team ends up doing is carrying out sweeps of homeless neighbours from one point to another. That doesn't help. And that's why it's so critical that we won the Amazon tax victory earlier this year.

CO: Okay, we have been watching developments in Seattle for some months now since the killing of George Floyd. The street demonstrations, the police free protest zone that was established in Seattle with tremendous opposition from police in that regard. What are those people, what is it that they want? What have they told you?

KS: Right. So, you know, while not suggesting that those Seattle working class is some sort of monolith with a homogeneous opinion, what I would say is the vast majority of Seattleites agree that police violence is completely out of bounds and that police accountability is virtually not present. And that's been attested to by the fact that tens of thousands of Seattle working people, young people, multiracial working class people have been out on the streets as part of the Justice for George Floyd protest. And just to give you an example of why people are so angry, just in the first 12 days of Justice for George Floyd protest in Seattle, the Seattle Police Department under Mayor Durkan's direction, who is a Democratic mayor, ended up spending 6.3-million dollars of public revenues for overtime in policing the protest. And what were they doing when they were policing? They used tear gas, they shot rubber bullets, they used flash bang grenades. They used all kinds of other weapons. And it was based on that community outrage throughout the city that my office and our BLM movement was able to win a ban on all chemical weapons used by the police department -- in fact, to our knowledge, is the first such ban in any city in the United States.

CO: I just want to ask you about Mayor Durkan, because she's also under pressure from the other side, because the U.S. attorney general's office has been reported to be exploring the possibility of federal charges against her for, they say, allowing the establishment of that police free protest zone in your city. So at some point, do you think you need to give some defense to Mayor Durkan?

KS: What we need to defend, absolutely, and be united in this is the millions of protesters around the country who went out on the streets demanding justice for George Floyd, demanding an end to police violence and excessive police spending and really demanding accountability. And in fact, we have to take seriously Trump administration's attempt to file sedition charges against peaceful protesters. That's completely unacceptable and it's really alarming the extent to which the right-wing has gone. We just heard Attorney General Barr declare Seattle, Portland, New York City as America's jurisdiction, which is completely absurd. And I'll say that while a corporate Democratic mayor like Durkan is, of course, different from the right-wing and the Trump administration, what they end up doing is taking advantage of how extreme the right-wing are and using that as an excuse to not actually do what it is that Seattle's working people are demanding. So at the same time that we have to push back against Trump, we also have to call out and expose the rottenness of the Democratic-led city councils and mayoral offices who have overseen massive police violence and really demanded the police are actually accountable to ordinary people, not to big business.

CO: I know that you yourself are facing some pushback, including a recently certified recall effort by some voters in your district. How worried are you about your own position in city hall?

KS: The recall campaign against my Socialist Council office is very nakedly from big business, the right-wing, against our office. And they're doing that precisely because my office and the movement we've built have won victory after victory. Whether it's 15 dollars an hour that we won in 2014 or the tax Amazon victory that we just won this year and the many landmark renters rights victory that we have won. What we have shown that it is possible to be fully accountable to working people. But it is completely unacceptable to big business and the billionaire class. So this shows that this is an attack not just on me and my office. It's an attack on the entire working class of Seattle. It's a call to action for working class people to unite together, not personalize this. I'm very confident that if we are able to build that kind of movement we can win.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Sawant thank you.

KS: Thank you so much Carol.

CH: Kshama Sawant is a socialist city council member in Seattle. That's where we reached her.

[Music]

I approve this ad?

CH: Creativity in politics comes with a certain amount of risk. Sure, you want to capture the imagination of voters, but typically you'd avoid, say, comparing the candidate to a notoriously ruthless barbarian best known for the pleasure he took in inflicting pain and inspiring terror on campaigns of destruction driven entirely by greed. And yet from U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler's campaign, we just got this.

VOICE 1: Did you know Kelly Loeffler is ranked the most conservative senator in America?

VOICE 2: Yep. She's more conservative than Attila the Hun.

VOICE 3: Fight China. Got it. [Person grunting in background]

VOICE 3: Attack big government. Yeah.

VOICE 3: Eliminate the liberal scribes.

VOICE 2: More conservative than Attila the Hun. Uh oh. Kelly Loeffler, 100 percent Trump voting record.

KELLY LOEFFLER: I'm Kelly Loeffler, I approve this message.

CH: That grunting was meant to be Attila speaking to his soon to be eliminated liberal scribe. Hard to know what to say about this bold choice of a role model who, as far as I can tell, cared little for traditional conservative values or democracy. Although Attila the Hun did have a catchy slogan: 'There, where I have passed, the grass will never grow again.' He also murdered his brother to consolidate power, which shows initiative and outside the box thinking. However, his nickname, Scourge of God, seems a bit off brand. But hey, if she can make it work, more power to her. I approve this ad.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 23, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode