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 28, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

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: A big party with balloons and cake, but just one streamer. The federal government announces a deal that will see Netflix spend half a billion dollars on Canadian TV and film, but our guest says the streaming service will get all the binge benefits.

JD: The early birth gets the room. The B.C. Women's Hospital unveils a new neonatal intensive care unit that allows mothers to share a room with their premature babies. It is being called the first of its kind in North America.

CO: The missing rink. As the municipal election in Calgary approaches next month, a feud between the mayor and the National Hockey League over a new arena for the Calgary Flames is heating up.

JD: Out of formation. Yesterday, one climber was killed, another injured when a massive piece of granite fell in Yosemite National Park. Tonight, a witness tells us what he saw.

CO: Where there is a smoking jacket, there’s fire. The death of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner at 91 reignites a debate about whether he pushed boundaries to end sexual repression, or exploited women to his own ends?

JD: And… the fecal position. To treat people suffering from C. difficile, members of a Toronto medical team perform transplants using something we all produce. And now that donors are running short, they're coming forward to ask for your poop. As It Happens, The Thursday edition. Radio that knows sometimes incremental steps come before excremental steps.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Netflix announcement Flames stadium, El Capitan rock

Netflix announcement

Guest: John Doyle

JD: The federal government says it wants to do a better job of promoting Canadian culture both at home and abroad. And now, it has enlisted Netflix to help. Today, Canadian Heritage Minister Melanie Joly announced a plan that would see Netflix pony up half a billion bucks over five years, to invest in Canadian television and film production. Here's part of what Minister Joly said at a press conference today.

SOUNDCLIP

MELANIE JOLY: Under this agreement Netflix will create Netflix Canada, a permanent film and television production presence here in Canada — the first time that the company has done so outside the United States. And building on the strong track record of investing in shows like “Anne” and “Alias Grace” with the CBC. They have agreed to invest a minimum of five hundred million dollars in original productions in Canada, in both official languages, over the next five years.

JD: That was Heritage Minister Melanie Joly, with some details of how Netflix's investment in Canada would work. The Minister's announcement was part of a bigger plan to fund Canada's culture sector cultural sector in the digital age. John Doyle is not so sure that this latest Netflix deal is much of a deal at all. John Doyle is a television critic and a columnist for The Globe and Mail. We reached him in Toronto.

CO: John, what are Canadians getting with this Netflix proposal?

JOHN DOYLE: That is a very good question Carol. And the reason I was tempted to pour cold water on the Minister's big announcement today is that it could end up being a raw deal for Canada. It is not new. It is not revolutionary, which is how it is being presented by the minister and the government today.

CO: But still, five hundred million dollars over five years — $100 million a year to make Canadian productions. Why isn't that a good thing?

JD: Oh, it is a good thing, but the thing is it's not as revolutionary as presented. The fact is that Netflix has already been spending vast amounts of money in Canada, helping fund programs, buying programs to distribute, to stream on their services around the world. In fact, Netflix pointed out at the end of last year that he had already spent about 100 million dollars in Canada last year. So what's happening now is not new, it is simply formalizing an arrangement that was already there. And that arrangement is that Netflix essentially takes advantage of Canadian television that is already being made and either fully or partly subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.

CO: OK, so these programs that it's selling around the world — it’s streaming. Can you give us some examples of shows that have been subsidized directly or indirectly by Canadian taxpayers that Netflix then distributes?

JD: Well, “Alias Grace” would be the most recent, which just started airing on CBC — a very good adaptation of the Margaret Atwood novel. That is subsidized by Canadian taxpayers, as is everything on the CBC. Netflix is part of the deal to make it and then gets to stream that in markets outside of Canada. So that's an example of Netflix taking programming that Canadians are already paying them to make and streaming them around the world. That's good in that it allows people outside of Canada to see good Canadian productions. But it's a very sweet deal for Netflix.

CO: What does Netflix itself get out of the announcement from the minister today?

JD: It gets content; Netflix has an insatiable appetite for content. It relies on getting its subscribers all over the world to keep paying their fees every month by presenting new content. So when it makes a deal like it has just done with Canada, it is a straight line to content that is already under way and it doesn't have to invest as much as it would if it was starting entirely from scratch.

CO: Why are companies like Bell Media angry with this decision? What did they want the minister to do with Netflix?

JD: They wanted Netflix to be taxed. They wanted it to be treated as operating like it was a Canadian company that had to do minimum standards of Canadian content in terms of production and development, and pay taxes and pay into the funds for the creation of Canadian television that Canadian broadcasters do.

CO: This is a statement from Bell Media; they said we note that the Netflix contribution will be a fraction of what Canadian companies, like Bell Media, are required to pay. Our total annual investment in Canadian content is nine times the average amount that Netflix would contribute yearly.

JD: I would say that it's pretty much true because the announcement that to me is a kind of glossy sticker on the minister's big new remodel of Canadian creative policy. In fact, it doesn't really amount to a lot.

CO: How will the CanCon regulations be applied to Netflix?

JD: That remains to be seen. The devil is in the details, and I think it's also worth pointing out that Netflix tends to be a pretty opaque company. It doesn't deal in ratings. It never announces how many how many people watched the shows that it streams. So it seems odd to me that the government minister is sort of hitching her wagon to this secretive, rather opaque foreign streaming service.

CO: Now just as far as the shows that we're getting or not getting — what might come out of all of this. You have been critical in your columns about what gets produced in Canada and what gets aired and that you're pointing out that other countries — small countries and small regions — are producing world-class television like the Nordic noir we’re getting out of Scandinavian countries. And do you think that this position says that Netflix is something that might help Canada to be able to produce those kinds of shows like “The Bridge”, or “Nobel” that you have written favorably about.

JD: It's a very big might be a help because, first of all, you cannot legislate quality. And secondly, Netflix is not a guarantee of quality, especially this year. It has presented its subscribers with a lot of duds.

CO: Like what?

JD: “Girl Boss”, “Gypsy”, “The Get Down”, many of these very expensively made programs. There isn't a lot of quality control at Netflix in the same way that there is with premium cable companies like HBO or with the FX channel.

CO: But do you think that Canadian television has a chance to become an export product in the way that other small regions are?

JD: There is a situation in television that is basically this: quality will find an audience — it will find a home. Where is Canada in the golden age of television? We're pretty much nowhere. We haven't made the series that are part of the canon like “Mad Men”, like “Breaking Bad”, “The Sopranos”, those various classic shows. And that happens for a complicated set of reasons. But if we aim for the very best in the way that those Scandinavian countries you mentioned have, that will I mean to an audience. The deal with Netflix is no guarantee that you're going to make masterpieces that are going to be seen around the world on Netflix. It's simply content — content only.

CO: John, we'll leave it there. As usual, it’s great to talk to you. Thank you.

JD: Thank you, Carol.

JEFF DOUGLAS: John Doyle is a film and television critic and columnist for The Globe and Mail. We reached him in Toronto. And we did request an interview with Heritage Minister Melanie Joly. She was unavailable to speak to us. But we have posted more on this story on our website, that being, of course, www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Indie]

Flames stadium

Guest: Brett Wilson

JD: For months, the NHL has been locked in a stalemate with the City of Calgary. The NHL wants the city to replace the Saddledome, home the Calgary Flames. It's 35-years-old. A new arena would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million. And Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi has made it very clear that he does not want the taxpayers of his city footing the bill for that arena. But without the new arena, the league has said the Flames may have to move. Now, Calgary is in the midst of a municipal election campaign. Election day is less than three weeks away. And more than once this month, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has strongly suggested that Calgarians may have to choose between their mayor and their hockey team. Brett Wilson is a Calgary-based businessman and philanthropist. We reached him though in Toronto today.

CO: Mr. Wilson, what's wrong with the Saddledome?

BRETT WILSON: [Sound: Laughter]The Saddledome, unfortunately, was poorly designed in the first place, so that gets you off on the wrong footing. When the new ownership group came in in the early 90s, they had to rebuild the inside of it in terms of the lower bowl and create proper… well, at the time, they thought it was proper… suites to allow for entertainment from food and beverage from corporate suites. But the Saddledome was designed with pinch points. It was designed with a poor lower structure on the ceiling. It was designed and built in a location that made no sense; it was stampede lands that don't facilitate density and growth and the experience that you get when you have density around an urban, or suburban, however you want to describe it downtown arena. So it's just a collision of everything wrong.

CO: Is it a white elephant?

BW: To me, it’s been a white elephant since I first stepped in it.

CO: OK, if the Calgary Flames want a new arena. Who should pay for it?

BW: The question is who should pay for a lot of infrastructure that's community-based? Should a bridge be paid for by those who use it, or those who benefit from it and those who benefit? And those who benefit can be an entire community. And that's the conversation we're having in Calgary right now. Unfortunately, we have a mayor who in my mind is retrogressive and he leads counsel in this thought that says we will never allow an arena to be built with public money since it's for the benefit of billionaires who have hockey players 44 nights a year.

CO: Isn't that true? Doesn't he have a point?

BW: No, he has no point that's valid.

CO: Aren’t they billionaires?

BW: They might be rich, but do they owe the community another building? Why not tell them that they should build a bridge so that they can get from north to south quicker. I mean those sort of arguments are very narrow-minded. They’re blinkers on perspectives. Who benefits from an arena? Well, if you can create density around an arena, you've got jobs, taxes, you've got developers profits, you've got property taxes, you've got all sorts of what I call ancillary benefits. I'm a part owner of the hockey team down in Nashville. That arena was paid for by the community for the benefit of absolutely everybody. It was built in order to attract originally an NBA team. They failed, they tripped and they stumbled and ended up with a consolation prize called the Nashville Predators. It just happens to have worked out very, very, very well. There's benefits to everybody, so why shouldn't it be a contribution from the people who benefit from density, the people who benefit from the jobs, the people who benefit from call it the vibe. There's something magic happening right now in Nashville. Happens to be the same size as Calgary, but nobody is phoning me saying can you help me get tickets to the Calgary Flames or suggest a hotel I can stay at in Calgary? But it happens to me twice a day in terms of Nashville.

CO: Just so I understand, are you saying it's because of the Saddledome? That you’re saying people don't want to go to see the flames because they don't like the building — they don't like that arena?

BW: No, you're taking a 100 per cent the negative. What I'm saying is that there's no experience and opportunity to build something that's got an absolutely world class experience. There is no experience in Calgary. There is a standalone, dysfunctional building sitting in the corner of a large field that gets populated with cars for parking.

CO: Right. Now let's just talk about the politics of this because I wonder if you agree with how the NHL, particularly Gary Bettman and Ken King, are going about this because what they are saying very strongly is that if you don't give us this new stadium, we will think of moving the Flames someplace else. And they're doing it just before an election for the mayor. And they're saying that Mr. Nenshi — Mayor Nenshi — is the problem. And if you want to keep the Flames, then you may have to consider how you vote when it comes down to voting day. So do you think that's the right way to go about this?

BW: Well, I certainly am one to say that I think the problem is Nenshi, but Mayor Nenshi, to be respectful, has said very publicly that he's opposed to putting public money into an arena that only benefits hockey players. To have a mayor who says that the new arena is a cornerstone of my platform and that's when, frankly, the Flames called hogwash — or stronger words — and said enough is enough, you haven't been at the table for four years. You were disingenuous, you were insincere in your comment about being a cornerstone and now, the mayor is saying well, if we don't get an arena too bad, so sad.

CO: Let’s just talk about this politics. The NHL appears to be meddling in Calgary's election in order to get their way. I mean not even appears. I mean they've said basically Mayor Nenshi is the problem, and we may have to move this team out of here, unless we get our way. Do you think that's an appropriate thing for them to be doing?

BW: All I'm saying is that they responded when Nenshi came out and said a new arena is a cornerstone of my new platform for moving forward. The Flames and the NHL appear to have said hogwash, that's simply not true because behind closed doors, it's now obvious and this information is public that he's either misled — I hate to use the word lied — but he hasn't been truthful in terms of telling the community what's been going on for the last four or five years. It’s simply not true. And so all that they've done is say enough is enough. I know each of the owners of the flames, they are outstanding corporate citizens in terms of business, in terms of philanthropy, in terms of commitment to Calgary and the flames have been a big part of our community for a long time — so I think their frustration, quite frankly, someone turned the heat up and it was the mayor.

CO: Do you think that this will influence the election next month?

BW: You know I hope it influences outcome. I want to see community infrastructure and I went on record a couple of days ago saying I'm happy if Mayor Nenshi returns. I'm happy if Bill Smith returns. I'm happy if Andre Chabot returns. So long as every one of them is willing to commit to going into a locked room to cut a deal, we've been dragging this too long. We as a city — we as a community — are losing and it's unfair to me — the citizen of Calgary.

CO: Alright. We'll leave it there. Mr. Wilson, thank you.

BW: I'm delighted.

JD: Bret Wilson is a Calgary-based businessman and philanthropist. He is also a former “Dragon” on CBC's “Dragon's Den”. Today, we reached him in Toronto. And we are hoping to have Mayor Nenshi on the program to respond to Mr. Wilson tomorrow.

[Music: Ambient]

El Capitan Rock

Guest: Pete Zabrok

JD: El Capitan is a towering granite rock formation in California's Yosemite National Park. Yesterday afternoon, huge parts of it broke off and came tumbling down. In a statement today, park officials said one person is dead, another is injured. Everyone else has been accounted for. And the search efforts are over. Pete Zabrok is a Canadian climber who witnessed the rock fall. We reached him on top of El Capitan earlier today.

CO: Pete, how does it feel to be on El Capitan today after what you've witnessed?

PETE ZABROK: I feel… I'm at a loss for words honestly and that's pretty rare with one as loquacious as me. I am, firstly, truly thankful to be alive. It well could have been us who were killed. We climbed for five or six days, directly under the rock fall. If we'd been a day or two slower at my customary, pedantry wall climbing pace, I would not be speaking to you right now.

CO: Can I ask you to describe it? Because this rock slide was the size of an apartment building as it's been described. What did you actually see?

PZ: I'm the one who described it because I’m the the one who saw it. I saw an apartment building fly past me maybe 150 feet away. Basically, you don't normally see these things because they just happen without any warning and it's all over by the time you turn your head. I was leading one of the aid climbing pitches and I had called down to my partners, who were belaying me, to pass me up some gear on the zip line. So I was pulling some gear and as I was looking down at them, behind them I suddenly saw this massive cube of pure white Yosemite granite detach itself from the wall and literally it was bigger than a house. It was like an apartment building and that was just the first rock fall. It fell from 2,000 feet up where we were; it hit the wall at about a thousand feet and completely disintegrated into a hundred thousand pieces of granite shrapnel. I could see clearly the base and I saw at least two if not three people down there. The next thing I saw was they were completely buried.

CO: One ranger said there were at least 30 people climbing the wall when that rock fell. And there was more than one, as you mentioned, but it’s the big one that you're describing. And that they have put out a release saying there is one person who died, another person who they have recovered and that everyone else is accounted for. There have been very few deaths on Yosemite, and though there's been many rock falls like this it's very unusual, isn't it?

PZ: As far as climbing areas in the world go, El Capitan is fairly safe from objective danger. Objective danger meaning dangers that you cannot control when you're climbing. We have great weather here in Yosemite. The rock is for the most part good. You don't have to contend with high altitude sickness. And the Yosemite search and rescue are the absolute top of the game. It's the kind of place where you can climb and you can actually blow it and have a chance of surviving. But yes, rock fall deaths here in Yosemite are comparatively rare, but this is how nature works.

CO: And any warning do you know. Is there anything that indicates that a rock fall out is about to happen?

PZ: Yeah, and guess what? We ignored it all or we slipped it under the carpet. How do I say this? One of my great weaknesses is that I suffer from the sin of pride. The sin of pride being roughly defined as thinking that you're a lot more bitchin then you really are. And this was an incredibly humbling experience because all the signs were there. There was a lot of freshly fallen rock at the base of the wall. We could see the gigantic roofs looming above. We knew that one day they were going to cut loose. But you know the weather was good, they'd been up there and so we went to the meadows and we put the high-resolution telescope on the route. Myself and our climbing ranger, Brandon Adams, and there had been rock fall on this route named “waterfall route” in the past because, geologically speaking, it's rather loose. And Brandon went up solo and repaired the route. And then he went up and climbed it twice in under a day. He’s an extremely talented, world-class climber and he repaired the route. So we made an earlier accent after the repairs; he did a great job. But he and I looked at the wall together and we scoped every pitch — that's a rope length. We scoped every rope length of our intended route called “waterfall route” and we could see that the recent stone fall had not affected it in any way. Alright, well let's go do it. And you know for me, here's where the pride element comes in. I'm 58, I had climbed 57 different El Cap routes. Now that I'm on the summit, I can say I've climbed 58. So I quote/unquote climbed my age in El Cap routes. Now the problem is most of the routes that I haven't climbed yet are really, really hard. I've climbed plenty of the hardest routes, but there weren't too many left that were easy to climb. And “waterfall route” was, technically speaking, fairly easy from an objective danger standpoint quite different. So against perhaps this little nagging doubt in the back of my mind, I decided to ignore it and say yeah, you know it probably won't happen and we'll be OK. And you know it always happens to someone else, it won’t be us. And you know the day before the rock fall, we heard a small rock — and by small I mean you know maybe 50 pounds — fall from the area and we're like hmmm, glad we weren't still under there. And then really there was no warning at all. Suddenly, the thing just cut loose.

CO: Well Pete, I'm glad that you're OK and I wish you a safe descent from the summit. Thanks for speaking with us.

PZ: Thank you very much.

JD: That was Pete Zabrok on top of El Capitan earlier today in California's Yosemite National Park. He is a climber, originally from Ontario.

[Music: Indie rock]

Donkey car update

JD: It is a question that has vexed legal minds for centuries: If your vehicle looks like a giant carrot and you park it near a donkey and the donkey eats part of your vehicle, who is to blame? Ten days ago, we told you the story of Markus Zahn. Last year, Mr. Zahn had parked his very expensive, bright orange sports car next to the paddock of a donkey named Fitus, in the town of Giessen, Germany. Mr. Zahn went to do an errand, and when he returned, Fitus was eating his rear bumper. The damage was considerable, but Mr. Zahn did not blame Fitus exactly. As he said at the time, quote, “The donkey probably thought the car was a carrot on wheels.” Unquote. Still, he wanted compensation. So he sued Fitus's owners, who said it was Mr. Zahn’s fault for parking his carrot on wheels where he had parked it. The court did not agree. Today, it ruled that Fitus's owners were liable for the six thousand euros Mr. Zahn had paid for repairs. Thus answering that age-old question of jurisprudence. As to whether that decision had taught him a lesson, Fitus himself refused to comment because he was eating a traffic pylon.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Neo-natal unit, poo donor

Neo-natal unit

Guest: Hilary Mason

JD: The B.C. Children's Hospital will open its new neo-natal intensive care unit next month and it will be unlike any other neo-natal intensive care unit — or NICU — in North America. Because instead of noisy rows of incubators, with many babies lined up in one room. Premature babies will have their own rooms — rooms they can share with our moms. Hilary Mason helped in the push for this new model. She herself gave birth prematurely at B.C. Women's Hospital. We reached her in Vancouver.

CO; Hilary, how did you first come to propose mother and premature babies getting medical care together in the same room?

HILARY MASON: Well, I was part of the planning process for the new BC Children's and Women's Hospital. I had had a baby in the NICU and so I was part of that planning process. And as part of the planning process, we did a mock up in cardboard of the new NICU and all of the different rooms. And we put little toy mothers and babies and doctors and beds and things in all of the necessary spaces. And we started mapping out the different journeys that different people needed to make. So as we started sort of mapping where the mothers needed to go, we had our little Lego mother going back and forth from the maternity ward. And so I picked up “Lego Mom” and I put her in the room next to the NICU baby and I said why can't I get my care here? Why can't we do postpartum care in the same room and have both patients in the same room?

CO: NICU is the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit that you're referring to?

HM: That's right.

CO: And how radical… that seems like it makes sense. So how radical a suggestion was that?

HM: It was a very radical suggestion. The neonatologist in the room just looked at me and said that's never going to happen.

CO: Why not? Did they say why?

HM: I don't think he felt that he really needed to explain it. But we were talking about two — for him, radically different patient populations — so he was an neonatologist. His job was to look after the premies and micro-premies and very fragile babies. And someone else's job was to look after post-partum mothers. That was a different ward, a different set of doctors, different set of skills. And I think you know there's also some concern about contamination and cleanliness and how do you have these two patients cared for in the same room?

CO: How did it start to make sense? What were the arguments? What did people consider that started to they started to think hey, you know what? Maybe this is a good idea.

HM: Well, I pointed out that we — the mothers — were already in those rooms. So back in the NICU that my son spent time in, I was in there as long as I possibly could be every single day that I could be. So post-partum moms are already actively in the NICU. It's just that there's no space made for them. So that was sort of the beginning point. And I found a close ally early on in Julie De Salaberry, who is in charge pretty much of the NICU at BC Women's Hospital. And she started digging around and looking at the research and the research shows that both babies and mothers do a lot better if they're kept close together. And she dug up some literature on a hospital in Estonia, who because of lack of resources, had to house post-partum mothers and NICU babies together in the same space. And involve those mothers in the immediate care of their very fragile NICU babies. And the evidence coming out of that was that those babies were actually doing a lot better than the ones who were in these very sterile NICU environments like we had at BC Women’s Hospital previously.

CO: For people who haven't had that experience of trying to care for a baby in the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit or having a premature baby. Describe what it was like for you and your son? How did you get access to him? How were you able to love him?

HM: Well, the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit was on the main floor of the BC Women's Hospital. And there's basically four very large rooms with banks of incubators. And it feels like about two feet, it's probably closer to three feet, in between those incubators. And mothers are housed on the post-partum unit upstairs on the second floor. So for me, that meant I had to call for a wheelchair, which could take half an hour to arrive. And then, someone would push me down the hallway, down an elevator, down another long hallway and I could go into the NICU. I had to scrub up and then go into the NICU. And then once I was discharged, I had to drive in every morning. And then I would spend the day — we usually had like a desk chair in between those incubators — and I'd spend the day sitting next to him, eat in the cafeterias and leave around 10:00-10:30 at night. So it was a lot of work and it got better when we were allowed to hold the baby. But it was very, very stressful at first. You can only put your hands through the little side holes and hold your baby with your hands. You can't cradle them or cuddle them close.

CO: And if you were in one of these rooms that you've helped to design, how would the experience be different? Describe how you envision how a woman will relate to her baby?

HM: Well, first of all, she's going to get to sleep a lot more because what babies mostly do in the NICU is sleep. But you want to be there, so you're basically up all the time. So she's going to get a lot more rest. She's going to know minute-by-minute exactly what is going on with her baby. She's going to be able to do a lot more of the care right from the very beginning. So even for children who have complicated equipment or procedures that they need to have on a regular basis, mom is going to get trained and familiar with that immediately, right from the very beginning. When your baby cries, it will be you who responds. And baby can hear your voice, which, of course, is the voice that they're most familiar with. I think it's just going to be a much calmer environment. You're not picking up on other people's anxiety. You know the banks of NICU beds in the current set up, there's a lot of free-floating anxiety in those rooms because people are at different stages and hearing different kinds of news about their children. Some of them are hearing really very hard news. And so everyone's picking up on that energy. So I think it's going to be better for mom and for babies.

CO: Well, it's very interesting and I'm glad that you're moving your Lego furniture and Lego babies around finally and putting them in the same room together as real people. And Hilary, it's great to talk to you. Thanks.

HM: Good to talk to you too.

CO: Bye bye.

HM: Bye bye.

JD: We reached Hilary Mason in Vancouver. Ms. Mason helped develop a new model for a NICU — or a Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit — located at the Teck Acute Care Centre of B.C. Children's Hospital. That unit opens next month.

[Music: Piano]

Hugh Hefner obit

Liberator or oppressor? Trailblazer or throwback? There is a lot of strong and contrasting opinions today about the legacy of Hugh Hefner. The founder of Playboy Magazine, of course, died yesterday. He was 91-years-old. And in the 60s and the 70s, Mr. Hefner embodied a certain affluent male fantasy, which include it being constantly surrounded and tended to by scantily clad, beautiful women… which is creepy. But some people are lauding Mr. Hefner today for helping usher the United States out of the stuffy, buttoned up 1950s and into a new age of sexual empowerment. In Playboy's first issue, he summed up his vision for their perfect evening. I quote, “We enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d'oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph and inviting a female acquaintance for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz…sex.” Unquote. Add in a smoking jacket and a pipe, you have Hugh Hefner in a nutshell. But it was not long before Mr. Hefner's vision of the world and his view of women became stale and became offensive. His Playboy Mansion was described by one writer as a petting-zoo-slash-harem-slash-brothel. And its founder described as a pimp — an allegation for which Mr. Hefner threatened to sue. In 1983, in a CBC TV interview, Barbara Frum spoke to Hugh Hefner about the Playboy TV channel, which was then coming to Canadian cable channels. Here is part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

BARBRA FRUM: You suggest that you're after an audience of men and women. And you obviously imply that the programming is arousing to them. The way those women up here put some of those women in rather degrading postures and rather demeaning and stereotyping images. And I cannot see how women are not going to be turned off by that?

HUGH HEFNER: When we talk about… when the critics of Playboy talk about the stereotyping of women, I think it is a reflection of some prejudices that exist at this time, which are very understandable, but are a very limited point of view. Although it is a very vocal point of view, it is not a reflection of a general public. There is no question women have had a very limited role in society. Whether people recognize that today or not… Playboy was one of the first ones to speak up and out about this. Long before the women's movement…

BF: If you don't mind my interrupting you, I just want to stick to what we see, not what you think or feel in your heart-of-hearts.

HH: Well if you pick out one particular show and you…

BF: Let me put it a different way, Mr. Heffner Your critics say that they don't mind erotica…

HH: That's what we're going to try and give them in part.

BF: But what they think they get from you — and they certainly use the magazine to bare this argument out — is always the cheerful, compliant, nubile, post-adolescent female. Never a man in the picture, never men and women in an interaction that sensual, but always the available, vapid you know endlessly accommodating and non-threatening female.

HH: But that isn't the magazine, that's the cliché that the critics aim at the magazine. And the critics don't care much about the facts in this regard. If any form of media has presented a healthy, positive image related to sexuality in a limited scope admittedly because it is and has been from the beginning a magazine of special interest aimed at a specific audience that is primarily male in its orientation. It's a men's magazine.

BF: Why don't we ever see pictures of women in your magazine or in Penthouse that look the way women really look in life?

HH: Well the women in Playboy — and I can't speak for Penthouse — do look like women really look. They're, obviously, chosen for their physical attractiveness, just as Sports Illustrated you know covers the people in sports who are the best at what they do. The physical beauty is obviously one of the — if not — the major criteria for picking a playmate.

BF: Mr. Hefner, if anyone read your magazine or watched your show, they would think that women over the age of 24 don't ever have sex again.

HH: You mean that we only are viewing a limited portion of the human experience. That we're specializing in a specific area and this is certainly true. The average age of Playboy readers is 30.

BF: Mr. Hefner, the image of a gorgeous young woman, and I'm not denying how beautiful they are, jumping around with balloons in their mouth or whipped cream falling off their breasts. What does that say you're thinking about women?

HH: I think it suggests that women can be fun and the sex can be fun and that particular show is intended to be nothing more than a very delightful afternoon, which is exactly what it was. And I think that that message has to come across in the show. I hope it does. We had a lot of fun here that week and the women involved had the most fun. We should celebrate our sexuality. We’d be a much happier people if we did that.

JD: That was Barbara Frum in conversation, interviewing Playboy founder Hugh Hefner in 1983. Hugh Hefner died yesterday. He was 91-years-old.

[Music: Piano]

Poo donors

Guest: Maureen Taylor

“Wanted: Healthy Poo.” That was the tag on an e-mail that came into As It Happens yesterday. And that email came from former CBC reporter Maureen Taylor. Ms. Taylor is now a physician assistant in infectious diseases at Toronto's Michael Garron Hospital. And she is part of a team that works to treat people who have picked up potentially fatal C. difficile infections while in hospital. And the technique they use is what medical types call “fecal transplant” therapy. For the rest of us that is, of course, “fecal’ as in “poop”, and “transplant” as in taking it from a donor, and giving it to a patient. The reason for Ms. Taylor's help-wanted ad: they are running short on donors, while demand continues to expand. We reached Maureen Taylor in Toronto.

CO: Maureen, how did you end up with this task at the hospital? Did you draw the short straw?

MAUREEN TAYLOR: That's a great question. You know what? I actually volunteered to do this because when I started in infectious diseases here, the physicians I work with were already doing fecal transplants. And it was taking some time out of the normal course of their day. My mother had C. difficile and was very ill with it when she was alive. And we actually arranged for her to have a fecal transplant through a clinical trial in Hamilton, Ontario and it cured her. So I've always been interested in fecal transplants for C. difficile. And now, I've kind of become… hmm, I wonder if you could call me the director of fecal transplants for Michael Garron Hospital?

CO: Or just poo woman.

MT: Or just poo girl.

CO: So I mean this is a supper-hour show. But anyway, we need to know how this works. How a poo or fecal matter transplant can help someone with C. difficile.

MT: Right. So what C. difficile infection is is a bacterial illness in people who've usually been on antibiotics and often they're in the hospital when they get them. And the antibiotics not only target those bacteria you know that are causing the pneumonia or the wound infection. They also, unfortunately, hit the innocent bystander bacteria in our gut and wipe them out. And those are the ones we need to control C. difficile and keep the population at bay. We tried medication first to cure the C. difficile. Unfortunately, we know that 20 per cent of them will find that they fail the antibiotics for C. difficile and it will just come back every time they try to stop it. So we take those patients and this is, let's face it, the ultimate probiotic, right? We're taking the feces or stool from a healthy donor and I mix it up with some saline and put it in a syringe and then I give it to the patient as an enema. And it's all over in about 20 seconds.

CO: Now this concoction you cook and then give someone as an enema. You called it a poo slurry.

MT: So I take the donor stool that gets dropped off to me in nice little plastic containers, and I go into a lab, and I work with gloves, obviously. And really it's nothing more complicated than I dump it all into a Styrofoam cup and then I add a proportion of normal you know sterilized water and I mix it up with a popsicle stick, until I've got sort of a liquidly goo there. And then I strain it through some gauze. And what's leftover once it's strained through the gauze I put into a syringe and then I can freeze it. If we don't use it after 30 days, then it gets thrown out. But believe me, at our hospital nothing's getting thrown out lately.

CO: There’s that much C. difficile?

MT: These are patients who are referred to our hospitals from other areas of Ontario as far away as Thunder Bay and Sudbury. And that's because their physicians and their hospitals and clinics don't offer fecal transplants.

CO: But why don't the others do it? I mean are these squeamish about doing this? Or they can't find the donors? Or what?

MT: I wish you could find out and tell me. It was frustrating, especially infectious disease doctors because they're perfectly suited to doing this procedure and they know which patients would benefit from it. So I'm sure it's partly the ick factor.

CO: But you're describing that people who are very sick or elderly are having to come as far away as Sudberry for an enema. I mean this doesn't sound like a complex procedure.

MT: It's not. Believe me. I think that you know we're not usually doing them on patients when they're acutely sick in hospitals, so they go on the medication and we can calm things down. And they stay on the medication until they come down and see us. And family members have to take time off work to bring them. And they're really so grateful. There's nothing like talking to you know like the 92-year-old woman I saw the other day who said why did it take my doctor a year to help me find you?

CO: Because they couldn't find poo girl.

MT: That’s right. She was out here in the east end of Toronto!

CO: Now speaking of finding, this is what you're trying to find now are donors because you're running out, right? That would tell us about that.

MT: Right now, we have two what we call universal donors. So these are healthy volunteers who we've screened for any number of infectious diseases in the theoretical chance that you could transmit something through your poo. So they're screened and they've been generous enough to become our donors and they live in the area around the hospital and I get my poo from them. However, the demand is so great that I feel — they haven't said this — but I feel like I'm going to be imposing on them too much. And I would like a few more donors to round things out, so that I might only have to ask for poo from everybody once a month, right? So that's what I'm sort of looking for and it's a hard thing, Carol. I mean you don't put it out in the paper, asking if your poo is the right stuff, right? Or if you want to be a poo donor?

CO: What you're looking for is someone, first of all, who isn't shy about sharing their stool…

MT: And collecting it into containers, right?

CO: Right. And qualifications Otherwise? You will screen them to make sure they're healthy and make sure that this is poo that's going to be helpful?

MT: Right. So, first of all, they can't be people who are frequently on antibiotics for any reason, that would be bad. Also, Health Canada, of course, wants us to screen for things like HIV and hepatitis. And they don't want you to have ever traveled to Africa or to South America, just on the chance that there are some weird parasites. But really those things aside, there are a great number of people who would to be great donors of poo. I don't really care what you eat and I'm thrilled when you can drop off you know two or three of those containers. I can get you know five doses out of that.

CO: Alright, we will put that on our website, along with a posting here of this of this interview. And we'll see what turns up.

MT: Alright, I'll let you know.

CO: Alright. Thanks Maureen.

MT: Thank you so much.

JD: Maureen iS a physician assistant at Toronto's Michael Garron Hospital. We reached her in Toronto. And if you would like some more information on this story, to see some photographs, or to donate your healthy poo, visit the As It Happens website: www.cbc.ca/aih

Back To Top »

Part 3: FOI: Government, homeless trip

David Johnston

JD: Ottawa is saying an official goodbye to Governor General David Johnston. This week, Mr. Johnston’s seven-year mandate comes to an end. And to mark his tenure, today, a ceremony was held on Parliament Hill. In his farewell message this afternoon, he took time to remind politicians and Canadians of the role that parliament plays in a democracy. Here is some of outgoing Governor General David Johnston's farewell address.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID JOHNSTON: We gather here on Parliament Hill, the place where democracy is carried out and the hard work of governing and of loyal opposition. This institution is infinitely precious in our pursuit of fairness of a responsible government. But nobody said parliamentary democracy would be easy. After all, our system of government was achieved only after great struggle. Canada's first parliament was destroyed — burned to the ground by an angry mob on April 25, 1849, even as members were sitting in session. Now that's a hot seat! Five days later, when my predecessor, Lord Elgin, went to meet with Louis-Hippolyte Lafontane and Robert Baldwin, who are immortalized in statute here on The Hill.

His carriage was attacked by opponents throwing stones. And in those days came about responsible government for the first time. Let us never forget how those who came before us struggled for this House to exist. Despite all that is changing so rapidly in our complex globalized world. The fundamental principle and the importance of parliamentary democracy remains as fresh and as vital as ever. And that principle is embedded in the word “parliament” itself, which comes from the old French word “parlant”, or speaking. Parliament is where we resolve issues through words, rather than force. And that is why your success as parliamentarians is so critical to the smarter, more caring Canada and the fairer, more just world of which we dream. Serving as governor general is a responsibility I have cherished for the past seven years. I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to give back to this country I love so much. I thank you all for your important service to this country. And for carrying it out in a spirit of respect and inclusivity that is the oxygen of great democracies around the world. Merci.

JD: Part of Governor General David Johnston's farewell speech today in Ottawa.

[Music: Rock]

FOI: Government

Guest: Scott Brison

JD: Well, it isn't the most impressive report card you've ever seen. The annual Freedom of Information audit is out. It grades governments on whether they have made it possible for Canadians to know what they are doing with the taxpayers’ dollars. And this year, the cities in the provinces got A's and B's, with some C’S, a couple of D's. Not the feds though. Just in Trudeau's government has its grade right at the top of the sheet, and it is a big fat F. The authors say that the Liberals’ performance has been, quote, even worse than in the latter years of the former Stephen Harper government.” Unquote. Scott Brison is the president of the Treasury Board, and the minister responsible for the access to information system. We reached Minister Bryson in Ottawa.

CO: Minister Bryson, as you know, your government campaigned on a promise to make openness the default setting for your government. So how do you explain your failing grade on this freedom of information audit?

SCOTT BRISON: Our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency. In fact, last year, we eliminated all fees for access to information requests, except the basic $5 fee. We've un-muzzled government scientists. We've restored the mandatory long-form census, which is part of open data and open information. And now, we are the first government in 34 years to modernize the Access to Information Act, and to fulfill our campaign promise of applying it to ministers offices and the prime minister's office and, also, to give order making power for the first time ever to the information commissioner.

CO: So why do you think you got a failing grade if you doing so well?

SB: Well, we are actually moving forward on a number of fronts to strengthen openness and transparency. This is the first time any government has done this. We will work with parliamentarians from all parties and listen to and engage the Information Commissioner because we want to make sure that we do everything we can to strengthen the Access to Information Act and regime.

CO: Can I just stay with this a second? Because what we’re reading in this audit is that they say that this is not only, first of all, that Mr. Trudeau campaigned on this increased transparency. They say that the system is actually worse than it was in the latter years of the previous Conservative government, which was highly criticized for its lack of transparency and its way of treating the Access to Information Act. So this is what we're hearing from Fred Vallance-Jones, who led this audit. That the requests sent into different levels of government are not being met.

SB: Well, the Access to Information Act as it is working now is the act and the regime we inherited from the previous Conservative government. One of the reasons why we're moving forward to modernize the act and to invest in resources is that we agree more needs to be done. That's why we're doing it because actually we agree it's not working optimally now. The demand for the act under access to information requests have actually grown. Since 1983, when the act was first introduced, there have been 750,000 requests. Over 10 per cent of those were just last year. So the amount of requests are on the rise, they increase significantly every year and that's one of the reasons why our government we feel very strongly that it needs modernization and that's exactly what we're doing. In fact, the system atrophied under the Conservatives, and we're taking action to strengthen it.

CO: OK, but why doesn't this C-58 — your bill to reform the Access to Information Act — why does it not cover the office of the prime minister?

SB: It does. In fact, the Access to Information Act is being modernized to include both a demand-based system and proactive disclosure and to apply the act as per my mandate letter to the PMO and to ministers’ offices.

CO: Just to make this clear, that does not limit your ability to deem information as cabinet confidence that you could still keep secret, is that true?

SB: Well, cabinet confidence is actually an important principle that is defended by a Supreme Court case in 2002 Babcock versus Canada. And the court said, quote, “The process of democratic governance works best when cabinet members charged with government policy and decision making are free to express themselves around the Cabinet table unreservedly.” And we agree with that decision, but that does not obviate the need and the responsibility for our government to do more. And that's why we're applying the act to the prime minister's office and to ministers’ offices.

CO: I want to be quite clear about this. OK, the critics are saying that the problem is that this use of cabinet competence is too extensive. And that why not allow the commissioner in charge of this and the federal courts to verify whether cabinet confidentiality is actually the case here. Why can't we determine that independently?

SB: Well, the principle has been determined by the Supreme Court and we agree with that. There are other exemptions. For instance, around privacy, national security, commercial sensitive sensitivity, those are legitimate. We also want to reduce the waiting times for requests. Carol, one of the reasons why proactive disclosure actually has great promise to build a stronger system for access to information is that it takes pressure off the demand-based system. We intend, as time goes by, to monitor trends in terms of the demand-based system. And as we see particular kinds of information growing in terms of the demand-based system, that will be a signal to our government and to future governments to move those categories into proactive disclosure. Whether it's you know expenses of government, or contracts, or briefing materials and we're also applying the act for the first time across 240 entities of government from port authorities for instance to the administrative organization supporting the courts.

CO: OK, there are dozens of agencies and organizations in Canada and abroad who have formed what they call a global coalition calling for you to scrap what they say is this inadequate access to information reform bill. They're saying that it should be withdrawn. That it falls far short of what you promised. And fall short of what kind of needs in this revision. And these organizations all of whom and individuals who use accessed information routinely and have found seriously wanting, so what do you say to that coalition?

SB: I'm saying that C-58 is a significant step forward in strengthening the Access to Information Act in Canada. It's the first time that the commissioner will have real order making power. And it also has a mandatory five year review, to ensure that every five years this act will be reviewed. So it never is out of date as it is right now. And the first review will commence within a year of the bill receiving royal assent. We've recently been asked to co-chair the open government partnership. Our action and our progress and our openness as a government is being recognised globally. And we will continue to do more because we strongly believe that open government is better government.

CO: Right, we'll leave it there. Minister Brison, thank you.

SB: Thank you very much, Carol.

JD: Scott Brison is the president of the Treasury Board. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: bluegrass]

Steve Scalise

JD: Today, Steve Scalise returned to Capitol Hill for the first time since he was shot. The top-ranking Republican congressman was seriously injured when a gunman opened fire at a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Virginia back in June. Republican politicians were practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity at the time. In a speech today, Mr. Scalise thanked the Capitol Hill police, who were there that day of the shooting. Here's part of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

STEVE SCALISE: Crystal and David were assigned to my security detail that morning. And day in and day out, they're part of our family. Jennifer and I truly do treat them as part of our family because they're with us everywhere we go. And on that day it was no different — on June 14^th — they came at 6:30 in the morning we arrived at the baseball field, just to play and practice for a game of charity baseball. And nobody would have suspected what ensued. And yet, as soon as those shots were fired, I'll tell you when I was laying on the ground, one of the things I've prayed for is that David and Crystal would be successful in carrying out their duties. And both David and Crystal are incredibly well-trained, incredibly professional. But when I was laying there, not long after the first couple of shots were fired, I could hear a different caliber weapon. And that told me that they had immediately engaged the shooter. And let me tell you, if they didn't act so quickly and even after being shot both themselves, continued to engage the shooter and ultimately got him down, which not only saved my life, but saved the life of a lot of other people that are here in this chamber today. Crystal couldn't be with us today, but David Bailey is with us. David, you are my hero. You saved my life. Thank you so much.

JD: U.S. Representative Steve scalise, speaking earlier today.

[Music: Ambient]

Nova Scotia land deeds

SOUNDCLIP

TONY INCE: Landownership gives people a sense of security and stability. African Nova Scotians have suffered more than anyone else in Nova Scotia. Great indignities and injustices with respect to land.

JD; That was African Nova Scotian Affairs Minister Tony Ince, announcing new funding to help African Nova Scotians obtain legal ownership over land that has been theirs for generations. The province says that it will spend $2.7 million over two years to help residents obtain legal titles to their land. In some cases, families have gone as many as 200 years without this kind of documentation. That is a problem that can be traced back to the arrival of black loyalists in Nova Scotia after the war of 1812. And, of course, without clear title, some residents cannot sell their property, they cannot legally pass it on to their relatives. Elaine Cain is a Nova Scotia resident who is currently embroiled in a dispute with her neighbor over one such property. The land is home to the house her mother died in, but without a proper title, Ms. Cain has not been able to prove it is hers. Now, she is hopeful that an end may be in sight.

SOUNDCLIP

ELAINE CAIN: It just opens up some you know some dreams that I've had. You know taking care of the property and taking care of my children. Like there's a lot of things that can be done with the property. My kids need someplace to go. I need someplace to go. I need to grow old in my mother's house with my children, which are adults. And they have children and I have grandchildren. I lived in this house, my mother lived in this house for 43 years and she died in this house last year — August the 21^st. And I don't think that no way or form that anybody should try to take my sentimental values from me and my children. When I feel that I'm right, I'm not backing down without a fight. My mom, like I said, she lived here, I lived here with her and I can't see for the life of me to walk out of my mother's life. I'm still in her life because her spirit still lives there. A very comfortable spirit lives there. I live here by myself with her. My grandchildren come, my children come. What I plan to do is fight for my mother's home through the enrichment that the government just gave us just now. And I'm good with whatever comes out of it, except no title.

JD: Elaine Cain speaking to CBC Nova Scotia reporter Preston Mulligan. Ms. Cain hopes to benefit from new funding to help African Nova Scotians obtain legal title to land that they have long considered their own. The government of Nova Scotia announced the funding yesterday.

[Music: Industrial]

Homeless trip

Guest: Joe Roberts

JD: Crossing the country for a cause is nothing new. We have heard of Canadians walking, running, biking, from coast to coast. We have never heard of anyone pushing a shopping cart. And that is what Joe Roberts has been doing for the past 17 months, to raise awareness about youth homelessness. And tomorrow, Mr. Roberts will end what he is calling “The Push for Change” in Vancouver's Downtown East Side — on the same streets he once lived on as a homeless teen. We reached Joe Roberts in New Westminster, B.C., during his walk earlier today.

CO: Hi, Joe Roberts.

JOE ROBERTS: Hey Carol, how are you?

CO: I’m Alright. How are you?

JR: I am fantastic.

CO: This has been a long push, hasn't it? All the way from Newfoundland?

JR: It has. It’s been a labour of love. Both myself and my wife have put a lot into this. And we've seen corners in communities and engaged with Canadians right across this great country of ours. And it's been extraordinary.

CO: What's the significance of pushing the shopping cart?

JR: Well, the shopping cart represents that symbol of chronic homelessness, a thing that we're trying to avoid for young people. In 1989, I was pushing a shopping cart around Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. I was addicted to drugs, I had a severe substance abuse problem and I was chronically homeless living under the Georgia viaduct. But thanks to my mom, and an OPP police officer, I got a second chance. I went back to school, became successful in business and wanted to be something to pay it forward. And so we thought you know that shopping cart represents an outcome. Why not push that outcome that you're trying to avoid for kids across the country? But more importantly, talk and engage communities about what we can do to prevent youth homelessness from happening.

CO: As you push this cart and I'm hearing that traffic wiz by you out there. Have you mostly been on hard surfaces? Part of this trip is during the winter, wasn't it?

JR: It absolutely was. Northern Ontario was where we hit our hardest patches. We walked over Lake Superior in the dead of winter and some of those days were absolutely breathtaking, extraordinary and sometimes difficult to forge ahead in those minus-40 with the wind chill factors. I had to get out of bed and you know go out and do it just one more day and one more day. And I think what drove me on those tough days was knowing that what we were doing had an impact.

CO: As you pushed the cart and you're meeting all these people along the way, who are telling you about their own stories about homelessness and what's happening to young people all the struggles they have when they're on the streets. Have you had a chance to think of your own time on the street? Remember some of the dark days you had when you were a homeless young person?

JR: Absolutely. I mean throughout the country, we’ve had the opportunity to meet with different folks who were street involved. We were in Montreal, I met a young man and I wasn't sure if the message was resonating because we had to translate the message in French. You know he said to me afterwards I want to walk with you. And I thought he meant the day, but what he meant was I want to walk across Canada. So you know a lot of these I would reflect on my own story. Now that we're back into the lower mainland and we'll finish in that Downtown Eastside — the community that I escaped from 25 years ago — there's going to be some emotions tomorrow when we finish that up. And you know when I first started, I would get funny looks on the highway because we were there with a shopping cart and you know some folks didn't know what we're doing and there was a little bit of shame. And I realized it wasn't shame in pushing a shopping cart for “The Push for Change”charitable endeavor. But it was really reflecting back in those old days when I was on the streets of Vancouver and embarrassed and ashamed because I knew inside me I had potential, but I couldn't access that on my own. I'm a community investment gone correct. The very thing that we're pushing for is better systems and support for young people, so they don't end up on the streets.

CO: How did your mom get you off the street?

JR: She was there to answer the phone. She was there to not judge me and offer me a safe place to come home to. There were some rules and some boundaries. But in essence, what mom did is she provided a housing first model for me. I couldn't really focus on the social services that I needed to reboot my life. From mental health stuff, to a detox facility, to a treatment program, off the school and in five years, I was reintegrated back into society as a you know a contributing member. There's so many young people out there who don't have that one person to call.

CO: We're dealing with a lot of crises with young people right now, aren't we? I mean they're dealing with addiction issues that are considered to be an epidemic. We're dealing with very high suicide rates among young people in Indigenous communities and so many things. What we can possibly give them hope when so many of them feel that things are hopeless?

JR: The one thing I talk about all the time is I know sometimes it looks bleak, but there is always something to hope for. And as we look forward right now, we do see a lot of things that are discouraging. But we do see the government moving in the right direction and investing in youth homeless prevention. And if I can do it, anybody can. We as a country can make this shift. You see that's the thing. The core of “The Push for Change” wasn’t about walking across Canada, it was about holding onto a possibility that there is something out there that maybe we can't really tangibly wrap our hands around and yet, but it’s a goal that's noble enough to continue to forge forward.

CO: I hear a lot of energy in your voice… along with the traffic. And I know how hard this journey has been. Is your body very tired?

JR: Not as much as my mind. It's been absolutely everything that Marie and I had to do this. It's mentally exhausting. You know up and doing this every single day, but it's something that we believe so much in and we know that the lives of individuals that we've touched along the way have mattered. Whether it's Luca Marcellus in Toronto, who had a Kool-Aid stand and raised $50 last week and his father matched that and gave it to us. Whether it's Jake and Lilly in Newfoundland, who gave us their birthday money. We know that what we’ve done has touch the lives of not only youth at risk, but also empowered and inspired young people across this country. In a world where it's hard to find good leadership, “Push For Change” I think is giving young people a great example of something to hope for.

CO: You mentioned Marie, you just got married before you began this campaign, and she will be with you tomorrow?

JR: Absolutely, Marie has been with me every step of the way. And I couldn't be more proud to hold her hand and share those last few steps across the country with her.

CO: Well, I wish you success in that last stretch. I hope you get to rest after all this is over. Joe, thank you so much.

JR: Thanks Carol. I really appreciate it. Have a great day.

CO: Take care. Bye bye.

JD: Joe Roberts is the founder of “The Push for Change” campaign. We reached him in New Westminster, British Columbia.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 28 episode transcript

More Stories Like This