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

The AIH Transcript for March 22, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: An attack in the shadow of Big Ben. I'll speak with a witness to today's violence near the British parliament, in which someone drove into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, and was shot after stabbing a police officer.

JD: A car and a knife. Those two simple things were apparently the assailant’s only weapons today. We're going to ask a former security official if it's time to issue guns to British police.

CO: Putting down his guitar pick and his presidential pick. Our guests strummed up support by playing outside dozens of Donald Trump's campaign rallies. But after seeing the president's health care plan, he's singing a different tune.

JD: Background to the foreground. When a journalist loses his legal fight to keep the material he had gathered for a story to himself, he says the Canadian media stands to lose the cooperation of sources.

CO A lot of buzz in Ottawa. Or, at least, a lot of buzz words. Seems like there is a surplus of jargon in the new Liberal budget, so we'll try to get some definitive answers on what it actually means.

JD: And… a few problems here and there. And according to new research, that is because we are letting our GPS units do the work for us, which means the parts of our brains in charge of navigation are going nowhere fast. As It Happens the Wednesday edition, radio it's not sure which way to turn.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: UK parliament attack, budget: Liberal

UK parliament attack

Guests: Quentin Letts, Brian Dillon

JD: At least four people are dead, at least 20 injured, after an attack outside the British parliament buildings in London today. Among the dead are a police officer and a man believed to be the attacker. Police say they are treating the attack as a terrorist attack. At around 3:00 p.m. local time, witnesses on London's Westminster Bridge saw a car plow into pedestrians. These two women told a British TV station ITV what they saw.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER ONE: We heard gunshots, what we thought was gunshots, turned around and saw the car had plowed into a lady. I think it was a lady, I'm not 100 per cent sure, but underneath the wheel and could hear screams. And then we heard gunshots again and looked along the bridge because we were only crawling along the bridge. There were bodies literally...

SEPAKER TWO: Must have been like ten bodies.

SPEAKER ONE: At least, ten or twelve bodies.

REPORTER: That must have been terrifying.

SPEAKER ONE: it was horrendous, absolutely horrendous. There were girls that came from Mexico on the bus and they were traumatized. They were only young girls.

JD: Those are two witnesses of today's attack in the London speaking to Britain's ITV. After crossing the bridge, witnesses say the car crashed and the driver got out of the vehicle brandishing a knife. Quentin Letts saw what happened next. Mr. Letts writes for The Daily Mail in London. His office window overlooks the scene of the attack. We reached him there earlier today.

CO: Quentin, I know you have a good view of the area from your window. When did you first realize something was going on?

OUENTIN LETTS: We first realized that something was awry when we had a banging, which sounded like a car crash. And I and my colleagues in this room, which overlooks the area just underneath Big Ben, we looked out of the window and we saw members of the public running in panic. And that was an indication that things were not right. And then we saw a thickset man, aged about 40-50, holding something in his hand and wearing dark clothes run through the gates and started attacking one of the policemen on the gate. This is a gateway where MPs drive into the parliamentary estate to go and park their cars in the underground car park. And he struck the policeman about four or five times I'd say. And then he ran — this attacker ran — towards the entrance, which is used by MPs to go into the House of Commons. And he was challenged by two plainclothes, armed officers who shouted a warning at him. He ignored that and they shot him about three times.

CO: And you could see all of this clearly?

QL: I could see all this. It was very bizarre to be watching this in real time and to be separated from it only by a pane of window glass. And yet to know that what was happening there was blood and guts.

CO: The bang was this car crashing into the gate. Was the person you saw running was it an association between that car and that figure?

QL: Well, I couldn't immediately see what had happened with the car because the car has pranged into some railings at the side of parliament not at the gate. So maybe the attackers thought it was a gate or maybe the car just went off course and crashed into the side railings. And then this man, I don't know if he was a passenger in the car, but the attacker then emerged and I saw him on the pavement running and he came through the gates.

CO: Did he approach the policeman or was or was the policeman with the yellow jacket running toward him?

QL: There were two in yellow jackets and they challenged this guy. They tried to stop him. And then of one of the yellow jacketed policemen detached himself and got away from him. But the other, I'm afraid, couldn't get away from him and was attacked while he was doing his job just trying to say to this man no you can't come in here.

CO: And did you see him attack the policeman?

QL: I did. Well, he was certainly doing something to the policeman. But the policeman had fallen over on the ground. It’s sort of a cobbled ground and maybe he lost his footing. And he was hidden partly by a crash barrier.

CO: And what could you see the man doing to the police man?

QL: Well, I saw his arm pumping and it was plain that he was pushing his hand to and from this policeman's body.

CO: The other policeman that was his companion, what did he do?

QL: He ran off to summon help and the help was almost instant. These two plainclothes men wearing dark suits came out, pointed guns at the attacker and then dealt with them.

CO: They shot him?

QL: They shot him. I heard about two or three shots. I was a little bit confused, but it was about that.

CO: Could you see the man at that point?

QL: I could and he fell instantly.

CO: So you saw that man being shot dead?

QL: Well, we don't know if he's dead, but I certainly hope he is. You can’t have people doing this sort of thing. It’s disgraceful.

CO: And back to the scene at the car. What was going on there?

QL: The scene of the car is out of my view. So I was not able to see that. But one's hearing reports that one woman has been killed and that another is in a very bad way. And they appear to be victims. They appear to be pedestrians who were mown down.

CO: Is your sense that this man was alone?

QL: It was from what I saw. But I don't know what's been going on at the scene of the car. We've been told we can't move out of the building here at the moment. And, in fact, I was told we were all told to move away from the windows, but we ignored that — we're journalists.

CO: What else can you still see at the scene?

QL: The scene is now completely quiet really. I mean there are a lot of blue flashing lights around, but it's a beautiful evening. There's a fountain playing, there's a helicopter in the sky, that's London 2017.

CO: We can't help but think of what happened in 2005 in London with the attack when so many people were killed and hundreds injured. Is that very much in people's minds today as they watch what's happening there?

QL: I can't say what will be on people's minds, but I would urge them two things: I don't think this is as large scale an atrocity. And the second thing I'd say is one can overhype the sense of panic. You know there are maniacs around and they attack us. We have to try and continue defending ourselves and to lead some sort of life. We have to let our parliaments be open. This is the whole point of politics is that people have access to their parliament. And once you stop that, then you lose something of the very values that these people seem so very much to dislike.

CO: You don't know anything, at this point in the day, anything about the man, his motivations, who he was or why he did this?

QL: We don’t know, but it is being at the moment treated as a terrorist attack. So maybe I'm jumping to too many conclusions here, but if we do jump to conclusions my goodness, you can't blame us.

CO: We will leave it there. Quentin, thank you.

QL: Thanks bye.

JD: Quentin Letts is a writer for The Daily Mail and an eyewitness to today's attack in London and that is where we reached him. As the attack was happening, word reached the House of Commons that it was happening just outside. MPs and their staff were put on lockdown and prevented from leaving the building. Here's how deputy speaker Lindsay Hoyle informed the house.

SOUNDCLIP

LINDSAY HOYLE: Order! I am now going to suspend this sitting in the House. This House is now suspended, but please wait here. The moment I get information I will share it with everybody. I'm waiting for more information to come through. We can’t go anywhere for the moment, so please just let's see what we can do.

JD: That was deputy speaker of the British House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle earlier today, informing the House that an attack was underway immediately outside. No one in the Palace of Westminster was hurt in the attack. The violence in London today came to an end when the attacker was shot and killed by police. British police of course are famous for being largely unarmed. But those officers who do carry a gun are highly trained for days like today. Brian Dillon should know. He used to be their boss. Mr. Dillon is a crisis management consultant and was formerly the head of Scotland Yard's Specialist Firearms Command. We reached Mr. Dillon in London.

CO: Mr. Dillon, how did you react when you heard the news about the attack on parliament?

BRIAN DILLON: Well, like everybody, I was shocked to hear what was unfolding at parliament this afternoon. I was sad, concerned, but unfortunately not overly surprised because some years now we've been living with the severe threat of terrorism. And it's been expected I'm afraid to say.

CO: From the witnesses with whom we have spoken and we have heard from others that this is an area where this altercation between the police and the assailant happened in a place that is should be very secure. When you talk about the parliament and in the shadow of Big Ben probably one of the most secure places in your country. How is it that this man could get in there?

BD: Well, I haven't heard reports of somebody actually getting in.

CO: He got fairly close. He got into the square, which was apparently not a public place.

BD: Yes that a vehicle was used to as a weapon to attack pedestrians and occupants of the vehicle got out and attacked the police that were there. So clearly in any urban environment where there are vehicles and it is always going to be a prospect that somebody will use a vehicle as a weapon of attack. And no matter how many gates and guards and guns we have, there's always going to be a human element to it. And as we've seen today, somebody in our incredible police service has paid the ultimate price.

CO: And the question that well hearing from media in other countries, especially from the United States. Is that it appears that those policemen are not armed, is that correct?

BD: Well, London predominantly has an unarmed police service. But that doesn't mean that there aren't firearms officers. And that's the role I used to have with leading the firearms teams in London. So we're proud of our unarmed policing. The overwhelming majority of calls officers deal with on a daily basis don't merit an officer being armed with a firearm. What we have done in this country for a long time is invest in firearms training in officers to a very high standard. So few are selected, but they're trained to a very high standard. So yes most policing is delivered by unarmed officers, but in central London, parliament as a case in point today, there are always armed officers available to respond.

CO: Is it likely that there will be questions in the United Kingdom about that. Because I know it comes up often about how your police are the responders who are unarmed and they pride themselves in that — your country does. But is it likely now that there will be a discussion about whether that should continue to be the case after what's happened?

BD: Well, it may certainly get some focus because of this incident and the media being interested in it. But I think the way the point is that security in this country is never taken lightly or for granted. And the measures that the police and the wider security forces put in place to protect themselves and more crucially the public is always under constant review. So arming police officers is something that does crop up from time to time or perhaps more relevantly where we put armed officers. What type of policing style is put on the streets is something that is a regular source of debate. But you know in the heat of something like this happening I wouldn't suggest that the time to have a more root and branch review of all do we need to now train everybody to be a firearms officer. I don’t think that’s the appropriate time to have that sort of debate.

CO: I know you’re saying it's early to have these conversations. It was a conversation that was had with great passion here in Canada in 2014 — October 2014 — when there was an attack on parliament in Canada in Ottawa. And police who were armed and those who weren't armed. And it became then an issue that we needed to have more firepower and more armor for our police in parliament. That's why I think a lot of Canadians would be wondering if you're going to be looking in that direction yourselves?

BD: Well yes, I can understand that. And I remember that dreadful attack on your parliament and like many people over here, was shocked and appalled at what I saw and the courageous acts of those parliamentarians and your security police forces who responded. But I think in this country because of the specter of terrorism hanging over us for quite some time, I think we had a slightly different approach in relation to protection of parliament and making it more making the more fortress like in some ways because of our experience. And so I think we might have a slightly different debate here, but I think you're right to identify the similarities and I'm sure that that will be something that looked at.

CO: Mr. Dillon, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

BD: You're welcome. Thank you very much.

CO: Good night.

BD: Good night.

JD: Brian Dillon is a crisis management consultant and former head of Scotland Yard's Specialist Firearms Command. We reached Mr. Dylan in London.

[Music: Ambient]

Budget: Liberal

Guest: Ginette Petitpas Taylor

JD: It is budget day. And this afternoon, the Liberal government delivered a cautious, stay-the-course type of federal budget. Unlike last year, there was little in the way of big, bold cash injections, or delivering on campaign promises. It does lay out some specifics as to how previously announced money will be spent on child care, social housing and job training. But there is a pretty big deficit to deal with. Forecast at twenty eight point five billion dollar deficit. And some will not be happy with the removal of a public transit tax credit and increased taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Ginette Petitpas Taylor is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. We reached her in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Petitpas Taylor, this budget is called “Building a Strong Middle Class”. And so what is new in this budget? We saw much of this last year.

GINETTE PETITPAS TAYLOR: Well really, our budget is really a plan to move forward in budget 2017. Last year in our budget, we really gave a general overview of what our plan was going to be. And for this year, we're really focusing on the details of those plans. And we're really proud with respect to the work that has been done. And once again, our priorities continue as a government that we want to invest in middle class Canadians and we want to make sure that we strengthen the economy.

CO: OK, I didn't get to answer the question. what is new in this budget?

GPT: Well actually, there's a lot of new initiatives that we've brought forward in the budget. We are looking at making some significant investments. Some detailed investments that we've indicated in the budget with respect to investments when it comes to social infrastructure. We've made it very clear that we want to invest 11 billion dollars in social infrastructure and with that investment. Truly an historic investment in that sector…

CO: Over 11 years right?

GPT: Yes. And it's certainly going to allow us to renew some agreements with provinces and territories. It is going to allow new bills for Canadians that are in desperate need of affordable housing. And also it will allow provinces and territories to do the refurbishments it needs to be done and also focus on some new building. So we are very, very pleased with respect to that initiative and pleased that we're moving forward with that. The other important component as well of the social infrastructure envelope is the issue of early learning and childcare. We have again made an announcement today that we will be investing seven billion dollars in that area. And again it will allow provinces and territories to create some more affordable child care spaces.

CO: OK, it’s over ten years right?

GPT: Yes. But again, that's a significant investment and we are going to be able to see really probably the creation of over 40,000 child spaces within the country. And we are very much in need of the spaces.

CO: How much of what you went through in these days putting a budget together — you and the team. How much of it is a reflection on what is happening south of the border? How often did Mr. Trump or the Trump administration come up in your discussions about how to put this budget together?

GPT: Well to be very frank, we’ve been keeping an eye on the global economic uncertainties that are going on all over the world not just the U.S. But we certainly are keeping an eye on what's going on there as well. But our priority in budget 2017 is really focusing on economic growth and investing in middle class Canadians. And the priorities that we've laid out in this budget really reflects those initiatives.

CO: You say you're doing these investments in the middle class, but you're not finding any new sources of revenue. So how are you going to pay for this? Because we're now looking at the Liberals when they campaigned they promised that there would be nothing more than 10 billion dollar deficits and that was already we’ll swallow it. Now it's 28.5 billion in this budget. So what does that say to young people who are going to be the ones saddled with this?

GPT: Well actually, I think we have to define where that deficit comes from. When we look at the issue of the deficit, we inherited a sluggish economy from the previous government. There was slow economic growth, so half of the deficit actually comes from the lagging economy. The other 50 per cent of that budget comes from investments that we have made in infrastructure and in the Canada Child Benefit program. And we're very proud of both of those investments because we are investing in our future. We can see the job numbers are out a few weeks ago and our plan is really moving in the right direction. We've created over 250,000 new jobs in Canada and we've seen the unemployment rate go down from 7.1 per cent when we took office to 6.6 per cent.

CO: Where are you getting new sources of revenue though in the course of this? We're looking at deficits that are going to continue in this direction till 18 billion dollars in that deficit. And we're looking at some are saying decades more of deficits. You’re not going to have a balanced budget for years to come. So who's going to pay for that?

GPT: With respect to our priority, of course, our priority is making modest and making targeted investments. But at the end of the day, if we don't make those investments, we're going to end up with another sluggish economy. We know that our plan working, we're stimulating growth, people are confident and as a result we're also able to increase our revenues. So again the plan that we brought forward in 2016 and we’re continuing on the path for 2017 is working and we're moving forward in that direction.

CO: I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but we're still looking at a situation where you're not going to have a balanced budget for many more years to come and that was what you said was going to happen. So I can see the things you are attempting to do for young people young families, but they know themselves what it is to be carrying this much debt as it piles on with these deficits.

GPT: When we took office back in 2015, Canadians were feeling very anxious about the state of the economy. And now, we've seen progress and people are starting to feel much more confident about the economy. And again it's generating spending. Absolutely our goal is to get to a balanced budget. But our objective at the end of the day is truly to focus on the well-being of middle class Canadians and once again strengthening our economy. And our plan is working and we're going to continue to go ahead with the plan.

CO: You have possibly within the next year the Canadian government is going to have to sit down with the U.S. government to talk about NAFTA and trade what is in this budget that reflects the possibility that we may have to rewrite a most important trade agreements that this country has?

GPT: Well again, we recognize that we have a very good trading relationship with the U.S. And actually, we have one of the most successful economic relationships with and probably the best in the world. So we're going to continue to engage with the officials in the United States and we're really going to continue focusing on the fact that our trade relationship is really interconnected. And we truly hoped in order to move forward to enhance that relationship that's already presently underway.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Ms. Petitpas Taylor, thank you.

GPT: Thank you.

Ginette Petitpas Taylor is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. We reached her in Ottawa. And we will have more on the budget later on in the program. In about half an hour, we are going to get the reaction from the NDP and the Conservatives.

[Music: Ambient]

GPS brain

JD: You know you can say what you want about tech, but things are a lot easier now that we don't have to think as much. Nowadays, our smart devices do our thinking for us. And that frees up a lot of our mental power for planning what we want to watch on Netflix. Take your GPS for example, you plug in a destination and it just takes you there. So you can let your brain focus on more significant things like improving your memory. And from then on, life is a highway as that guy sang…Tim? No…Tom? Anyway, I'll Google it later.

GPS VOICE: Turn left in five hundred meters.

JD: Ok, thanks GPS. Sorry for the interruption. Anyway, these gizmos like my GP here, have made our lives easier. However, a new study suggests that they're making our minds lazier. For the study, which was led by Dr. Amir-Homayoun Javadi, from the University of Kent. Researchers got some people to travel through a simulation of a city and they asked…

GPS VOICE: Turn left in two hundred meters.

JD: OK. Yes. Thank you again GPS. So with the system doing the navigation for me I am free to keep explaining. Anyhow, some subjects navigated the simulation on their own choosing their own route. Others just had to press a button to follow a path the computer had already mapped. The whole time, the scientists were monitoring everyone's brain activity, especially the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex. Those are the things that help us get around. So what they discovered was that the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex of the people who had to navigate on their own were very active in planning and re-planning the route whereas they were much less active in the people who just followed the prescribed route. So this suggests that if you rely on a computer to get where you're going your own mental navigation centre does very little. And over time, Dr. Javadi says that that may mean we get worse and worse at navigating without the help of a GPS. I don't know how I feel about that? I guess I disagree because my brain is just as sharp as…

GPS: Turn left now.

JD: Oh yes thanks GPS. And I have almost reached my destination… Wait a minute, I'm not even driving right now. As I was saying, my brain is great and guys where am I?

Back To Top »

Part 2: Trump troubadour, Vice reporter loses apeal

Trump troubadour

Guest: Kraig Moss

JD: On the presidential election campaign trail, Kraig Moss was known as the “Trump troubadour”. He went to dozens of rallies with a guitar and a cowboy hat and he sang supportive tunes about the man he wanted to be President. And he was enough of a staple at Trump rallies that the future President addressed him directly about the issue closest to him: opioid addiction. Three years ago, Mr. Moss’s son died of a heroin overdose. Now, Mr. Moss has read the proposed Republican health care bill, which cuts back addiction treatment. He now says he no longer supports the President. We reached Kraig Moss in Owego, New York.

CO: Kraig, I know you cast your first vote ever for Donald Trump. How are you feeling about the President today?

KRAIG MOSS: Well, I feel let down I guess you might say. You are right, I've never voted before in my life. And the first time around in the political scene and I feel very much let down.

CO: So what made you change your mind?

KM: Well, through the 45 rallies that I attended, you know he told everybody including myself that he was going to do whatever he was going to take in order to make detox centers and rehabilitation programs more accessible to the kids and young adults who have found themselves hooked on this drug. And he said we've got to get them off it and we're going to put programs together to be able to get them off it. He said we're going to revamp the health care program, the Obamacare, which he said was a disaster and that we're going to get lower deductibles, lower overall costs and we're going to have more coverage. And it is just the absolute opposite of what he's says he is going to do.

CO: So what happened to those promises that Mr. Trump made?

KM: He broke them. He didn’t stick true to his word. Everybody who voted for Mr. Trump on that platform addressing the heroin epidemic that we have, it's so important that people like myself who lost my son to the drug. But you know all he had to do was say you know what, we're going to send out this I don't know what they call it or whatever the name is, but that bring you back to life juice that they have and that they give the heroin addicts once they die. They get them that shot and it brings them back to life. I know with a stroke of a pen, Mr. Trump could have funded one dose to every small town volunteer emergency squad. I'm talk about the folks who sell chicken on Sunday in order to buy a new fire hose. They don't have it in their budget to spend the money for this stuff. He is such a big business man probably could have commandeered a large quantity of these doses. Had the emergency squad that visited my son had it in their possession, you know he would have been alive today.

CO: Did you have a chance to talk to Mr. Trump about your specific concerns about what happened to your son and what you what you wanted from him?

KM: I did at a rally in January 15^th, he did address me personally. I did ask him a specific question about his intentions of what he claimed that doing about the ongoing heroin epidemic. And, of course, he spoke about the wall. You know to slow down the infiltration of drugs in this country is a good start. But you know I was more concerned about specific moves that he might put into play in order to help these kids have easier accessibility to the rehab programs that are just so expensive. But that's what he spoke to me personally about one-on-one in front of a crowd of about twenty five hundred people.

CO: What did he say? Did he promise you that that was a priority for him that there would be in his budget and in his health care plan that there was going to be those provisions for people like your son, who needed detox and rehabilitation? Did you believe that he'd committed to that?

KM: He didn't specifically detail that, that was going to be in his health care plan. But he spoke specifically that that was a part of his agenda and not only me, but every person in New Hampshire and Vermont and Connecticut where this problem is rampant as well. He spoke with all those folks up there letting them know this is top priority for him to take care of this heroin epidemic. And you know instead he come out with this health care plan that's nothing like he talked to that was going to be — absolutely nothing. Now they may be revamping it right now and I hope I have a say because I personally don't believe he’s even ever looked at the way it looked at this plan. He’s look at Paul Ryan’s and Mr. Trump has got all these things going on with the wall and the travel ban and they're not approving this and that. I can just see him saying you know Paul, you've been working on this thing for three, or four, or five years. Let's go ahead and go with that, I trust you.

CO: And this health care plan — the Paul Ryan bill — that you’re talking about this would end what's in the Obamacare law, which requires that addiction services and mental health treatment is covered under Medicaid. That's all gone in this, so that is something that matters a lot to you I take it?

KM: It is. And the thing is, I have gone through the last three years without health care. I paid the penalty of $1,400 or whatever it was. But I just got a job that has excellent health care. But I speak for all the people there who aren't so fortunate to have this type health care offered through employment. And if people who do rely solely on Medicaid benefits so they can go to a treatment centres so they can get the drugs that allow them to get them weaned off heroin — it's a very hard drug to kick. Mr. Trump even admitted that. That is why you know I'm upset because there’s a pulling back of even what's available now and in Obamacare and he’s just taken it right out.

CO: We know you from the Trump rallies. You were that guy with the guitar and the cowboy hat and we just played a clip of one of your songs about Donald Trump in the introduction. So you were really drawn to his campaign. Why is that?

KM: Well, because it hit home with the drugs. That's the reason why I followed him around for that reason alone. It just seems like that's just kind of fallen through the net and it’s not getting any attention whatsoever. And I hope somehow that I can change that around and have him focus a little bit more on what he said he was going to do for those folks.

CO: Meanwhile, you had your guitar at the rallies, but you're getting a lot of souvenirs. You had all this stuff signed by Donald Trump and where is all that now?

KM: I gave it all away. I gave everything that I've ever and I know it's probably going to be worth money some day or whatever. Maybe now, but he's lost my confidence that he's going to do what he says he’s going to do.

CO: But he got elected because of people like you. You are the voice; you are the story of those who had faith in Donald Trump. Do you think that he's lost other supporters like you?

KM: I know he has. There are hundreds of thousands of people calling that White House and saying what are you doing with this health care plan? I'm just one person that just happen to have been in the spotlight as far as you know following the rallies around and playing my Trump songs and being so enthusiastic about the man and talking about my son. And you know talking about the perils of heroin use and talking to the kids and the young adults in the rally line. And when I talk about how addictive this stuff is and don't expect to be able to do it on a Saturday and then think you're not going to be back on Monday or Tuesday to want to get some more. And when I see people nudging their friends, I know I’m hitting in the right place. So you know my efforts following Donald Trump are not wasted and I'm not ashamed of that. But to think that I may have caused a family to be disrupted because the mother and father, who are in this country illegally and has been working for the last five years and not gotten in trouble and to think because those families split up and the children left behind. I'm not happy about that thought that I may have contributed to that situation.

CO: You mean contributed by voting for Donald Trump?

KM: Yes.

CO: Kraig, I really appreciate speaking with you. I'm so sorry about your son, but I think he got your message out. Thank you.

KM: Welcome. Thank you for reaching out.

JD: We reached Kraig Moss in Owego, New York. And we have more on Mr. Moss on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

From Our Archives: Chuck Barris obit

JD: “The Gong Show” was like nothing else on television at the time, frankly perhaps since. It was kind of a psychedelic variety show. It prided itself on being an unpredictable, no-hold-barred half hour of inane absurdity — the more wretchedly risible the better. Chuck Barris, the conductor of all that chaos, died yesterday. He was 87-years-old. “The Gong Show” aired on NBC for two years beginning in 1976 and then later in syndication. The format was simple: amateur talent performing outrageous acts in front of a panel of Hollywood celebrities. Each celebrity had the option of sounding a large gong to stop the act. If and when they deemed it was absolutely beyond redemption, which tended to occur once a minimum time allotment had expired. For Chuck Barris, the challenge lay in skirting the censors. And he did that by pitching acts so objectionable that he knew they would be refused in the hopes that less offensive, but still outrageous material might make it through and on to the program. In 1984, after its initial run and before its revival in the late ‘80s, Chuck Barris spoke with the CBC's Jack Farr, host of “The Radio Show”. At the time, Mr. Barris had just written a book “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”, chronicling his supposed double life as a game show producer and a hit-man for the CIA. It was incidentally later made into a film starring Sam Rockwell and George Clooney. And here is part of that conversation. This is from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

JACK FARR: Hi Chuck.

CHUCK BARRIS: Hello Jack, how are you?

JF: Well, on the scale of one to 10, I'm probably about an eight-and-a-half. How about you?

CB: I'm very well thank you.

JF: Now really you were the guy who popularized that one to ten rating scale weren't you back on the old “Gong Show”?

CB: Oh yeah. Well, I don't know if I was you know anywhere close to being the first to use it. But certainly did have a comeback when I was using it.

JF: Right. Chuck, when I introduced you I failed to mention that you're also a bestselling author. You had a big hit about ten years ago with “You and Me, Babe”, and now you've written another great book called “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”. What's it all about?

CB: It's an autobiographical novel I would imagine you would you would say. It's the story of my successes and so forth. And also the fact that I was a hit-man for the CIA on the side, which I never really was. But I always fantasized that premise that you could in one hand entertain the public with shows like I created and produced and get nailed to the cross by the critics for them. And on the other hand you could surreptitiously or covertly be killing people for the government and getting covert medals and presidential citations. I just was intrigued with the whole premise of what's right and what's wrong and stuff like that. I think it's a very funny book. I don't think should be taken very seriously other than a good read and an opportunity for me to share some real true experiences that I've had in television over all the years with some fiction that just came out of my head.

JF: Now Chuck. “The Gong Show”, a whole other bag. It was with “The Gong Show” that you decided to go front and center and star as the host. Now why did you get in front of the cameras after so many years working as a producer behind the scenes?

CB: Well, that's a very complicated question. I always like to think it was because of the circumstances involved. The host that we had really didn't know what “The Gong Show” was about. The guy that the networks and I finally came to agree upon doing the show didn't have the concept as I thought he should. And I realized that the format worked — I realized the ideal worked — but the host was wrong. And the vice president of NBC at the time, had me make a decision either I did it or else seeing the program go down. And I went in and I only thought I went in temporarily. I would only be there till we could calmly try to find somebody who'd be able to replace me and do the show the right way.

JF: But the show was an instant success…

CB: I think part of it was the luck of me doing it in a sense that I was so bad that I blended right into the show. And that I had some kind of a great rapport with the acts because it was like them and me against the world.

JD: From our archives, that was former “Gong Show” host and TV producer Chuck Barris speaking with Jack Farr on “The Radio Show” in August of 1984. Chuck Barris died yesterday. He was 87-years-old. Just last year, ABC announced a reboot of “The Gong Show”, to be executive produced by Canadian comedian Will Arnett.

[Music: Folk]

Vice reporter loses appeal

Guest: Ben Makuch

JD: For more than a year, Vice News journalist Ben Mackuch has been fighting an order to hand over to the RCMP background material from his reporting on alleged Canadian jihadi, Farah Muhammad Shirdon. Today, in an Ontario Court of Appeal, he lost that battle. And Mr. Makuch, as well as media and civil rights advocates around this country, say that that is a bad sign for freedom of the press in Canada. We reached Ben Makuch in Central Asia, where he is on assignment. And for security reasons, we are not identifying his exact location.

CO: Mr. Makuch, had you braced yourself for this ruling or is it something that is unexpected?

BEN MAKUCH: I have to say I've been getting that question a lot over the last few months and even on the day of the actual arguments. And to be honest with you, I wasn't too optimistic about the outcome and it’s exactly as I expected unfortunately.

CO: What is it that the court is demanding that you turn over to the RCMP?

BM: They are asking me to handover all my syndications with an alleged Islamic State fighter named Farah Muhammad Shirdon. And it also includes notes and context etc. So essentially everything I know and everything that’s said in my correspondence with a source of mine.

CO: But this is not an anonymous or secret source, we have his name. You're not hiding his identity?

BM: No, I’m not hiding his identity. And I think he's been quite open about who he was.

CO: Can you tell us just briefly who Farah Muhammad Shirdon is and what the story was that you had done — stories — you had done on him?

BM: Sure. So Farah Muhammad Shirdon is a Calgary man, who comes from Canada obviously, and he traveled to the Islamic State to fight as a militant with ISIS. This happened sometime in 2014, and he became somewhat of a prolific spokesperson and social media darling of the ISIS organization. And right around that time, I began to make contact with this network of fighters who were over in the Middle East, who are about my age and were so active on social media essentially showing their exploits. And I imbedded myself in this group of people online and was able to make contact with the man who was famously shown burning his passport in an ISIS recruitment video. I made contact with him and we conducted a few interviews about how he went out into the Islamic State, different methods and motivations and what he does there. And I published some stories based on that. And then a few months later, sometime in February, I was served with a production order to hand over all my information concerning this individual.

CO: Now is he a person of interest to the RCMP? Is there a case or other charges against Farah Shirdon?

BM: Yes, there's something to the effect of charges against him right now all based on national security issues. That came out in 2015, and this is an individual who is known to be or alleged to be fighting with the Islamic State. So it's a person of interest and they've actually conducted charges against him. But again, he's a person who is abroad. He is not actually in Canada and he hasn't been apprehended.

CO: What are the police hoping that they can learn from the material that they have wanted the courts to order you to turn over?

BM: Honestly, that kind of what is sort of a head scratcher about this entire ordeal to me. Is that everything I've had that was of interest to the public. That I felt was of national security interest, or even just to society at large, I published. There’s nothing secret that I have that tells me where Farah Muhammad Shirdon is in his bat Batcave. There's nothing that would suggest that. Everything I put that's of interest is out there. So you can only draw conclusions that this is the RCMP trying to prove charges against an individual on terrorism using my information to do so. And I think you know any journalist would say this is a complete violation of our role within society. Mr. Shirdon would never have spoken to me if he knew I was a police officer or an intelligence agency. The reason he spoke to me is that I'm a journalist and we enjoy a very wonderful position within in society, especially Washington democracy, where people from different strokes of life: the criminal, terrorists, people in the government will come to us and give us information and we're able to inform the public, so the public can make a better decision on how they want their governments to behave in a policy manner.

CO: You say that your source wouldn't have spoken with you had he thought that you were working with the police, which is what you say. You say that if you comply with this ruling, that's what you'll end up doing. The Ontario Court of Appeal said that Farah Shirdon was quote, “anxious to tell the world about his beliefs and actions. And that he had not requested you to keep any of your communications confidential.” So what do you say to that?

BM: I’d say that’s a very rich analysis of the function of a journalist in society. Farah Shirdon was anxious to talk to us as journalists and I think that's the point that people need to remember. He wasn't anxious to speak to police or intelligence. I think that's a very important factor in all of this. Obviously there is there's a long history of different groups coming to journalists and telling their story — that’s the whole purpose of a journalist. Edward Snowden went to the press to tell truths about the intelligence agencies that he’d been a part of. He wouldn’t have done that if there were police involved.

CO: I have to disclose here that I am a member of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and that's one of the groups that's in the coalition that has been supporting your case. Just finally, I have to ask you've lost your appeal there is there has been suggestions that you might try and go to the Supreme Court with the case. If you if you lose and we talked about this last time you were on the show. Are you prepared to go to jail to protect that source?

BM: I'm going to protect the material as far as it needs to go.

CO: All right, well we will continue to speak with you about this Mr. Makuch. Thank you.

BM: Thank you very much for having me. I appreciate it.

JD: Ben Makuch is a Vice News journalist. We reached him on assignment in Central Asia. As I mentioned, for security reasons we're not identifying his exact location.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Budget: Conservative/NDP reaction, McGuinness obit: de Chastelain

Budget: Conservative/NDP

Guests: Dan Albas, Alexandre Boulerice

JD: The Liberals say that they're keeping a steady hand on the economy. As you can imagine, the other parties believe the government is letting things get completely out of hand. As we heard earlier on in the program, Finance Minister Bill Morneau tabled the federal budget today. The budget is called “Building a Strong Middle Class”, and there aren't a lot of surprises in it. It does include a new tax on ride-sharing companies like Uber and increased sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol. It also forecasts a 28.5 billion deficit, which will have to be reckoned with next year. Dan Albus is the deputy finance critic for the Conservative Party. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Albus, this has been described elsewhere that this budget is a modest budget, a stay-the-course budget. How would you describe it?

DAN ALBUS: Well, I would say it's modest in the fact that it doesn't give very many details on some of the government's commitments. For example, we were hoping to see more on the infrastructure bank. I know the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said that they wanted to give input to it. But it's still very little details on that. We do know however, they are adding another $13 billion in their spending over the next five years. That's a large swing from the fall economic update six months ago. And they still haven't done a lot of the things that they said that they would do. As far as infrastructure investments and building jobs. So it's almost like a make believe budget where they have you know all these ideas, but very little actual concrete steps on how to achieve it.

CO: A few concrete things, the budget earmarks eleven point $2 billion for affordable housing. And that's partly going to be funded by the infrastructure bank. Isn't that substantial?

DA: Governments have always put money into things like affordable housing. And there is talk about a new federal framework with provinces and that's a fine step. But again, in last year's budget there was a sizable amount of money put aside. But the Parliamentary Budget Office had said that it only found a few billion dollars towards actual concrete projects going ahead. And so much of the money that's booked into this year seems to have come from last year's allocation that wasn't spent. Can we trust the numbers? All I can say is that oftentimes this government seems to have great ideas, but doesn't seem to deliver. The previous government you know had its faults, but when it said it would build a real infrastructure and partner with provinces on things like affordable housing, it delivered.

CO: We have the innovation part of the budget $950 million over five years to support business-led what they call “superclusters”. Start-ups, $400 million over three years for venture capital catalyst initiatives. Those appear to be solid, substantial things. We don’t know exactly what “superclusters” and these initiatives are…

DA: So Can you tell me what a “supercluster” is Carol?

CO: I was afraid you were going to ask me that.

DA: Let's put this in context again. The former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page and the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Democracy had said that there's already $23 billion that goes out the door every year towards innovation and skills. And so while the government is adding more and again financing on the taxpayer's credit card. There hasn't been any review of the other things that have gone on. So are these clusters regular clusters that jump into a telephone booth and leap out with money and are super clusters now? I think there's more buzzwords and talk rather than actual policy that will take us somewhere.

CO: Well part of that money was money that you guys — the Conservatives — put in place. The 22 billion and your government like this when they were in power.

DA: And there's good things in skills and innovation. It's just you have to choose the right things because they are the right thing to do given your set of circumstances. For example, there may be some clusters; there may be some innovation centres that are doing quite well. But under this government it seems to me they think if we have eight well-performing clusters or innovation centres, let's fund eight more. Rather than saying why do those things work? Is it because of what the private sector is doing is? Are they involved, or is this the role of government to take over? And again, it comes back to that fuzziness. When people said we'll support you for a 10 billion a year modest deficits. They promised it would go to real bridges and roads and whatnot. And we have not seen that. In fact, we've actually seen the construction industry shrink. So Carol, they can have all the right intentions, but at the end of the day, Canadians are funding these projects and deserve value for money.

CO: One thing that we're seeing in this is that we had anticipated that there would be new taxes. A tax on the rich as the buzz phrase has been. They don't seem to have this. What seems to happen in this budget is that they are cautious of what is happening south of the border. What Mr. Trump might be doing in his budgets and his plans for reducing taxes. And so it does appear the Liberals are wanting to be competitive or at least keep their powder dry until we actually understand what is happening with Mr. Trump. And is that not a good thing?

DA: You know I would just get Canadians to look what they're actually doing in this budget. Tomorrow two per cent increase on alcohol sales through excise act — same with tobacco. And so I don't know if that's taxing the rich? That’s taxing anyone that wants to you know enjoy a glass of wine. Add to it they're going to be adding to taxi and ride-sharing. So people who like Uber are going to see GST on top of that. At the same time, they are removing the public transit tax credit. I also do know that there's been a lot of concerns in small business. They're also talking about changing the way many professionals pay their taxes and whatnot. And so you know that's more uncertainty for a lot of those professionals. When we say that they're only putting taxes on the rich that's not necessarily true just talk to private campgrounds that are just trying to get by. That are suddenly being hit with 50 per cent plus taxes more than they paid last year. You know this is where the government I think has got to be very careful. If you look at the United States, they're talking about rolling down their federal corporate tax to 15 per cent, the same as the Canadian federal level. But remember many states don't have the equivalent of a provincial corporate tax. And so you're going to see a lot of Canadian companies looking down south. You’re going to see a lot of pensioners that are saying wow interest rates are going up in the United States, but they're not going up here in Canada. So these are challenges the government does need to be mindful of, but that doesn't mean they need to make us less competitive by adding these extra taxes on Canadians lives. At the end of the day, you know families and businesses and seniors are not better off under this regime. They're going to see their taxes continue to escalate.

CO: OK, we'll leave it there. Mr. Albas, thank you.

DA: Thank you, Carol.

JD: Dan Albas is the deputy finance critic for the Conservative Party. We reached him in Ottawa. Alexandre Boulerice is the NDP’s finance critic. We also reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Boulerice, the Liberals are promising some money for social programs that the NDP has been asking for. We're seeing 11.2 billion dollars for a national housing strategy, a childcare strategy with $7 billion for new spaces starting up in 2018. Are these things that you're satisfied with?

ALEXANDRE BOULERICE: No, overall this is a disappointing budget. Most of the numbers you're talking about, the big chunk of money will be you know in five years, six years and in eight years. Sometimes it's only like after two elections. So for 2017-2018, there's almost nothing. They are telling people to wait for the next federal election. Suddenly, like a miracle in 2019, there will be more money invested in our communities. But a lot of people who are suffering, who are waiting for some help, they cannot wait that long.

CO: OK, but they must be spending it on something because we're seeing a deficit now that even though they had promised when they campaigned the Liberals said they would have no more than 10 billion dollar deficits. We're now seeing one that sits at about 28.5 billion. Does that concern you?

AB: It concerns us. You know the question of a deficit or no deficit is what do you do with debt? But right now, we see nothing about the wooden problem with the United States. There's no money for the milk producers and they still keep those big loopholes for the richest of our society — like the stock option loophole. They have promised to eliminate that in the campaign and they are not doing it. They've been promising to help small businesses and they will keep their taxes as they are. They will not reduce them even if they are the ones who create the most jobs in the country.

CO: Don't you think some of those things like assistance for milk producers or small business, I mean one of the issues that they're dealing with is that there's tremendous uncertainty in Washington right now. And that Canada has to in this budget and other things attempting to kind of mirror dance the United States and the Trump administration in these decisions. Are you seeing that reflected in this budget?

AB: It's not reflected at all because it's a wait and see budget. And I understand that we have to deal with Mr. Trump. At the same time, we have to act to stimulate the economy, to create good jobs. A lot of young people are going from a contract to another with no security and this creates a situation where the economy is still really, really fragile. So we need some investment. The Liberals have made campaign saying they will invest to stimulate the economy there's not enough in that budget. And the big fiscal gifts for the richest of our society are still there. There's revenue that could produce new revenue for The States and maybe could have held them to reduce their big deficit.

CO: But isn't that also a reflection of what's going on in The States? if you think it is something they should be looking at. Wanting to see what Mr. Trump is going to do. Obviously there are great concerns about increasing taxes and a time when Mr. Trump is putting in business incentives and reducing taxes to different sectors of the society. I mean is this not a reflection of that concern?

AB: But you know loopholes for the CEOs of our country is not the same thing as taxes for corporations. And secondly, the gap between the taxation of big corporations in Canada and the United States is still more or less ten points of difference. So we still have oxygen and margin there and we are really disappointed that they are waiting to see what will happen with the United States. But even though you can put some money aside to help the forestry sector to give them some loans if there was a commercial war against the United States. This is something if you want to be cautious you do, but there's nothing in that budget about that.

CO: But lately we have nearly a billion dollars for innovation over five years for what they call “superclusters”, but they're talking about having training and redevelopment for people who want to change their jobs or must change their jobs because innovation is erasing much of the of those jobs in the workforce. They’re putting money in for that. They have start-up money of nearly half a billion dollars over three years. These are things that are investing in those areas that you're concerned with are they not?

AB: You know skilled training for our workers is always a really good thing in today's economy. But you know they have to deal with the provinces, so it's quite unclear what the end of the day what will be there. And about innovation, I find disturbing that they are fund to turn for an economy with lower green gas emission. And that fund will be cut 750 million this year and 500 million next year. So if you're talking about innovation, there is a huge market out there about renewable energy and green and green jobs and they are cutting in that.

CO: 2.7 billion over six years to support the skills training that you and the NDP wanted. And efforts to create what they're saying is new skills in the workforce and create new tech jobs in the mini Silicon Valley's?

AB: But this is a good thing if they can have deals with provinces soon enough. When they're talking about you know in the next six years we need it now. So it's more complicated than what looks. You cannot divide the amount in six years. Sometimes it's only at the end of those years. So people are needing some training and skills and the help right now and they will have to wait and that's sad.

CO: All right, we will leave it there for now, but we'll be picking up on these issues. Mr. Boulerice, thank you.

AB: My pleasure.

JD: Alexandre Boulerice is the NDP finance critic. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Ambient]

Canada Reads: Madeline Asby

JD: CBC's annual battle of the books kicks off Monday. Five panelists, defending five books, each book vying for the title of “the one book Canadians need now”. This year's Canada Reads includes sci-fi in the form of a novel in which the term organic does not apply to apples or kale, but instead to the last person with no cyber-body-enhancement. To get everyone on the same page, each day this week As It Happens is airing an excerpt from one of the books read by its author. And today, our excerpt is from Madeline Ashby's “Company Town”, an action packed murder mysteries set on an offshore oil rig the size of a city. And in the future, of course, now the protagonist is named Hwa, and as I mentioned, she is the last person on this oil rig who doesn't have any electronic implants. And that means that she is untraceable because she does not show up on any surveillance systems. The action in this scene unfolds when Hwa comes to after being knocked out in a fight with somebody she mistook for an enemy. Here is author Madeline Ashby.

SOUNDCLIP

MADELINE ASHBY: carefully Hwa stood up; both her ankles and hands were jelled together. She knelt down and then sat. The floor beneath her was oddly warm like skin. It molded up around her the longer she stayed in place. Raising her legs parallel to her chest, she rocked back and forth until she could fall back on her shoulder blades with her legs and core straight up in the air. Slowly she slid her legs through the loop of her bound arms. Now at least they were in front of her, where she could use them. A seam opened in the wall. It was the man from the platform and he was carrying a big knife. Back for more? Hwa asked. What? Oh, he looked down at the knife. It looked so incongruous in his hands. He'd cleaned up and changed into a blue Lynch polo shirt and cargo khakis. The knife trembled a little in his right hand until he gripped it more tightly. Hold your hands out please. Hwa held them out. He cut the bonds in one quick motion. Then he knelt at her feet, looked up at her for a moment cautiously. He was afraid she would kick him again she realized. She stood straighter and looked away. He cut the ties and flicked the knife back into its handle and put the whole thing in a back pocket as he rose. Sorry about that. How are you feeling? Her mouth worked, it was painfully dry. This had to be some sort of game. It certainly didn't feel real. He was being too nice. Then she remembered her script. My name is Go Jim Quon, I want to speak to my union representative US WC 314. I won't answer any questions until she sends an attorney for me. Also I want to see a doctor, I have a seizure disorder. It can be triggered by things like pain lasers or whatever the hell was on that saucer.

JD: Madeleine Ashby is the author of “Company Town”, which will be championed by opera singer Measha Brueggergosman in this year's Canada Reads debates. So tune in next week beginning Monday on CBC Radio, TV or online. For showtimes and for more on the books, go to www.cbc.c/books.

[Music: Ambient]

McGuinness obit: de Chastelain

Guest: John De Chastelain

JD: There is no shortage of people who feel that the late, former IRA leader Martin McGuinness worked against them. Our guest today though is thinking about the time the late Mr. McGuinness worked with him. John de Chastelain is a retired Canadian general, and a former chief of the Defense Staff. And in 1995, General de Chastelain became actively involved in Northern Ireland's peace process and eventually focused on the disarmament of the armed groups there. And that is where Martin McGuinness came in. Yesterday, Mr. McGuinness died at the age of 66. Today, we reached General de Chastelain in San Sebastian, Mexico.

CO: General de Chastelain, what were your thoughts and feelings when you learned of the death of Martin McGuinness?

JOHN DE CHASTELAIN: Well, I was I was sorry to hear it. I saw him on television a few weeks ago and he was resigning as deputy first minister. And I thought he looked not well at all, so I wasn't totally surprised. But as I said, I'm very sorry to hear it.

CO: You are crucial and he was crucial and you are central to the Good Friday agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland. Your role was to work on getting the decommissioning of weapons and the disarmament of paramilitary units. What was it like to negotiate with Martin McGuinness?

JDC: Well, our first involvement with him was with Senator Mitchell and the former Prime Minister Harry Holkeri from Finland when we were doing in the international bodies work in the fall of 1995. And he and Gerry Adams were the people that we were talking to trying to get a feel on whether the IRA would consider decommissioning. And it was very helpful to get their views. Of course, they didn't claim to speak for the IRA. Martin McGuinness made no secret of the fact that he had been a senior member of the IRA, but they weren't talking for the IRA then. But it was very helpful. Later on, after he Belfast Agreement when I and my Finnish and American colleagues were involved with the IRA, we were also discussing with McGuinness and Adams how the process was going. So as you say, he was central to the issue. I think he was one of the leading members of the Republican side that talked to the IRA about attempting to use political methods to reach their aims, rather than armed ones. And therefore, he along with a number of others were crucial and getting the IRA to declare the ceasefires of ‘94 and to keep them on even after they had broken the ceasefire briefly in 1996. Subsequently when he was, first of all, the education minister interesting for a young man that never finished school and he was a good education minister. And then deputy first minister when he worked out an arrangement with the late doctor Ian Paisley to sit government together. That was the real signal that the process was moving into the right dimension.

CO: He was dedicated to armed struggle in the 1980s. He made that very clear that he thought that was the only way to achieve the aims of the Republicans. But then the man you negotiated with was he that man? Of how changed was he by the time you were talking with him?

JDC: I think he had recognized along with other members of the IRA. And Gerry Adams, of course. Pointing out that arms hadn’t got the aims they were looking for. They weren't going to be defeated militarily because to do that would require massive difficulty in a democratic society. But they weren't going to win their aims militarily either. And I think he along with the others was able to persuade them to say look give politics a chance. Declare a cease fire. See what that produces. If it doesn't produce then think again. But in the end, of course, it did produce. It produced the Belfast Agreement, which not all members of the IRA agreed with and it caused a split where The Real IRA formed and they stayed active. But the large part of the IRA and, of course, the same thing on the other side they agreed to try and solve their differences politically, democratically and not to not with arms.

CO: You are speaking of the unionists. You've touched you've touched on something very key which is that there are those who say that the reason why Martin McGuinness became a peacemaker was because — only because — he realized he couldn't succeed through violence and through armed struggle and that there are those who say that is the only reason why he did it. He wasn't someone who is dedicated to peace. He just had no options. What do you say to that?

JDC: I can't argue against it because I don't know. But I think he was he was reflecting on the period that he had been leading on the fact that they hadn't achieved all their aims militarily. They probably weren't going to, but he was growing older. He had children. He wanted then to grow up in a circumstance where there wasn't violence all the time. So we recognize that while it may have been helpful in getting attention at that time by using arms, it was no longer useful and that's the way forward was the democratic way — the peaceful way. And I think that was what he was after. Not well it didn't work, so let's try something else. I don't think that was it.

CO: I understand that your relationship with Mr. McGuinness was you had a shared interest in fishing and that fishing flies in Canada may have played a role in getting the agreement?

JDC: I think Gerry Adams used to get impatient with the fact that Martin and I used to talk about fishing when we should be talking about more difficult things. But yeah, he was a very interested fisherman and so am I. There were a number of human sides to Martin McGuinness that I never knew. But that was one of them.

CO; Can you talk about any of your fishing trips together?

JDC: No, we never went fishing together. I did send them a piece of salmon once just to show that I actually knew how to do it.

CO: You apparently gave him some fishing flies from Canada at one point.

JDC: I tied flies and I tied some for him. And he told me that they worked. It didn't surprise me because they worked for me too.

CO: What did he catch with them?

JDC: Salmon and trout. There’s great fishing in Ireland as there is in Canada, of course.

CO; Just finally sir, just tell us if you would. There are those who say that Martin McGuinness was a terrorist and will always be a terrorist. And there are those who say that he was a man of peace and that is who he is. In your view, what is his legacy?

JDC: I think the legacy is the more peaceful one. Theres was no question that he was a man of violence. He supported violence in the interests of what he felt was right. I never used the word terrorist. But with regard to what we were dealing with because it wasn't helpful. You know one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, you know the clichés. I knew him from the point of view where he had already made up his mind that the way forward was not with guns. And I will remember him that way.

CO: General de Chastelain, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JDC: Ok.

CO: Bye bye.

JDC: Bye.

JD: John de Chastelain is a retired Canadian General and former Chief of the Defence Staff. We reached General de Chastelaine in San Sebastian, Mexico.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 22, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This