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 September 27, 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: Duty calls, followed by duty screams. When the U.S. imposes enormous new tariffs on Bombardier, the company blames a rival for manipulating the system, and Maxime Bernier blames the Liberal government.

JD: Rising to the occasion by not rising at all. This week male athletes have dominated headlines for kneeling during the U.S. anthem, but our guest reminds us of the pivotal role women in the WNBA played in building the movement.

CO: Level up. After a long strike, video game voice actors reach a deal with a group of big video game companies, and our guest says she and her colleagues have won a hard fought victory against the final boss.

JD: Doctor's orders. Ontario intends to publicize the payments doctors get from pharmaceutical companies and the doctor we speak with agrees, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

CO: The Fastened And The Furious. The Velcro company wants you to know its patent on the word Velcro lapsed decades ago, so it's released a video requesting you to stop using the V word, which is Velcro.

JD: And…Toy chest. Instead of being crabby about discovering a plaything 40 years after he lost it, Paul Baxter is downright jovial because a doctor found a tiny, toy traffic cone in his lung, and he's been breathing easier ever since. As It Happens the Wednesday edition. Radio that names him Mr. Cone-geniality.

Back To Top »

Part 1: Bombardier: VP, Bombardier: Bernier, video game voice actor

Bombardier: VP

Guest: Olivier Marcil

JD: It is a big blow for Bombardier, and a big win for Boeing. The two aerospace companies are locked in a bitter trade dispute, and yesterday the U.S. Commerce Department sided with Boeing and slapped high tariffs on its Canadian competitor. The dispute stems from a number of jets that Bombardier sold to Delta Airlines. Boeing argued that because of unfair subsidies from the Canadian government Bombardier was able to sell those jets to Delta at a steep discount, which according to Boeing, is illegal. And in a preliminary ruling yesterday the U.S. agreed. That news is not going over well in Quebec, especially not Bombardier’s head office in Montreal. Olivier Marcil is the Vice President of External Affairs at Bombardier. We reached Mr. Marcil in Montreal.

CO: Mr. Marcil, how would you characterize this decision on the part of the U.S. government concerning Bombardier’s C-series planes?

OLIVIER MARCIL: Well, it's an absurd decision. When you look at the proposed duty that has been suggested it's completely divorced from the reality about multibillion dollar aircraft programs. It's a very complex product that you cannot evaluate their lives span the same way that you do for any other product that the department has looked at over the last couple of years.

CO: You're saying this is the 219 per cent tariff that they're going to put on the planes. Boeing itself had asked for a 79 per cent tariff applied to the C Series. Would you have accepted any level of tariff given the charges against Bombardier?

OM: We disagree with the assessment of Boeing that the financing, that the support that we might have received is illegal — it's been structured always to respect international trade rules. The other thing in the Delta deal, Boeing had no product to offer to Delta, and it's not me saying it's Delta or themselves.

CO: OK so for people who don't know, the C Series is a plane that will seat 100 or just over 100 people, this is a product that Delta wanted. Boeing produces, its smallest plane I believe holds what 130 people, and so the argument is, is that they weren't even selling something that was competing with that. So what do you think that Boeing is attempting to do? What do you think the game is?

OM: Well, I think they made it very, very clear, they don't want to have another competitor on their turf. They are using, literally, the process to stifle the competition in their favor and prevent U.S. airlines to benefit from the C Series.

CO: Boeing says that you are able to sell these planes at a discount to Delta because of government subsidies that you get, and you're getting — the federal government has given your company $372 million interest free loan. The Quebec government has invested a billion dollars in the company, so is that not a subsidy?

OM: Well, this coming from the company that is the most subsidized U.S. company that exists, that's ironic, that kind of assessment. When we come to the aerospace industry all around the world, it's true in US, it's true in Canada, it's true in Brazil, it's true in Europe, governments support their industry. The question is, are they supporting it in a way that passes the test of international trade laws, and we're convinced that we are,

CO: OK that we heard from the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Couillard today, he said in a press conference, “Had there not been that investment from Quebec, we would not be here today because there would not be a C Series, and probably there would not be a Bombardier Aeronautics.” So doesn't that say bail out?

OM: First of all, it's clear that two years ago we were in a difficult situation. It's not a secret, but the question is not about if Quebec was right or wrong to intervene, the question is about if Canada has a right to support with public policy a strategic industry, yes or no. And it's a question that's been asked all around the world in every country, and we're confident that at the end of the day when we've got to go through all this process with the recourse that we have, we’re going to win this this fight.

CO: But is it not true that you would not have been able to sell these planes to Delta at the price you sold them had you not had this enormous investment, these enormous loans from those levels of government — that this key sale of Delta, which is going to actually make or break the C Series — how is it possible that could have happened without the kind of bailout you had from the government?

OM: Well you know Delta is a marquee customer, and it's well understood across the industry that when you have marquee customers, or launch customers, you don't sell a product at the same price that you're going to sell it with a product that is well established in the market. Boeing knows this exactly because they did exactly the same thing when they sell their 787 to Air Canada. It's a well-established practice that has nothing to do with any kind of support that we have received from the government.

CO: How likely do you think it is it Delta will buy these planes with this tariff on it?

OM: Well, they've been very clear yesterday in their comments that they are they're going to continue to work with us and they're going to fight this to the end with us. Delta wants their planes, they bought the C Series because it's a great product, because it fits their business model.

CO: The federal government is threatening to cut off the sale of Super Hornet planes that we would make, a multibillion dollar sale from Boeing, if they pursue this gambit. So do you think that's a good thing, is that helping you or hindering you, that federal government is rattling its saber.

OM: At the end of the day, what it shows is that this fight is not good for anybody. In the C Series half the components are American. Now we're talking about 22,000 jobs in the U.S. that are attached to the C Series if you go across the supply chain. So we all have an interest to find an exit to this fight.

CO: And do you think that if the U.S. Commerce Department rulings and these tariffs, and if you lose the other one on price dumping, if that prevails, do you think that that will kill the C Series?

OM: We have other markets right. So as we speak…

CO: Markets as big as Delta?

OM: Of course, the Asian market is a very big market, the European market is a very big market. As we speak we have two European airlines that are flying the C Series, Lufthansa, which is not a small company, and Air Baltic. We're confident in the future, and we're going to defend ourselves on the thing with Boeing, and we're going to again continue to apply our business plan that we have built since Mr. Bellemare joined the company.

CO: Mr. Marcil I appreciate your time. Thank you.

OM: Thank you to you, have a good day.

CO: Olivier Marcil is the Vice President of External Affairs at Bombardier, we reached him in Montreal. Prime minister Justin Trudeau had a brief response to the news. He said quote, “Obviously we're disappointed by the decision and I will continue to fight hard for good Canadian jobs.”

[Music: Ambient Piano]

Bombardier: Bernier

Guest: Maxime Bernier

JD: Other Canadian politicians have shared similarly disappointed responses, but instead of shaking his head at Boeing or the US, one Conservative MP has strong words for the Canadian government. Maxime Bernier is the Conservative MP for Beauce, Quebec, and he was a leadership candidate for the Federal Conservatives earlier this year. We reached Monsieur Bernier in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Bernier, on Twitter today you blame the Liberal government for quote, “giving Boeing ammunition against Bombardier.” What do you mean by that?

MAXIME BERNIER: If you look at the decision from the Department of Commerce in the US, the fourth paragraph I will quote that, “using the governments of Canada, Quebec and United Kingdom, and Bombardier’s reported information, commerce calculated a primary subsidy rate of 228 per cent for Bombardier,” so yes, because of what the government of Canada is doing, because of these big subsidies, that's why we have this problem right now.

CO: But they're saying —we heard from Bombardier, we're certainly hearing that from other parts, other parties in Canada — is that this is not about a level playing field with another company, this is about Boeing trying to push Bombardier out of business. There's no C-Class plane, no similar product that Boeing was competing with, they just simply don't want bombard in the market. What do you say to that?

MB: I agree with that, and that's why also I am deeply concerned to hear that decision from the U.S. that will put many Canadian jobs and businesses at risk. But that's why it is time to end the subsidy race that we cannot compete. The government of Canada cannot compete against the government of U.S. by subsidizing the businesses in the aerospace sector. The Prime Minister must agree to a better solution. Instead of giving money, and giving money, and giving money to a big corporation like that, they must have a new solution to ensure that the free market governs this sector.

CO: OK, but isn't that a bit ideological, isn't a bit pie in the sky, because these are companies that are well subsidized, like Boeing in the United States they point out they have huge subsidies over decades Boeing has had great investments from defense spending and from NASA. Yes, ideally, I guess, the you have free markets everyone's playing on what they call the ‘level playing field.’ But why should Canada be the first to start that?

MB: Not the first. You know the Mulroney government, the conservative government, in 1986 signed the first international aircraft sector agreement, to be sure that government won't give big subsidies to the aerospace industry. But now the government are trying new ways to subsidize this sector, so that's why the Prime Minister must work on a new international agreement to be sure that it will be a free market, and it will be fair for every business in that sector.

CO: Well, as long as we're talking history, then let's go back to 2008 when then Prime Minister Stephen Harper approved a 350-million-dollar loan to Bombardier, you were part of that government. You knew that at the time the conservatives were struggling in Quebec, they were losing in the polls, to some degree it might have been your fault or partly your fault. And so that was something they did in order to to buoy up their fortunes in Quebec.

MB: That was not the right decision, I said that during my leadership, and I believe in that. The thing that we can do to help Bombardier is to lower taxes to every single business, having a tax system that is more competitive. So why the aerospace sector where we see billions of dollars and the other sector of the economy won’t? And right now yes it's a bad decision, because it's an unfair decision. I agree with you 228 per cent levied on Bombardier’s aircraft, it is not fair, it is not based on free markets. But the real solution, the Trudeau government must work on the new agreement with every country that is having manufacturers of aircraft and their economy.

CO: But such an agreement would be years in the making, thats a long way away. What we're looking at right now is the possibility of losing 200,000 jobs, many of them in Quebec, so are you not concerned with the immediate issue right now, which is that there is this trade war between these two countries dealing with the aerospace industry?

MB: Yeah, but first of all, the Trudeau government, what they must do for the short term, first of all the contract with Boeing. We said a couple of months ago. the Conservative Party of Canada. that it must be an open bid for these new aircraft. and what they did. they gave the contract to Boeing. So first of all, they must just stop that, and I think the Trudeau government, you can announce that this week, that the contract won't go because of that. They can do that, and they can do an open free market open bid for for our need for new aircraft for the Canadian Forces.

CO: If I understand correctly, you support the Trudeau government's initiatives, that they're using the Super Hornet purchase from Boeing as a chip in this. They’re saying we're not going to be buying those aircraft from you if this is how you're playing. You support that decision?

MB: What I support, it's the right decision in the beginning, and why they gave the contract to Boeing without any competition.

CO: You didn't like the deal in the first place but you approve of Trudeau using it as a bargaining chip?

MB: For the short term that's the only thing he can do. But I want him to work on the long term and midterm, and being a leader at the international scene with that new international aircraft sector agreement, that will limit the subsidies to this industry.

CO: OK, but I haven't heard yet your short term solution to the problem, right now of this competition.

MB: The federal government, the Trudeau government must be more active to try to not put at risk Canadian jobs and businesses in that industry.

CO: We know the trade minister says that he's been doing all he can, calling up U.S. senators trying to do something about this. They're in the middle of NAFTA talks. They're walking on eggshells. What can they possibly do right at this moment to try and diffuse this to get that tariff that 219 per cent tariff off of those aircraft?

MB: Yes, so what they can do. First of all, they must be more active in the U.S., they must be more active with the ambassador in the U.S. There is still a year before that decision being enforced so they can show their leadership on that. With my solution in working on a short term to convince the Trump administration to do otherwise.

CO: All right we'll leave it there. Mr. Bernier, thank you so much for coming on the program.

MB: Thank you. I appreciate that, have a nice day.

JD: Maxime Bernier is the conservative MP for Beauce, Quebec. We reached him in Ottawa, and we do have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Chimes & Bass]

Video game voice actor

Guest: Jennifer Hale

JD: After nearly a year on strike they're laughing again. They're also providing important exposition, yelling look out, and issuing death groans. SAG-AFTRA video game voice actors are headed back to the recording studio. The associations had been striking against a group of 11 major videogame companies. Those include companies like Activision and Electronic Arts, makers of blockbuster video games like Call of Duty and Mass Effect. Jennifer Hale is one of the voice actors who was on strike. She is from Goose Bay Labrador. She has appeared in games that have sold millions of copies around the world, including the Mass Effect series in which she voices the character of Commander Shepard. We reached Jennifer Hale in L.A.

CO: Jennifer, first of all, why were video game voice actors on strike?

JENNIFER HALE: We were asking for four things. We were asking for transparency, one of the issues we face is that when we are presented with an opportunity to work we don't know what the game is. Most everything's under an NDA and they use code names, so a game called Pineapple could be the third installation of a massively successful game and our agents would not know that. Another thing that we had grave concerns about was, we wanted a stunt coordinator on MOCAP sets, and there's stunt stuff that happens in those games, and we've had some actors like suspended up in the air, high up in the air with no stunt coordinator present to verify that that is in fact a safe way to execute that stunt. We wanted protection for vocal stress. We have members who lost their voices for months, sometimes permanent damage, you know, bleeding from sessions, because the battle games especially are really, really demanding of someone's voice. And then the last thing we wanted was to participate if a game is a success, and the standard among all entertainment companies is that performers get residuals because we're not just working for our time, our exposure has a shelf life. Then when an actor is seen a bunch of times people who hire them are going to say, “you know we've seen that person a lot, can we get someone else sort of like them?” And that's where residuals come into play to get us through those gaps, and we don't have those in games, so we were asking for a share only if a game was very successful.

CO: I want to get to some of the other things you've mentioned but let’s just start with is the lack of royalties, and so I know there's one game you performed in, Mass Effect, sold 14 million copies — a lot of money involved there. And so I can ask how much you were paid for that work?

JH: You know, that was a job where I was paid a little bit over scale. Scale is typically a $825.00 for a four hour session, but you know it sounds like a like, wow wouldn't everyone love to make that every four hours. Yes, we all would including actors, but that helps to compensate us for all the auditions we do, where we essentially work for free most of the week until we land one, and then that one covers all the training, all the time, all the travel, all the other time we invest. One of the early games I did, way back when, I did two sessions, I made scale, so it was just around $600.00 that I made, just shy of that, and I was one of the female leads, and the game went on to make $276 million. Had I been an on camera actor in a project like that, my quote as they call it, would have gone through the roof, and my financial future from that point forward would have been quite different. But because were voice actors the companies producing these games find us easier to dismiss.

CO: What kind of impact does this work have on your voice? You mentioned your vocal chords and the effect it has. What happens — why is it so hard on them?

JH: Well, for example, have you ever been out to visit with friends at a bar or restaurant where its quite loud?

CO: Yeah, and you're talking and yelling over people.

JH: Yeah, right. You know how your voice feels the next day? A lot of game acting is like that, you know where you're speaking like this for an extended period because there's ambient noise they're going to put in later, or for example if you are making death sounds or doing battle sound things like that.

CO: What do you mean death sounds?

JH: Well, let's see. OK, You'll be the director for a second I'll be the actor. So tell me how I'm going to die. Come up with the way I'm going to die.

CO: OK, you’re going to be impaled.

JH: OK. Am I impaled through the throat or through the stomach?

CO: OK, this matters doesn’t it? OK so in the stomach.

JH: Am I going to die quickly at the end or slowly?

CO: I think slowly.

JH: OK, here we go, ready?

[GUTTERAL SOUNDS OF ANGUISH]

CO: Oh dear. You died there?

JH: Yeah, so you can see how that would demand particular things vocally.

CO: How many times in the course of a session would you have to make sounds like that?

JH: Well, it depends if we were recording that particular death, I would do it three times in a row, and I would do exactly what I did only three times more, and then they say, “OK great, give us a longer version and a shorter version of that,” and that's just that death. Now let's say I get my throat cut, it’s a different death.

CO: OK, well sorry about this but can we do the throat assault, the throat cut, ok throat impalement.

JH: OK ready?

[CHOKING SOUNDS]

CO: That's so awful. It’s just very, I mean I'm presuming it's realistic having never heard anybody with their throat cut.

JH: I mean, I kind of obviously I haven’t had mine cut, thank God, but I I try to make it as realistic as possible for the people who play, and that really is what ultimately for me, and for all of us I think, what this is about. We want the players to have a real, authentic, visceral experience, so that they get their money's worth. You know, they really are having a transformative experience sometimes.

CO: Well you've never had a cut but you've had your vocal cords shredded by this, I understand?

JH: I have. I do an enormous amount of work to maintain a particular level of vocal strength so it doesn't happen, but on occasion it does happen. I have peers who have been unable to speak for months, I'll see them socially and they will not be speaking to me, they’ll have a little pad of paper because they're ordered to be on vocal rest by an EMT who says, “No you will do permanent damage if you don't stop talking for a few weeks.”

CO: And this is what you do, you have to have your voice.

JH: You do, this is our job.

CO: So what leverage do you have in order to get them to change the way you're treated?

JH: We went on strike and we ultimately did win, actually. We won in two ways. The victory for us was that when we went on strike we were freed up to take what we called our promulgated agreement, which was our version of the contract that we felt was fair, out into the game community and market test it. We very successfully, in a period of nine months, signed 57 different games to that contract. The marketplace loved it, and I think it's easy to lose sight the fact that there are more than just these 11 corporations out there making games. And it was tremendously successful for us because we formed phenomenal new relationships with a huge community, and that's really exciting for us. And when we went back in with the corporate 11 we did get a bonus payment. It wasn't obviously as big as we would have liked, you know, but it also opened the door to their acceptance that yes, we are a part of making these games successful.

CO: Well, we will be listening for you, and I thank you for talking to us. Thank you for dying for us twice.

[LAUGHTER]

JH: Anytime, Carol anytime. Thank you. Thank you for giving us a voice, thank you mail.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: Bye, bye.

JH: Bye.

JD: Jennifer Hale is a Canadian-born video game voice actor. We reached her in Los Angeles, and we have posted more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Laidback Waltz]

Burger King Pennywise

JD: This is a clown.

SOUNDCLIP

RONALD MCDONALD: Are you ready to tie the knot?

KIDS: Ready Ronald.

RM: You may know tip the bride. I just love weddings.

JD: This is also a clown.

SOUNDCLIP

PENNYWISE: Do you want a balloon too Georgie?

GEORGIE: I’m not supposed to take stuff from strangers.

PENNYWISE: Oh, well I’m Pennywise the dancing clown, now we aren’t strangers, are we?

JD: In both of those clips those clowns are speaking to characters they're about to eat. In the latter clip the character is a child named Georgie who really won't enjoy it. In the other, the two characters likely will because they are Mcnuggets. The first clown was Ronald McDonald, a fast food restaurant mascot with eyes full of joy, and a big red happy smile filled with straight white teeth. The second was Pennywise from the film adaption of Stephen King's It, a mysterious alien child-eater with yellow eyes full of hate, and a big red demonic smile full of razor sharp fangs. You would not mistake one for another, but in Russia one fast food chain sees a suspicious semblance between the clown that promotes burgers and the clown that eats children, and this fast food chain is seriously concerned that this suspicious resemblance will put a dent in its sales. Here's the weird part, that chain that is concerned is not McDonald's, it is Burger King. According to the business site Vedomosti, the Russian arm of Burger King has filed a complaint with the country's federal anti-monopoly service. The complaint states that Pennywise is quote, “an exact copy of the McDonald's mascot,” right down to quote, “the colour range and the balloons with which the clown lures children,” unquote. And Russian Burger King feels this is unfair because it's free marketing for its competition, McDonald's. OK hands up, who saw It and got an irresistible hankering for a fillet of fish? On the front OK. No, I don’t want to miss anyone. Right, OK, zero people in the world. So now I have to ask Burger King the same questionI would ask Georgie, what exactly is eating you?

Back To Top »

Part 2: Take a knee: WNBA, pylon lung

Take a knee: WNBA

Guest: Natalie Achonwa

JD: A lot of athletes have been in the news this week for their protests against racism, against police brutality in the U.S., and against President Donald Trump. Colin Kaepernick’s name has come up a lot, LeBron James, Steph Curry, even the typically apolitical, or politically neutral Tom Brady. But over in the Women's National Basketball Association female athletes have long been leaders when it comes to standing or kneeling for justice. In fact, we first spoke to Canadian WNBA player Natalie Achonwa more than a year ago when her team, the Indiana Fever, first took a knee during the anthem. We reached Natalie Achonwa again today in Indianapolis.

CO: Natalie, we spoke with you just about a year ago about your team's decision at that time to kneel during the national anthem in the United States. What do you make of the fact that this movement is getting all this attention now?

NATALIE ACHONWA: I mean, to add more voices to a cause is always a great thing. Just the big thing for me is, I just want to make sure that the voices and the people that are involved now are in it for the right reasons. I know we knelt that as a team, as a collective, unified because we felt that there are prominent issues in the U.S. with racism, with the killing of unarmed black men, that we felt that it needed to be knelt for. And I'm hoping that the people that are joining in now on the cause still have that same vision of a better USA.

CO: And what would be wrong reasons for taking a knee or kneeling down during the anthem?

NA: Well, unfortunately with Trump kind of interjecting himself into this protest it seems that some have jumped in because Trump told them they can't kneel, so they want to kneel. Or because they just are doing it for the snapshot, and in some cases it's hypocritical. People that criticized people for kneeling, who criticized Colin Kaepernick, if you want to speak specifically the NFL, and then here they are kneeling on Sunday.

CO: And this of course, I mean, Colin Kaepernick is sort of the figurehead for all of this, and he's faced huge consequences for what he did, but in the WNBA it doesn't come out of nowhere the gesture that you and the others made a year ago?

NA: No, I think the Minnesota Lynx started with shirts prior to even Colin Kaepernick kneeling, and I think it's something that comes from our WNBPA, our players association, we bring forward social issues that are relevant, and we really believe that we are more than just athletes, we're more than just basketball players.

CO: You mentioned the T-shirts and the Minnesota Lynx in order to support Black Lives Matter. They also had a media blackout after the games for a period of time also to protest the way the way the Black Lives Matter protest was treated. So they're pretty tough aren't they? These women don't give up.

NA: Definitely not. From the beginning of time women have shown a great desire to lead within social activism. Like I said before, it's not about who did it first or who protest the loudest, as long as there's a collective, and we're fighting the same battle, and trying to reach the same goals, we are always just proud to be a part of it.

CO: Why do you think it took so long for male athletes to join in this protest?

NA: Unfortunately I can't speak for them, because of course, I'm not a male athlete, but I know that it was relevant to us because we're, first and foremost women, and we're also African-American a group a big group of us. So we're able to speak from two perspectives — almost a double negative in society. And so I know that's why we wanted to voice our opinion, and we will continue to do what we can, and just hope that the men will continue to follow along.

CO: Do you think it's a higher profile, bigger arena, much larger salaries — do you think that that's what made them reluctant to take part, that they had that at stake?

NA: With the salaries and the status that some of these players have, sometimes it's difficult to see or remember — because a lot of these athletes are coming from positions of poverty and of lower status — what this is all about. So sometimes it just takes a little reminding that you have to go outside yourself. And sometimes it might not directly affect you, but the way that we move forward is thinking about others and helping others. And yeah, they have bigger cheques I guess, you could see with Colin Kaepernick, they have more financial gains I guess on the line, so it might be tougher for them.

CO: You're participating in the Women's National Basketball in the United States but you are a Canadian, and I wonder what you think of how hockey players, how the in particular the Pittsburgh Penguins have reacted to this campaign, in that they have said that they're perfectly happy to go to the White House, what do you think of that?

NA: I think that it is their decision, but I urge them to think outside themselves, I urge them to look through the lens of somebody that maybe that is kneeling, to see outside yourself, and outside of your privilege. Because a lot of them are Caucasian, a lot of them are white, so it's something it doesn't affect you, but it's something that affects people you live with, people in your country.

CO: You know that a lot of fans are booing, and that Donald Trump points to this as being evidence that there is no public support for this movement, and there are criticisms that this is creating divisions and friction. Do you think that you're getting anywhere? Can you see progress?

NA: It's always hard to measure progress until you see the big changes. But if people wereboycotting the NFL because Colin Kaepernick doesn't have a job, prior to Trump claiming that people are boycotting the NFL because people are kneeling. It's going to be a long, long uphill battle, but all we can do is do our part. Like I said, I don't make them like that these NFL players do, I don't have a million dollars like Colin Kaepernick to do donate, but what I can do is do my part. Natalie as always, it's great to talk to you. Thank you.

NA: Thank you Carol.

JD: Natalie Achonwa started playing basketball in Guelph, Ontario. Today though, she is a centre for the Indiana Fever with the WNBA. More than a year ago her entire team first took a knee during the U.S. national anthem, just a few weeks after Colin Kaepernick. We reached Natalie Achonwa again today in Indianapolis. You can find this interview on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Ambient Tones]

B.C. MMIWG hearing

JD: Public hearings are underway in Smithers British Columbia as part of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Yesterday and today the family members of missing and murdered women and girls testified about their loved ones and about their own lives. The hearings in Smithers follow an initial round of public testimony in Whitehorse earlier this year. They're taking place along the Highway of Tears, named for the many, many women and girls who have vanished along it. Marlene Jack testified today. In 1989 her older sister Doreen went missing, along with her two young sons and her husband Ronnie Jack. Their disappearance has never been solved, but Marlene says one thing is clear the trauma of the past, she and her sister shared, left a lasting impression, and affected her relationship with Doreen, right up until her disappearance nearly 30 years ago.

SOUNDCLIP

MARLENE JACK: We were in a residential school, and the way the nuns, these supervisors were treating us, I don't understand how they can do that. We were forced to go to church every Sunday, and we had to pray and love thy neighbours and love whatever, but then as soon as you leave the church the they tell you how you should be ashamed of yourself, your mom gave birth to you. They would talk to us like that, and always telling us how we’re going to be so useless. And for seven years, every day I heard that. We were not allowed to bond as family members. I'd be sitting in the same room, and if we talked to each other — if we're in the same room and when we're talking to each other and bonding as family — the nuns would grab us by our ear or something and pull us apart and tell us that's not permitted. Really scold us, and tell us that you're not allowed to do that here. So for us sisters knowing this, we were not close. I don't talk to my sister or Lorraine anymore, we never did since we left residential school. Doreen, we talked on the phone, but being in the same room we remember when we were not allowed to bond. We talked better on the phone than we did when we saw each other.

JD: That was the voice of Marlene Jack, her older sister Doreen disappeared along with Doreen's family in 1989. Ms. Jack is one of those who testified at a public hearing in Smithers B.C. today as part of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Eight more hearings are scheduled between now and December in communities across the country. Community hearings were initially scheduled to resume over the summer, many were delayed.

[Music: Sombre Ambient Strings]

Pylon lung

Guest: Paul Baxter

JD: Paul Baxter was not feeling well, he had a cough and it wouldn't go away. So the UK man went to the doctor and he learned eventually that he had a small problem in his respiratory system, a very small problem, something he would never have imagined. Mr. Baxter's case is detailed in a report that was recently published in the British Medical Journal. It is called an Airway Traffic Jam. We reached Paul Baxter on a rainy day in Lancashire, England.

CO: Paul, what did your doctors think they were dealing with when you first went to see them about this cough of yours?

PAUL BAXTER: My doctor just thought it was a chest infection, she just wasn't happy with the rattling noise in my lungs. She thought it was a build up a mucus, that's why she sent me for the x rays just to give herself peace of mind that it was nothing serious.

CO: What did they find in the X-ray?

PB: They couldn't see anything specific but it was a dark bit of a shadow in my right lung, she wanted to investigate further. That's why they ended up sending me for the camera down my throat.

CO: And did they think it might be a tumor?

PB: They never told me because obviously they didn't know what it was at the time, but it’s come out since, the doctor actually did think it was cancer, yes.

CO: So you had this this exploration with the camera, what kind of an operation was that?

PB: Well, it wasn’t an operation just goes your throat, the camera goes down your throat and into your lungs, so you can have a look around.

CO: And what did they find there?

[LAUGHTER]

PB: They put the camera down and they said well, they never actually said anything to start with, but he said, “Yes, you have got something you lung, but I can't reach it.” He says, “I can see it, it’s something that's orange in colour and I don't know what it is. I can see it, I just can't get the camera down far enough to be able to pick it out.” So I had to go back and they put the longer camera down, and they managed to grab hold of whatever it was at the bottom of my lung and pull it back out. Now in the meantime we were all watching it on the monitor, you could see it. They picked it out and it came out of my mouth. It was a little, miniature traffic cone that I used to have as a child.

CO: Like a toy? We call them pylons here.

PB: You call them pylons we call them we cones. Yeah a pylon, it was a small traffic pylon, yeah.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: And it was in your lung?

PB: It was in my lung. Now normally you swallow and it goes down into your stomach and passes out in natural ways. They said, “You probably inhaled a breath and it's gone down with your breath to your lung. So it’s literally gone down the wrong pipe, that's why it ended up in my lung and it was stuck there for 40 years.

CO: How old were you when you inhaled this traffic pylon?

PB: It would have been about — I would have been about seven years old.

CO: Do you remember having a toy like that?

PB: Oh yeah, yeah I do, I used to have all sorts. I had the fire engines, and police cars, and my normal cars and the road works — all the stuff that a normal boy used to play with. Yeah I do remember having the traffic pylons, I do.

CO: But you don't remember inhaling one?

PB: No I don't, I don't. I've probably been — I was forever putting stuff in my mouth, toys in my mouth, so yeah I probably did put it in my mouth, and I probably take a deep breath, and it’s just gone down my airway.

CO: So when the doctors pulled this traffic cone out of your lung, what did they say? How did they react?

PB: I think there were three doctors in the room, there were three doctors and I think there were four or five nurses plus myself —we all just started laughing, we just couldn't believe it, we just all started laughing. They never expected anything like that, I obviously didn't say anything like that, the doctor had said it's not common. He’s known things to end up in people's lungs, but they’ve only been there for a couple of years at the most, before either, they’ve had to have an operation to have it removed or it's come naturally. For something to sit in somebody’s lung for decades, it's never been known.

CO: How big is this little pylon?

PB: About a centimetre, a centimetre-and-a-half, it’s very small.

CO: So not even as big as your fingernail? It’s a little tiny thing.

PB: No it's very tiny.

CO: And so how's your cough now?

PB: My cough’s fine. It was just a normal winter cough, you know when people get a cold in winter, that's just what it was, it was just annoying me that much. I just wanted some antibiotics to clear it, and that’s when it all kicked off. This is the end result.

CO: You went in with with a common cold and you came out with a traffic pylon?

[LAUGHTER]

PB: I came out with a traffic pylon, yes.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: What are you going to do with it, keep it as a souvenir?

PB: I’m just keeping it, it’s just in a little pot.

CO: Any kids or grandkids around?

PB: My grandkids haven’t seen it yet, no I’ve kept it away from them, I don’t want them to swallow it as well.

[LAUGHTER]

PB: I’m not passing it on that way.

CO: This is a good lesson for all parents listening to this show.

PB: This is one of the reasons the doctors brought it to light. He wants to show parents that children need to be careful about what they do put in their mouths because they do tend to put a lot of little toys in their mouths.

CO: Paul it was great to talk to you, thanks.

PB: No problem.

CO: Bye

PB: Bye

JD: A teaching moment to be sure. That was Paul Baxter in Lancashire England. And if you would like to see some photographs of this little, toy traffic cone that doctors found inside Paul's lung, visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Pop]

Velcro

JD: You strap on your Velcro sneakers, tighten your Velcro gloves, slip your Velcro wallet, into the Velcro pockets on your Velcro jacket. You're all set, except for one thing — none of those things are Velcro. Yes they all stick together in a way we associate with the word Velcro, and yes they all make that ripping sound when you open them, but what you're hearing is not Velcro, it is a hook and loop fastener. I'm not the one who wants you to understand this distinction, Velcro the company is. Once upon a time, all scratchy fabric fasteners were made by Velcro, but that time is over alas. Velcro’s patent has expired, and Velcro wants you to stop using its name as the generic name for any old hook and loop faster. So the company has launched a campaign to raise awareness. It's not entirely clear why they want us to stop calling it Velcrow, it's a little complicated, and so they get some lawyers to explain it — in a music video. It is our sound of the day.

SOUNDCLIP

VELCRO SINGING LAWYERS: We're a company that's so successful. That everywhere you go you see the scratchy, hairy fastener. And you say, “Hey that’s Velcro”

But even though we invented this stuff our patent lapsed 40 years ago, now no matter who else makes it, I still want to call it Velcro. You think it’s awesome for us, we’re famous, but were lawyers and it’s causing us grief.

There are trademark laws being broken, it’s all here in this short legal brief. And we know that this is confusing because Velcro brand is who we are, but if you call it all Velcro, we’re gonna lose our circled ‘R’.

This part’s a hook, this part’s a loop. You call it Velcro, but we’re making you this is bleeping hook and loop. We know this seem ridiculous, this is a first world situation. And we’ve made half of a billion last year. I went to cancel my last vacation. And we’re asking you not to say a name we took 60 plus years yo build. But if you calling these Velcro shoes our trademark will get killed. We aren’t just doing this for us, we’re doing it for all the successful brands that got so popular people started using the brand names the wrong way. So please remember.

If you need something to clean up your socks, do it with bleach and not with bleep. If you have blood from a boo-boo you made this is a bandage and not a bleep. If you’re exercising with someone you’re dating, its in-line skating and not rollerblading. I know that this stuff is more fun to say but if you keep doing it our trademarks go away. This is a hook and loop. You call it Velcro but we’re begging you. This is bleeping hook and loop.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Dumpster rescue, pharma disclosures, Peterborough rally

Dumpster rescue

Guest: Donald Prince

JD: Donald Prince was in bed yesterday when he heard the garbage truck outside his apartment, just a normal Tuesday morning sound, followed by a not-at-all-normal Tuesday morning sound. His wife yelling that a person had just been accidentally picked up and dumped into the back of that garbage truck. We reached on a prince in Yellowknife.

CO: Donald, tell us what your wife saw when the garbage truck came by yesterday?

DONALD PRINCE: Well she saw a guy, when was the one he was lifting the dumpster to go dump it in his truck, she saw a guy stand up in there, and he started yelling at the driver telling him to stop, stop. Basically yelling and screaming and waving his arms around and saw him get dumped.

CO: Into the truck?

DP: Yes.

CO: Wow. And did it seem like the driver of the truck saw that?

DP: Oh no, no. The driver just dumped the contents out, put the dumpster back down and backed up and took off.

CO: So what did your wife do?

DP: First she ran in and grabbed the phone, and then came in holding the phone. She said, “They just dumped the guy out of the dumpster into the garbage truck, I'm on the phoning the RCMP.” And I said, “What?” I jumped up and I ran out, and I looked out the door to the window, and the truck was just taking off toward the street. And so I just grabbed some shorts and a T-shirt, threw them on, threw my shoes on and said, “I’ve got to stop that truck.” I thought he was going to get squashed.

CO: You ran out the door?

DP: Yeah, just ran down three flights, jumped in my truck, started it and just hit the gas. I was flying out the right parking lot and down onto the main drive there and passing cars and trucks or whatever, and just whipping around.

CO: But at this point you haven't seen the truck, you haven't caught up with it yet?

DP: No, I haven't caught up with it. So what I did is, I whipped around behind that little strip mall, and he wasn't in the back so I went right around, and I saw him across the street near the Wal-Mart. He was in the parking lot, he was driving through and I just gunned it, and went straight across the road and into the parking lot, honking my horn, and sped right up to him, and hit my brakes, jumped out, went up to him, by then he had heard me and things like that, I was right beside him.

CO: What did you say to him?

DP: I said, “You've got a guy in the back of your truck. He said, “What do you mean?” I said, “You just dumped a guy into the back of your truck. My wife just saw you pick up the garbage up there, my wife just saw you dump the dumpster and the guy was in there.” And he said, “Holy smokes.” And so he jumped out, and we were just going around to the back there. At the back of the truck, there's a ladder going up to the top, and we we're going to go up and the RCMP pulled in. The two RCMP guys went up and the driver went up and I followed them up to the top of the truck.

CO: What could you see when you got up top?

DP: I just went to the top of the ladder up to the top deck of the top of the truck, and the RCMP, one of the RCMPs went to the edge of the hole there, and put his flashlight down and then we could hear the guy, he was just making groaning sound I suppose. And the RCMP said, “He's still alive and away.” I mean, they couldn't to him right away he was down probably about 10 feet deep.

CO: Wow, but at least you had confirmed that the guy was in the truck and he was still alive?

DP: Yeah, and they were just shaking their heads saying “Holy smokes.” Anyway, by then the RCMP had already phoned the ambulance and phoned the fire department.

CO: Did you see them pull the man out of the truck?

DP: Oh, Yeah I stayed around while they were waiting for the ambulance I ran up and told my wife, she had to go to work in the hospital 6:30 in the morning, and I ran up and told her, “He's alive.” And she was quite relieved about that , and then I just got off and went back down there.

CO: What kind of state was the man in when he was pulled out of the truck?

DP: Well, he was he was awake, he was in a lot of pain. Apparently the injuries weren't that significant, there were some minor injuries, I don't know.

CO: What you think he was doing in the dumpster?

DP: He was one of the homeless guys here. I just know he was looking for a warm place to sleep, it wasn’t so cold maybe. We have facilities up here, we have a couple shelters we have a van that picks up people if they want to go to a shelter and things like that. But like any other place there's people who don't want anything to do with that. You know, they rather fend for themselves and take care of themselves.

CO: What do you think would have happened to him if your wife hadn't been out there having a smoke?

DP: He probably would have died, they would have crushed him. Even the RCMP said “Lucky you guys saw it, otherwise this guy would be dead.” After a few loads of it gets compacted, and nobody would have known, nobody at all.

CO: It was a good thing she was there.

DP: Yeah, it was a good thing she was out having a smoke. I don’t smoke and I bug here once in a while so I guess he's got a reprieve now from that.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: I'm glad that she was there and saved that guy's life. It's good to talk to you Donald. Thank you.

DP: I Appreciate that, and for us we’re just be grateful that we were able to help and we're sure that that's the main thing — the guy was still alive so that’s a good thing.

CO: Good for you, Thank you so much.

DP: You're welcome.

CO: Bye, bye.

DP: Bye.

JD: We reached Donald Prince in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.

[Music: Banjo]

Pharma disclosures

Guest: Dr. Andrew Boozary

JD: If you live in the province of Ontario you may soon be able to see exactly how much your doctor receives from pharmaceutical companies. And that is thanks to legislation introduced by the Ontario government today. Under this new bill anytime a drug company or a medical device manufacturer pays a doctor a research grant, or pays a doctor to give a speech, or covers the cost of a doctor attending a conference that information would be made public. Ontario would be the first province in Canada to adopt this kind of role. Dr. Andrew Boozary is the founder of the Open Pharma Campaign, which has been lobbying for such rules to be adopted nationwide. We reached Dr. Boozary in Toronto.

CO: Dr. Boozary, how common are payments to doctors from medical companies pharmaceutical companies?

DOCTOR ANDREW BOOZARY: You know Carol, for the longest time we really had no idea. Earlier this year 10 of 45 drug companies in Canada decided to volunteer information about the extent of these payments. And in many of the cases it was incomplete, not even for the full year. And it amassed close to $50 million. But it was aggregate data, meaning we had no idea about what the sort of individual payments were like, but there are definitely payments in the tens-of-millions-of-dollars going on, if not more, if you could all the drug companies, and this is why I think we're so encouraged about the news today.

CO: It’s not just all money is it, it's sometimes in kind. What kinds —give us some examples of the kinds of things that doctors are getting?

AB: Yeah, it's usually not duffle bags of cash, I do think that there's a really wide range, as you mentioned. It can go from meals, or everything from pens, but also to dinners for engagement has been highlighted by some other outlets in terms of where there would be continuing medical education, and then really sort of sophisticated array as to how pharmaceutical companies are able to sort of seep into the medical system.

CO: And tell us why that's a problem? We do actually have evidence that shows that they're getting these kinds of payments or benefits has actually skewed the way that they prescribe.

AB: It's a terrific question, there's no randomized controlled trial, which we see is the gold standard in medicine, where maybe take one physician and subject them to payments and one who doesn't. But there's been some pretty rigorous studies done out of the United States, where they've been able to get access to this data, because of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, which had the Sunshine Act as part of it. And they've been able have this data for the last three to four years now, and there's been some pretty large studies that we’rer able look at. Physicians who are even receiving meals or payments as nominal as $20, which or the public might see as small, were actually more likely to prescribe brand name drugs versus generics.

CO: The legislation today, does it meet your expectations? Is it what you've been asking for and advocating for, for all these years?

AB: Again, there's been terrific advocacy on this for decades, by patients, physicians, journalists and researchers, and really we're encouraged by the announcement today because it one, goes further than some of the acts in other jurisdictions, as I mentioned the US, where it's not just physicians it's actually all prescribers where information will have to be mandated on drug companies, and it also includes medical device companies, who have been known to also have wide ranging interactions with prescribers. So I think we're thrilled, but we know the work's not done. We hope that this can spur some of the momentum across the country because we don't think it's fair that patients in British Columbia or Nova Scotia shouldn’t have access to sort of information when they want to make choices.

CO: But what will be different for patients in Ontario? What would they be able to access? What will they know and learn, how might it change the way they have conversations with their doctors?

AB: It's exactly that, hopefully it's about more conversations with their doctors of where they'll be able to have access to this information before a visit or you know after a potential prescription. But I think what some of the data shows or some of the research shows, is that every patient will have a different interpretation. Some patients might want a doctor or be really ecstatic about their doctor being an expert and getting lots of transfers of value or lots of engagement with the pharma industry, and some might have issues with where there might be smaller payments. But we want to bring up really why they think there's an evidence base or what the evidence base might be for this prescription that was made for maybe smaller transfers of value.

CO: Are there any legitimate reasons the doctor might accept these kinds of payments or gifts?

AB: Yes, absolutely. I think that it's important not to discount some of the innovation and collaboration that's happened between the medicine or drug industry and medicine. In the medical field, it's led to a lot of promise, but it's important to ensure that the right parameters and that there's the right disclosure there that these things aren't happening in a clandestine fashion. There's a terrific amount of research that's been going on that's funded by pharma, but it's important to ensure that not only patients can know which physicians are involved with that sort of research, but that physicians can really have trust in their peers to know what the extent of their financial interaction might be with the drug company.

CO: This proposed legislation could require disclosure of payments as low as ten dollars. I mean, so it's a pretty wide net isn’t it? We go from weekends in golf resorts that are paid for to pens and ball caps.

AB: Right.

CO: So is it necessary to be that broad?

AB: I think it's probably important not to set it at $1 as you mentioned about a pen, essentially that it wouldn't sort of encompass all physicians or prescribers in the system. But I think to a point where maybe it's you know over $10 or a $10 or more, shows that there needs to be an active choice about engagement. And again, this is not about sinister activity. There's a lot of continuing medical education for professionals that are funded by pharma, and where there might be meals that are provided, these are things that can be there but they shouldn't be seen as sort of nefarious. And where this can at least be known, it can maybe take away some of the stigma about those payments but allow for real open conversations about what's happening.

CO: How likely will it be that other provinces will do this in addition to Ontario?

AB: We're really hoping again, that as I mentioned, we’re encouraged but the work isn't done. We're not complacent, we really hope that other provinces follow suit, or that there is a momentum that can build in Ottawa about this being important, where patients across the country can have even standards and even access the sort of information. So we're hopeful, but again, it's an uphill climb.

CO: I think this is of great interest to our listeners, to people in Ontario and in Canada, and I appreciate talking to you Dr. Boozary, thank you.

AB: Thank you so much for your time.

JD: Dr. Andrew Boozary is the founder of the Open Pharma Campaign. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music: Ambient Hip-Hop]

Overdose call-in

JD: The opioid crisis continues to ravage lives in communities across this country. There are the lives of those taken over by addiction, by overdose and sickness. And then there are the friends and the children, the parents, the partners of people who have been suffering addiction. It falls upon them often to care for a loved one who is suffering and has limited options for treatment. And then, too often, they are the ones left to mourn. CBC Radio's Ontario Today heard from one such person, a mother as part of a call in show today, she described losing her daughter. And then they got this call from David a listener from Parry Sound Ontario.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID: First of all, my heart is breaking, my heart is breaking. We’re losing a whole generation. We're losing a whole generation here on this. This issue is not going to go away with just treatment. I mean, in 1995 I was a full blown cocaine addict and I sat in my shower with my pistol, I mean, I was a bad person. I carried a gun, I fought, I did cocaine and drank, but I sat in that shower contemplating killing myself just because I didn't have any more money for cocaine, and I couldn't get any more cocaine. And realistically I'm one of the lucky ones, I was able to look inside and say, “I have kids, my mother would be heartbroken, that's it, I'm done.” And it was a battle, I was a bad person, I really was and I didn't see a way out either. The only thing that saved my life was the fact of my family, my real family, not these people that I was dealing with. Every night I would get on my Harley and head down into the falls, and party, and have a great time — it was all fake, it was all fake. When it's all over and you're sitting there in a hot shower, and all your family's gone to school, and your wife has gone to work, and you're standing there in the shower, and you don't have anymore money, and you don't have a way to pay your rent. It seems like it seems like it’s a dead end road and you just want it to stop. These people who are dying can't help themselves, we have to help them. And if we're not going to do it — Kathleen Wynne could get control of this and call it a public health emergency.

JD: That was a caller named David in conversation with host Rita Celli on CBC Radio's Ontario Today. [

[Music: Reggae]

Peterborough rally

Guest: Diane Therrien

JD: According to the organizers, the rally in Peterborough Ontario this Saturday will be a gathering of people who are anti-Prime Minister Trudeau and anti-immigration. According to others, it will actually be a gathering of neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The main organizer is Kevin Goudreau of the Canadian Nationalist Front. He has previously held events promoting so-called “white pride,” and so people in Peterborough are saying the city should never have given Mr. Goudreau a permit to hold the event in a public park. Dianne Tarion is a city councillor in Peterborough.

CO: Ms. Therrien, what did you think when you heard that the Canadian Nationalist Front was planning a rally in Peterborough?

COUNCILLOR DIANE THERRIEN: Well, I thought we can hopefully organize to stop this, or at least to show that that kind of behavior and attitudes aren't welcome here.

CO: What do you know about the organizer Kevin Goudreau?

DT: I know that he has been to Peterborough before. He's known in the downtown community for having assaulted bartenders and threatening people, and trying to be an intimidating sort of violent force downtown. He's been kicked out of several places in downtown Peterborough in the past, and so just not a very happy guy, kind of on somebody who's very angry and very sad.

CO: I think he's published photos of himself with his shirt off — he's got a swastika tattooed on his chest.

DT: Yes, I called him a neo-Nazi on Twitter, and he tweeted back saying that he wasn't a neo-Nazi, and it’s like, “Are you sure? Because you have a swastika tattoo.” He is a neo-Nazi, and I don't know why the city would have issued a permit to that guy as the applicant, knowing or being able to find out fairly easily from a simple Google search, that this is not a peaceful person, this is a an angry, violent person

CO: And you've had an exchange with him?

DT: It's on Twitter so you could see it. He basically — in response to the Peterborough examiner saying that the city issued a permit — my response was that the organizer is neo-Nazi, and neo-Nazis never rally or organize in the name of peace, so this couldn't possibly be a peaceful protest, so the permit should not have been granted. And then he responded saying that he wasn't a neo-Nazi. He said, “I'm not a neo-Nazi/national socialist as you claim. I'm just a nationalist/patriot that believes in democracy and peace. You could be libel.” Which isn't even proper grammar, not that we're surprised, but that's what he said. But it all — his actions, and his words, and his appearance, his tattoo and his posing for these pictures, do indicate you are a neo-Nazi. And so I'm fine, I will keep calling him that. I don't care what he says.

CO: You're planning these counter-protests, but do you have any concerns that somebody might be motivated, as they were in Charlottesville, to turn violent against the counter-protesters?

DT: Well, certainly I think that, like I said, the type of person that is organizing this rally and who he's hoping to draw in, unfortunately are people that don't seem to have a lot of joy or love in their lives, and are driven by anger and violence. That's not what we're hoping for, certainly the counter-protest are coming from a spirit of love, and creative resilience, and inclusiveness and the plans that we're having are dancing, and singing, and drumming and sharing food together and building community, and demonstrating rather than having a confrontation, demonstrating what a community should look like and what it can look like, and what is possible when you feel loved and you feel you know that sense of belonging.

CO: I'm just wondering if you're at all concerned, given what happened in Charlottesville, where someone in a car, in a vehicle ran into protesters and counter-protesters killing one person, hurting many others. Any concerns that, that act might inspire others to attack your counter protest?

DT: There will be a police present, they've been notified of what's happening this weekend, so certainly they will be there. We’re not hoping for any of that, obviously.

CO: The rally itself, I know you at first wanted it not to happen at all, but Peterborough’s Mayor Daryl Bennett wrote in the letter that he can't oppose the application to someone to have a what they are saying is a nonviolent rally. that they have to give this group its permit. What do you say to that?

DT: Again, my position was that Nazis and neo-Nazis come from a place of violence, they come not from a place of peace, so to me inherently, it can't be a peaceful rally. Everything that he's talking about online could be qualified as hate speech. And there are provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada that prevent inciting that type of hatred against groups of people.

CO: We have seen a few protests recently where the people who came out to be in favor of white supremacy, or who were doing white pride or whatever you want to call it. There were more counter-protesters than there were the original demonstration, that they were vastly outnumbered by people like what you are organizing to counter Mr. Goudreau. So in some cases does that not give more publicity to their cause than they would get if you didn't show up?

DT: This is the quandry that I've been having this week since there's been all this media attention. I don't want to give this guy more publicity but media keeps calling. And I also don't want to normalize his behavior or not speak out against it. I understand your point and I take it fully, but on the other hand speaking out against this does need to happen.

CO: All right we'll be. Ms. Therrien, thank you.

DT: Thank you.

JD: Diane Therrien is a City Councillor in Peterborough, Ontario and that is where we reached her.

[Music: Laidback Jazz]

National Tree Day

JD: Happy National Tree Day everyone. As you know, today is National Tree Day, a day to plant trees, to climb trees, to basically indulge in things or root, branch and trunk — trees. On this National Tree Day As It Happens would like to honour the most national of trees, not the maple sweet and seasonally spectacular though Canada's national tree may be — no. The national-est tree around appears to be the mighty oak. Oaks of various kinds or the national tree of no fewer than 12 countries around the globe. And where did all those oaks begin? — in Canada of course. Not recently mind you. In new research published in the latest edition of New Phytologist Andrew Hipp goes back a ways. Mr. Hipp is something called a plant systematist, at the Morton Arboretum in Illinois, and Mr. Hippe traced the DNA of 146 oak species to a single kind of oak. An oak that grew 45 million or so years ago in what is now the Canadian part of the Arctic Circle. And so on this National Tree Day we in Canada would like to extend a you’re welcome to all of those countries busy celebrating your so-called national trees.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 27, 2017 episode trancsript

More Stories Like This