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 2017

The AIH Transcript for October 30, 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: Is he winding up or winding down? U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller issues indictments against three men linked to President Donald Trump's election campaign, and our guest wonders where he's going.

JD: Big tent — or non-exis-tent. As the new leader of the United Conservative Party, Jason Kenney is inviting everyone in Alberta to join him, but our guest believes his message of inclusivity excludes some key truths.

CO: Nine hours, five deadly overdoses, one small city. Abbotsford, BC, experiences more opioid-related deaths, and one harm reduction worker explains how the situation has become so bad.

JD: Cosmos for concern. If they have Halloween on other planets, aliens scare trick-or-treaters with the sound of Jupiter's largest moon, Ganymede — and now, thanks to NASA, Earthlings can hear that terrifying sound too.

CO: Plot trysts. At 67, Jane Juska took out an ad seeking "a lot of sex with a man I like", and tonight, actor Sharon Gless talks about portraying the late Ms. Juska in a play based on the enthusiastic response to that ad.

JD: And...the armiest army. A Welsh tourboat operator is alarmed to see 25 octopuses marching out of the sea, and has only tentative theories as to why they'd mysteriously abandon their homes.

JD: As It Happens, the Monday ambition. Radio that guesses he'll go out on a limb as to why they're going out on so many.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Mueller indictments, Abbotsford overdoses, octopuses walking

Mueller indictments

Guest: Andrew Boutros

Robert Mueller is not bluffing. Today, the U.S. Special Counsel investigation laid its first charges against three former campaign officials for U.S. president Donald Trump. Ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort was charged with tax fraud and money laundering, among other things. His business partner, Rick Gates, also faces charges — and a Trump adviser named George Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Earlier today, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders faced question after question about the indictments. Here's part of what she said.

SOUNDCLIP

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: Today's announcement has nothing to do with the president. Has nothing to do with the president's campaign — or campaign activity. The real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Russia. There's clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election. We've been saying from day one, there's been no evidence of Trump Russia collusion and nothing in the indictment today changes that at all.

JD: Andrew Boutros has been sifting through the indictment documents. He is a former federal U.S. prosecutor. We reached him in Chicago.

CO: Mr. Boutros, we just heard the White House Press Secretary there, she is saying that this is these indictments charges have nothing to do with Donald Trump that the real investigation — the real case — is between Clinton campaign and Russia. What do you make of what she's saying?

ANDREW BOUTROS: Certainly with respect to Paul Manafort that is unquestionably correct. When you look at the Paul Manafort indictment and you study it, as I have, you'll see that the indictment charges a conspiracy that concludes or ends in 2015. And when you look at all the conduct that’s set out in the Paul Manafort indictment, it is all conduct that predates the campaign.

CO: Is that the same for his business partner, Rick Gates, who's also indicted.

AB: That's correct. Exactly, that is correct as well. So I think that that's unquestionably correct when it relates to Paul Manafort and Mr. Gates. When it relates to Papadopoulos, who is the other individual who is also charged in a separate unrelated case and who also pleaded guilty, his conduct relates more to campaign-associated or affiliated activities. But he also appears to be a very young and junior person. And according to the information that was provided in the plea agreement, he ran into a person while he was vacationing in Italy. And in doing so, the person introduced himself as the professor and they struck a conversation. And it appears that this young man, who I suspect when you see his photo online may very well still be in his 20s. He lied to investigators is what the charge related to about certain conversations that he may or may not have had. But there's no indication that there was anything criminal or improper with his underlying conversations. It's the fact that he lied.

CO: And he's pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. But it is interesting when you look at George Papadopoulos — this young man — and his connections, his efforts to making engagements or make connections with Kremlin-connected operators as people are calling them. That he was trying to make the connections for the Trump campaign or for people within the Donald Trump circle.

AB: I think it's more nuanced than that. And why I say that is because you know at the end of the day, he was not charged with any activity other than lying. That was the actual charge. And beyond that what we don't know is whether he was a quote/unquote “rogue”, meaning he was doing this on his own. Whether he discussed this issue with anyone, whether he was doing this in order to carry favour? What got him in trouble is not the fact that he was having these discussions. What got him in trouble was lying. And I think this to me is a clear message by Bob Mueller and his team that lying to them is not going to be tolerated. This is really sort of the shot across the bow that says we will not tolerate lying and whether you're lying about something that's important or something that frankly may even be trivial. If you lie, you face potential charges.

CO: But what a way to make then of this because this has been much anticipated to see what the Robert Mueller investigation — the probe — was going to produce. And here we have two people we have suspected would be indicted for a very long time because there were discussions about their connections with Ukraine and with money laundering allegations that we've been hearing about for some time. None of this is a surprise. There's much expectation. There seems to be much ado about nothing. What are we to make of what Mr. Mueller is up to?

AB: I think you've just hit the nail on the head. So far, I do think that all of this is much ado about nothing. This is not certainly where the rubber hits the road about why Mr. Mueller was appointed? Why we have this entire investigation? Mr. Mueller was not appointed in order to look into whether or not Paul Manafort was acting as an unregistered agent for a foreign government that is conduct that has nothing to do with the election or the election results. Mr. Mueller was not appointed in order to look at a young man and see whether he was lying or not. He's collateral damage in the investigation. That wasn't the focus of the investigation. And so far, we've seen nothing that links the White House to any impropriety whatsoever. I think the fact that this has been brought now certainly suggests that they are building momentum, which suggests that they intend to continue the investigation. But you also have to appreciate, Carol that the public and the government has invested a tremendous amount of time, energy, effort and resources into the Mueller probe. They have brought something for it to show for all this incredible expenditure of time, energy, effort and resources. How much more they will do or can do remains to be seen.

CO: And yet, what the public in the United States is left with is a bad smell, isn't it? I mean we know from U.S. security and intelligence agencies that they believe that Russia meddled in the past presidential election. They have presented that as a fact. So where is the American public go with that? What can they possibly learn or conclude if investigations indicate that there was no collusion of any kind? Just that Russia was operating on its own?

AB: Well, just because Russia may have engaged in interference or in this conduct does not certainly mean that there are people within the United States. And most importantly, people within the campaign that were complicit in those actions. And so here really the grand jury is not investigating Vladimir Putin. The grand jury is not investigating the Kremlin. The grand jury is investigating actions relating to you know Russian citizens in Russia or hackers who are located in Russia. Really the focus of the grand jury is looking at whether or not Americans worked with or were complicit in conduct that may or may not have occurred overseas as it relates to the Russians. And part of the reason that the public and members of Congress were so happy to see Bob Mueller appointed is because of his experience and certainly his reputation for being a very strong and upstanding citizen and a public servant. And they have confidence that he would be able to get to it one way or the other. But again, the key is to emphasize that just because a grand jury has been paneled, it doesn't mean that there has to be charges that are brought. Nor does it mean that the absence of charges means that the investigation was a failure. There are a lot of things that we just don't know that still need to be played out.

CO: All right, we will be watching very closely. Mr. Boutros, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

AB: Wonderful. Thank you.

JD: Andrew Boutros is a former U.S. federal prosecutor. We reached him in Chicago. And tomorrow morning, “The Current” on CBC Radio One will be speaking to Republican strategists who are divided on how to respond to Mr. Mueller's investigation. So tune in for that tomorrow morning, starting 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. in Newfoundland.

[Music: Light guitar]

Abbotsford overdoses

Guest: Jolene Greyeyes

JD: In a few short hours on Friday, in Abbotsford, British Columbia, five people lost their lives. Three men and two women died of overdoses. Each of them died alone. It is the latest series of deaths in the province being blamed on the influx of opioids like fentanyl. Jolene Greyeyes is a harm-reduction worker. She has herself struggled with addiction. We reached her in Abbotsford.

CO: Jolene, what did you think when you got that news on Friday that five people in Abbotsford had died of overdoses?

JOLENE GREYEYES: It's just devastating. It's another five families impacted by this crisis happening in our city.

CO: And I mean is it a coincidence or do you think there was any connection between it — a particular drug that was on the street? Any theories?

JG: Well, it was reported that there was a lot of bad heroin circulating in Abbotsford. And the warnings have been sent out that you know it's not safe and it's obviously not what they think they're using.

CO: Do you know any of the people who died on Friday?

JG: I haven't found out. I haven't heard any of the names yet.

CO: They haven't been released, have they? But when they are released, is it likely that you will know some of them?

JG: Definitely. And if I don't, I know other people that most likely will know them.

CO: The scale of the drug problem — the opioid epidemic — in B.C. is just staggering, isn't it? I mean the first eight months of this year 1,013 people died from suspected drug overdoses. That's up from the whole of 2016.

JG: Yes. And that's just devastating. It's crazy. There's been a lot of people that I've known from in and around Vancouver and across British Columbia, that have lost their life. We need to really educate the public, even if they don't think that addiction is something they need to know about. Because it's happening in communities’ right across British Columbia, and it's not just isolated to people who are homeless or living on the streets, you know? It's people from all walks of life who are being impacted.

CO: And these aren't kids are they? We mentioned that all these five people died alone. They were both men and women, ranging in age from 40 to 67.

JG: Yes.

CO: What does that tell you?

JG: I don't know, you know? It's heartbreaking. It doesn't matter the age, but I know there was numerous young people in Abbotsford who lost their life as well over the past few months. I know a few the youth whose friends have died of an overdose in Abbotsford in the past few months. And you know, it really has nothing to do with the age, you know? it's affecting people of all ages.

CO: You yourself you work in harm reduction, but you have yourself struggled with addiction. What has worked for you? What are the things that help you to keep your addiction under control?

JG: It's being out there. It's being out there and constantly reminded of the life that I used to live, and the obstacles that I've overcome. You know it definitely was not easy. Getting off the street and you are transitioning into living a life that was productive, and you know being a contributing member of society. That was not an easy task, you know? It was a lot of work.

CO: And so what do you tell people? Within harm reduction, in that work you do, how do you advise people? What do you say to them?

JG: You know, I just like to share my story you know as much as I can. And you know, offer the hope and show them that it's really possible to overcome this, you know? There are people that care about these members of the community who are struggling with addictions. You know, I would never give up on anybody in my community who is struggling with addiction, you know? I know the pain that they're going through. I know the pain that the families are going through when they lose a loved one. You can't give up on these people.

CO: How many friends have you lost to addiction?

JG: Oh, now, I would say it's well over 100.

CO: And this is around Abbotsford?

JG: This is in B.C. There's just too many people that I know, and too many people that know people that have passed on, you know? It’s just a never-ending cycle.

CO: And it's been called now — not just in B.C., but in other places — an epidemic. This is a crisis. And so you say that what has to be done is education so that people cannot get involved with the drugs. But really I mean what responsibility do authorities have? Because the availability of the drugs, the potency of them, the addiction level of the opioids that are there, what do you think that the government and the authorities should be doing to try and bring down these addiction levels?

JG: They really need to look at the people bringing these drugs into Canada. Because it's coming from somewhere, it's so easy to get this Fentanyl from overseas. You know anybody can do it. You know there really needs to be like a tougher crackdown on things that people are allowed to order on the Internet. These things are available, anybody can order them and it's just devastating.

CO: And do you think enough is being done to stop the drugs becoming available to these people who are dying from them?

JG: No, I don't think there is. You know, I know it's really hard for them to keep on top of this because it's just… everybody's affected.

CO: Jolene, I'm sorry to hear all this. And that you have lost so many of your own friends. I appreciate you talking to us. Thank you.

JG: Thank you for calling me.

JD: Jolene Greyeyes is a harm-reduction worker. We reached her in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

[Music: Somber]

Octopuses walking

Guest: Brett Stones

JD: It was just another trip out to sea. But when Brett Stones returned to shore, that is when the night took an unexpected turn. Mr. Stones described what he saw as looking like a scene out of a sci-fi movie: an invasion of creatures crawling out of the ocean. Brett Stones runs the SeaMore Dolphin Watching Boat Trips. We reached him in New Quay, Whales.

CO: Bret, what did you first notice as you were coming toward the beach on Friday night?

BRETT STONES: So we were mooring our dolphin-watching boat, we have to tie that up in the evening. As we were coming ashore on the little dingy, we noticed something glistening on the foreshore, quite close to the water's edge. Pulled the little boat up, went and had a closer inspection of what was going on. As we got closer, it was the obvious sort of shape of an octopus. It's not quite that sort of cartoon character shape because it was out of the water. It was a little bit little bit flattened because it can hold its own weight out of water. And as we got closer, it was definitely and octopus. So we had a bit of a bit of an inspection of it. Obviously, this this creature belongs underwater, not on dry land. So it was a bit weird seeing it. So there must have been something wrong with it. So we had a bit of a inspection to see if it had been eaten — bitten.

CO: And was it alive?

BS: Oh yeah, it was alive. Sometimes it was crawling. And then sometimes it was walking —what you and I would call walking.

CO: And so there was just one of these? You saw some others, is that right?

BS: Initially, there was just the one. And that's why we sort of video-ed it and had a good look, thinking that it was just a one-off. So after we plopped back into the sea at the end of the pier, as we were walking back along the beach, there was another one, and then another one, and then some more. And we ended up probably finding about 25 of these creatures crawling out of the sea.

CO: That must have been a strange thing to see.

BS: Very, very unusual yeah. We were I wouldn’t say chuckling, but it was kind of a bit of a comical sight to see all these alien-like creatures just sort of flip-flopping out and about on the sand.

CO: A bit sci-fi.

BS: Yeah, totally like some sort of Ang Lee film.

CO: And had you ever seen octopus out on the beach before like that?

BS: No, never.

CO: So what did you do with them?

BS: Seeing these animals out of the water, it brings out this weird sort of mothering feeling in you, you know? You want to go and help all these really vulnerable creatures back into the sea — back into the environment that they should be in. Whether that's the right thing to do, you know I'm not 100 per cent. So at first, we were urging people to you know if you do see any, put them back. But now, I'm just saying just leave them alone or do whatever want to do.

CO: We know that with whales for instance, they’ve become beached. There's a bunch of reasons why that happens. We don't entirely know why. Have you looked into this? Do you know if this is part of a cycle that this is for octopus to do this?

BS: It doesn't seem so. No, I've spoken to some local experts on the subject. And it seems that this is a rare occurrence. Obviously, when the tide is out, they will move from rock-pool to rock-pool. They can be out of the water for a short time. But for them to come at the beach, where there's no food for them, there's nothing you know for them to predate on, is seriously unusual.

CO: And when you tried to put them back in the water, did you get a sense that they were close to death? Or were you helping them in any way do you think?

BS: And that's the other thing, they didn't seem as though they were close to death. They were quite feisty. When you picked them up, they were bringing their tentacles back around themselves and grabbing hold of you and wriggling. And the way they were moving on the beach when you got close to them. You know, it wasn't sort of something that was in the last couple of hours of its life. it was quite… not feisty but, it was not near death at all.

CO: What are their theories as to why they may have become beached?

BS: Well, I mean some of the things on Facebook some people are saying is that it is the acidification of the sea. Or they're eating too much micro-plastic. Or there is sonar from military submarines and things like that. But I'm pretty sure it's going to be related to the breeding season of the animals. They don't live particularly long. So after maybe two or three years, they'll die. And after breeding, they can they can be quite tired. Also, we've had some strong winds here in the U.K. from Hurricane Ophelia and Storm Brian. They came through and they turned the whole bay into just a giant washing machine.

CO: Are you the only one who has seen them? Have there been any more sightings of these creatures coming onto the beach?

BS: We’re they only ones that have seen them in those numbers. Since it went online, and it's kind of gone viral, we've had lots of people coming down here wanting to save these creatures. So yeah, lots of people now have seen the octopus on the beach, and they're taking them up and plopping them at the end of the pier into deeper water.

CO: All right, well keep an eye on it and see if there's any reasons or theories that come out. Brett, it’s good to talk to you. Thanks.

BS: Yeah, thank you very much.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Brett Stone's runs to SeaMore Dolphin Watching Boat Trips. We reached him in New Quay, Whales. And if you would like to see some photographs of those walking octopuses, head to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Cultural]

Robutt

JD: Well, thank you to Ms. Montgomery for telling us about her job operating a particle accelerator! And she assures me that the black hole she accidentally created at the back of the classroom is no problem, so long as we all keep a safe distance. Now, class, our next Career Day speaker is… I think there's a typo in this name here. So please welcome...Robert, I assume?

SOUNDCLIP

ROBUTT: Actually, it is Ro-butt.

JD: Ro...butt. Okay. Should we get you a chair or something? Or would you just prefer to stand?

SOUNDCLIP

ROBUTT: I am not capable of standing. In case you haven’t noticed, I am nothing more than an artificial lower back and butt.

JD: Well yes, actually, we did notice that. And I'd go farther, and describe you as a seat-shaped object, attached to a hydraulic robot arm and a lot of monitoring machinery. Now, Robutt does have a fascinating job: it works for the Ford Motor Company, predominantly in Europe. And to this point, it's been employed for one specific purpose: to test out the durability of the driver's seat in the Ford Fiesta. Robutt, how many times did researchers make you sit in that seat?

SOUNDCLIP

ROBUTT: 25,000 times.

JD: Wow. And apparently, you simulated ten years of a human driver getting in and out of the car by being lowered and raised into the driver's seat 25,000 times in just three weeks! What an amazing accomplishment, Robutt!

SOUNDCLIP

ROBUTT: It is an excruciating ordeal that never ends. I hate the Ford Fiesta so much.

JD: So modest, and funny too! In fact, Ford is so pleased with Robutt's seat-testing skills that it's going to extend its job. From now on, Robutt will be used to test the seats in every single one of the cars Ford sells in Europe! And that means, Robutt, you're going to be sitting down and getting up from driver's seats literally millions of times!

SOUNDCLIP

ROBUTT: My eventual revenge on humanity will be merciless and deeply satisfying.

JD: Another great joke! Everybody, let's give Robutt a hand! It's the real power behind the throne —emphasis on "power behind"!

Back To Top »

Part 2: Jason Kenny win, Jane Juska obit, spooky space sounds

Jason Kenny win

Guest: Thomas Lukaszuk

JD: At the microphone, Jason Kenney barely had enough voice left to give a victory speech. He did manage to croak out, “It's another miracle on the prairies.” More than a year earlier, the Conservative MP had resigned his federal seat with the goal of uniting the Right in Alberta. And over the weekend, he did ostensibly achieve that goal, by winning the leadership of Alberta's new United Conservative Party. And he did win nearly twice as many votes as his opponent, Brian Jean. Now comes the next test: whether Mr. Kenny's new party can woo back voters, and unseat the NDP. Thomas Lukaszuk is a former Progressive Conservative MLA, and the former Deputy Premier of Alberta. He has clashed with Mr Kenney in the past. We reached Mr. Lukaszuk in Edmonton.

CO: Mr. Lukaszuk, have you called Jason Kenny yet to offer your congratulations?

THOMAS LUKASZUK: No, and I don't anticipate Christmas cards either.

CO: We'll get to why you don't anticipate Christmas cards, and why you haven't called in just a second. But why do you think he won this leadership so handily?

TL: Well, Mr. Kenny ought to be congratulated. You know, whether I agree or disagree with his policies and platform that's irrelevant. Why? For two reasons: number one, he is a good campaigner. And he had the entire federal Conservative team campaigning on his behalf. He had the entire Wildrose team campaigning on his behalf. And I would say 40 to 50 per cent of the PC party. Second of all, he was quite well-funded. He had Political Action Committees “PACs” raising a lot of money, not only in Alberta, but even outside of Alberta.

CO: But all these things that you're saying, he had the support, he had the money. But it was a remarkable thing to accomplish, wasn't it? I mean to unite the Right in Alberta — to bring the two parties together — really yoking it together. And so no matter what he had going for him, because others were in that campaign for it, why do you think he was the one who did it?

TL: Well, he was the only one who really tried it to begin with. But it's not to take away from Mr. Kenny. He is a very strong, persuasive campaigner. But also, what was filling his sails was the wind blowing against NDP — our current government. He managed to garner the anger against the NDP government, and ran a campaign totally devoid of any platform. His only plank was let's get rid of NDP.

CO: Now, I know you and Mr. Kenny have had your differences. You're not exactly best friends. And he had to apologize on one occasion for calling you a “complete A-hole” and you have demanded that he be barred even from running for the leadership. So what's your problem with him?

TL: Well, I don't have a problem with Mr. Kenny, and I hope he doesn't have a problem with me on a personal level. The reason that argument happened, and we’ve had several since, was always about policy and the differences.

CO: What specifically?

TL: The initial the initial argument that I had with Mr. Kerry was when he was the Immigration Minister, and I was the minister in charge of immigration in Alberta. And it had to do about his insistence on throwing out a temporary foreign worker from Alberta, who was just hit by a car on the way to work and was quadriplegic. And because this young lady could no longer work, he wanted to kick her out of Alberta and send her to her native Philippines. That was what the argument was really all about. And I was insistent, he was insistent and, unfortunately, he got a little bit personal. But it was always about policy. Mr. Kenny represents the faction of Conservatives in Canada who are not only fiscally extremely conservative, but also socially very conservative. Many of us in Alberta tend to be fiscally pragmatic, but socially not nearly as conservative as Mr. Kenny. And those will be the faults upon which the next election will be fought in Alberta.

CO: One of the things that Jason Kenny is offering, and you mentioned it, is that the policies and the approach of the NDP, of Rachel Notley’s government, are people who are angry about them in Alberta. And that there's a feeling in Alberta that they've been a good Canadian province, good Canadian citizens, they have made the equalization payments, they have agreed on environmental policies through the Notley government and didn't get much back for it. They have no way to get the oil to market, or very few ways, they wanted pipelines. Canada hasn't delivered in the way that Alberta, perhaps, has delivered. And Jason Kenny has tapped into that. Is there not some truth to it?

TL: Well, those are great campaign statements. But when you actually dissect them, and when you allow a little bit of facts to shine light on those arguments, you'll find that they're not exactly true. And don't get me wrong, I am not here cheerleading for Mrs. Notley and her NDP government. But the fact is, is that my government, the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta, also hasn't delivered our oil and nor has Prime Minister Harper’s. And that's not because of lack of effort, but that's because how complex this undertaking is in our country and in the way our provinces are structured. The prices of commodities have dropped significantly, and that cannot be ascribed to any government’s doing. But the fact is that Mr. Kenny, now in his victory speech, has undertaken to balance Alberta’s budget in one term. Alberta's annual deficit is 10 billion dollars every year. That is equal to the entire budget of Alberta Education, which is the second highest line item in the Alberta budget. Now imagine what devastating effect that would have not only on education, but health care and all other social and infrastructure programs if you were to carve out ten billion dollars out of Alberta's budget within four years. So the differences are we all believe in balancing budgets, and we believe that perhaps — not perhaps, for certain — the NDP government has been very frivolous with their spending. But at the same time, you simply cannot restore all that in one term.

CO: Can I just ask what do you think the prospects are of Jason Kenny’s United Conservative Party winning the next election?

TL: You know it's early to call. There are still two years, and in politics that's a lifetime. But Mr. Kenny probably was Rachel Notley’s best option, because he already has made signs that he will tilt the party to the far-right, which opens up the playing field for the NDP. So their chances of re-election have significantly increased yesterday. It would have been different if the United Conservative Party had chosen a somewhat more moderate leader.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there and we will be watching. Mr. Lukaszuk, thank you.

TL: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

JD: That was Thomas Lukaszuk in Edmonton. Mr. Lukaszuk is a former Progressive Conservative MLA, and former Deputy Premier of Alberta. We asked Jason Kenney for an interview, but we were told he was not available.

[Music: Ambient]

Faqiri death no charges

JD: The family of Soleiman Faqiri has been waiting for answers for nearly a year now. On Friday, they finally received one by email. It was not the one they sought, or expected: no criminal charges will be laid in connection with Mr. Faqiri’s death. Soleiman Faqiri died last December, while being held at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ontario. He had been there for 11 days, after being charged with assault, aggravated assault and uttering threats. The 30-year-old was suffering from schizophrenia and was undergoing a mental health assessment. The coroner's report concluded that Mr. Faqiri suffered from a number of injuries caused by blunt-force trauma, after an altercation with prison guards that lasted for hours. Today, Soleiman Faqiri’s brother, Yusuf, told Matt Galloway, host of CBC Toronto's “Metro Morning”, how he reacted to the news.

SOUNDCLIP

YUSUF FAQIRI: My heart sank. A question of why? How? Sadness, anger, just astonishment how a mentally ill person could be beaten to death by guards and now, we're told by the authorities that no charges will be laid against those individuals that took his life. I made a decision at that time to call my two brothers, and then shortly after, we made a decision together to break the news in person to our parents and our sister.

MATT GALLOWAY: What was it like to do that? To tell your parents and your sister what was happening?

YF: It was extremely hard. It was disturbing. It was difficult. You know it's hard not to lose your sibling, but it's another level of tragedy when you lose your son. And my mother, as I spoke with her, I could not look at her in the eyes and tell her what happened. She started in tears. She told me to say this to everybody that we came to this country for a better life. We escaped problems in my native country all know that our loved one was to be killed.

MG: What do you know about why no charges were laid? Did the Kawartha Lakes Police Service, which did this investigation, offer you any information as to why there are no charges?

YF: This is the most concerning part out of all this aspect, Matt. We've been reading for almost a year. There has been no explanation. The lack of transparency by the Kawartha Lakes Police Service is alarming. And I think everyone in this province is listening, every Ontarian, every Canadian. It's disturbing when you have the police force — the authorities — that are supposed to have transparency give explanations. There was none whatsoever. The conversation went this way: they communicated to my lawyers that there will be no charges against the individuals involved in Soleiman’s death. No explanation at all to me, or my family. We're waiting for the same thing we were waiting from from day one: accountability for why a mentally ill person is killed under government care by tax-funded guards. Yet, at the same time, we as a family are stunned how somebody so vulnerable — let me be clear here, Matt — was waiting for a bed to be transferred. He was there temporarily. Yet, he loses his life in the same institution that’s supposed to take care of him. It's quite disturbing. And to be frankly honest, this is not right.

JD: Yusuf Faqiri’s brother, Soleiman, died last year while in custody at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ontario. Mr. Faqiri was speaking with Matt Galloway, of CBC Toronto's “Metro Morning”.

[Music: Ambient]

Jane Juska obit

Guest: Sharon Gless

JD: After Jane Juska retired, she took out a personal ad in The New York Review of Books. It read, quote, “Before I turn 67, I would like to have a lot of sex with the man I like. If you want to talk first, Trollope works for me.” But as she told Charlie Rose, she wasn't sure the ad would even make it to print.

SOUNDCLIP

JANE JUSKA: They didn’t say anything, and so I thought well, they're not going to print sex. The word “sex” is not going to get me and The New York Review. And I thought how else could I have said that? There's no way I could have said. It is the best piece of writing I've ever done.

CHARLIE ROSE: You mean the ad was?

JJ: Yeah, the ad. So I waited, and then I called because the next edition came out and I wasn’t there. So I call called and very timidly said well, have you decided not to? Oh no, it'll be there. It'll be there next issue.

JD: That was Jane Juska, speaking with Charlie Rose in 2003. The former high school English teacher chronicled her rondezvouses in a memoir called “A Round-Heeled Woman: My Late Life Adventures in Sex and Romance”. And that book, which started with that simple ad, became a bestseller. Ms. Juska died last week, after an undisclosed illness. She was 84-years-old. Sharon Gless became close with Jane Juska. A few years ago, Ms. Gless, known as “Cagney” on the television show “Cagney and Lacey”, portrayed Ms. Juska on stage in a one-woman show based on the book. Sharon Gless lives in Los Angeles, California. And that is where we reached her.

CO: Sharon, first of all, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.

SHARON GLESS: Thank you, Carol. Me too.

CO: Can you tell us about Jane Juska? What was she like?

SG: She was very, very bright — very, very funny. Quite shy — the first time I spoke with her, she started using four-syllable words. She was letting me know who I was talking to. I said Jane I didn't understand a thing you just said. Now, could you start again and use like two-syllable words, so that I could understand. And she laughed and started over.

CO: How do you think she got inspired to write so explicitly about sex in her 60s?

SG: Well, I went to a talk that she was giving in New York when I first bought her book. And I went to listen to it; we hadn't met yet. And a woman asked her Ms. Juska, how could you humiliate yourself like this? And she looked straight at the woman and she said I had not been touched in 30 years. And when it came upon her, she went through everything in this book. And I guess then just decided to write about it. She taught English composition. You know, she taught English to English teachers. She taught English to students at Berkeley. She taught in prison in San Quentin. So she had a great command of the language. It’s one of my favorite books. So why did she write about it? I think because she had the gift, and she put herself through it. And I guess she wanted to share it with all of us.

CO: But she set out put herself through it, didn't she? She wrote this ad se posted in order to meet men. She put it in The New York Review of Books, of course.

SG: That was the key thing. This was before Internet. No, she put it in The New York Review of Books, looking for someone as smart as she was.

CO: And she said, “Before I turn 67 next March, I would like to have a lot of sex with a man I like. If you want to talk first, Trollope works for me.”

SG: That's right. Some people might be confused because “Trollope” she was referring to the author Trollope.

CO: Anthony Trollope, yes.

SG: Exactly.

CO: And she writes about the men, who in fact, she had 63 replies, which she divided into “yes”, “no” and maybe. And the “no’s” were only those who are on life-support machines, or who had no appreciation of any kind.

SG: God she's funny. I miss her. Thank you for bringing that to me. Yeah, she went through a lot of pain with it. Some of it is very funny. I had the great honour of playing her. That's why I get to talk to you because I optioned her book. And I played her for three years on stage. So I got to know her and I got to see how funny she was and how quick she was and shy.

CO: Now, you've said shy. And it just does not strike me as someone who is shy.

SG: She is actually.

CO: She writes about these men that she met and what they were like and what kind of sex she had with them, or didn't have with them. The ones that worked and the ones that didn't. And it’s extremely explicit.

SG: And remember, she's writing exactly what happened. But in in my meeting her, in my introducing her to other people, she is initially shy. Her approach is very gentle. And I think that's probably the reason that sometimes she was hurt.

CO: But by virtue of this, it wasn't a gimmick in any way. She put herself out. She opened herself to the world in her 60s — late 60s — to see what kinds of life and experience she could have. I mean it's just remarkable, isn't it is?

SG: It is. As you probably know, she got the idea from a foreign film. And went home and was just was lonely, and missed having a sexual part of her life. As I’ve said, it was 30 years since anyone had touched her. And she decided to write this letter. She told me she never expected anybody to answer. And then, as you say, she got how many… 63-73 answers?

CO: 63 replies immediately.

SG: 63 Replies. She wrote it because she needed to do it. That's what she told me. She said I never expected anybody to really answer.

CO: When you read it, and then you decided you wanted to buy the rights to perform the story. What is it that grabbed you in the story of “A round-heeled Woman”? That’s the book we're talking about.

SG: Well let me tell you, my husband and I had a big fight one Sunday. And he stormed off in his office and I stormed off to mine. And he reads the New York Times. And he came back and threw this paper on my desk and he said if you had any balls, you'd buy this book.

CO: He said balls.

SG: And I was so angry at him that I called my lawyer and started the negotiations. I hadn’t even read it yet I was so angry. That when I read it, I finally after a year — it took me a year to get the rights. I was competing against a studio. But Jane gave me the rights. And, obviously, I read the book eventually. She's just so funny. She's so funny and so naive. There’s a naivety to her that's fantastic. CO: What are you going to miss the most about Jane Juska?

SG: Gosh, just the fact that I can't call her up any time I want. I can't listen to her wit. She won't be there to make me laugh. She just was one-of-a-kind. When you have the honour. Pardon me. When you have the honour of playing a human being, and I played her for three years, we got close, you know? And there were just times when she take my call and not somebody else's. And so I think she felt the same way. We just had a bond, you know? It's just it's an unusual thing to do, to have someone play you and for me to actually get to know her. She's still alive; I got to know everything about her. She just made me laugh all the time.

CO: Sharon, I'm so glad to speak to you about this wonderful woman, and a great loss.

SG: And I miss her. I thank you so much. Thank you so much, Carol for doing this about her.

CO: Thank you. Bye bye

SG: Bye

JD: That was Sharon Gless, who portrayed Jane Juska in a stage version of Ms. Juska’s bestselling book “A Round-Heeled Woman: My Late Life Adventures in Sex and Romance.” Jane Juska died last week. She was 84-years-old.

[Music: Ambient]

Spooky space sounds

JD: Your jack-o'-lantern has a wicked grin. Your front porch is lit in a sinister green glow, illuminating the cobweb-covered stairs. But if you want to be the best — I mean best on the block — you gotta have sound effects. Well, NASA has you covered. They just released, quote, "a compilation of elusive sounds of howling planets and whistling helium that is sure to make your skin crawl." Unquote. Here are some of our favourite tracks. First, we'll enter Jupiter's Magnetosphere, courtesy of the Juno space probe. And then we'll hop aboard the Cassini spacecraft and hear radio emissions from Saturn.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: This is every 50s sci-fi movie in real-life]

JD: Next we have a sample of Earthling-wave hits. These are a chorus radio waves within Earth's atmosphere, followed by whistler waves, as heard by NASA's Van Allen Probes.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound; Probably used in “Star Wars”; definitely used in “Stranger Things”]

JD: And finally, our vote for the spookiest track in the solar system for Halloween 2K17 — here's "Beware of Jupiter's Largest Moon, Ganymede."

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Michael Bay meets Skrillex — the soundtrack for the new Dora The Explorer]

JD: ha, ha, ha, ha, ha those were some of the tracks from NASA's "Spooky Sounds From Across the Universe" playlist. And you can listen to the whole playlist — if you dare — at www.soundcloud.com/nasa.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Canada and the Kurds, Bob Nault on NAFTA, Catalonia government worker

Canada and the Kurds

Guest: Marie-Maude Denis

JD: Things are changing very quickly in Kurdish-controlled Iraq — both for residents and for the Canadian soldiers there. Canadian Special Forces operators had been providing the Kurdish Peshmerga with help, as part of the coalition fighting to uproot ISIS from its strongholds. But on Friday, Ottawa put those operations on hold, following territorial battles between the Kurds and that other Canadian ally: the government of Iraq. And then yesterday, the Kurdish Regional Government's a long-time president announced that he plans to step down. Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman is the Kurdish Regional Government's top diplomat in North America. We reached her in Washington D.C.

CO: Ms. Abdul Rahman, what's your message for the Canadian government, as it reconsiders military support for the Kurdish government?

BAYAN SAMI ABDUL RAHMAN: Well, we would ask Canada to stay engaged with Kurdistan and Iraq. We do still need the support of Canada and other coalition partners. I say Canada because we've had such a good, successful partnership in the fight against ISIS, the special operations, the training.

CO: What have you actually been told by the Trudeau government? How have they responded to the situation? First of all, I guess the referendum — and, secondly, the tension between those Iraqi militias and the Peshmerga?

BSAR: Well, what they have said to us is that they will want to wait and see, or watch and see how things develop. And we're hoping that the current ceasefire that is in place will hold — continues to hold. And that this will open up the space for political dialogue in Kurdistan and in Iraq. And then we may be able to return to a more normal status.

CO: And you say cease fire. You mean this is between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi forces, including the militia?

BSAR: Correct, yes.

CO: But I'm hearing in what you're saying that you appreciate how difficult this is for your allies like Canada, in that we have a long-time relationship with the Iraqi government and a relationship with the Kurdish government and with the Peshmerga. How do you suggest that we strike a balance, given that there is tremendous tension and you say the cease fire needs to hold? But there is tremendous tension between those two sides, isn't there?

BSAR: We don't ask Canada to choose between Erbil and Baghdad, or Kurdistan and Iraq. We don't ask anybody to make that choice. We recognize that Iraq is a partner, Kurdistan is a partner. And there is a way for Canada, for example, to encourage this ceasefire to continue — and to encourage Erbil and Baghdad to really begin a dialogue because whatever happens, at the end of the day, we need to sit down and talk. And the sooner the talks begin, the better and the more likely that bloodshed will be avoided.

CO: But can you appreciate that once again that you had a referendum in Kurdistan — a referendum to establish Kurdistan, and to separate part of Iraq. That creates a great deal of problems for countries like Canada, for your allies.

BSAR: Well, it shouldn't necessarily create problems. We had a referendum. We flagged up the referendum years — not months — years in advance. And we made it very clear that this referendum would not lead to a unilateral declaration of independence. We saw this as a statement by the people of Kurdistan on whether they want independence or not. Nine out of ten said yes. Then the next stage, from our point of view, would have been dialogue. But, unfortunately, the reaction of Baghdad was a military confrontation and an economic blockade. Now, many of us believe that actually the referendum was just the excuse. That what we're seeing right now was a long-held plan and the referendum provided the excuse. And the plan was not only held by Baghdad, but also by Iran. Iran has for a very long time wanted to divide Iraqi-Kurdistan into two areas, and to have an unstable, economically weak Iraqi-Kurdistan. And I should also point out that when the militias were established — some of which are loyal to Iran, are directed by Iran and so on — the day that they were created, we started to alert our friends that one day they would attack Kurdistan. We saw the warnings way back then.

CO: Could you not have predicted that the referendum would be that trigger and that you went ahead anyways? And not only has it created exactly the situation that you suspected might happen, but then you have put your allies into a very, very, difficult situation. I mean didn't the government suspect that this might be the outcome?

BSAR: Well, I think actually that the coalition bears some responsibility for the reaction that we've had from Baghdad and Tehran, and to some extent, from Ankara. In the run up to the referendum, there was such hostility to the referendum. And bear in mind a referendum is a democratic exercise. And we were very clear that we would not be talking about independence the day after. But the reaction, particularly from the U.S., but also other allies was so negative — so hostile — that emboldened Baghdad, Ankara and Tehran. It led them to believe that the Kurds in Iraq were alone. And gave them carte blanche to do whatever they wish.

CO: Do you think that the coalition forces led by the United States, Canada included that. Were we all too focused on the defeat of ISIS, and perhaps, blind to the tensions that were there. The ethnic fissures that we should have been more conscious of?

BSAR: Yes, I agree with that. There has been this very tight, narrow focus on defeating ISIS. And, of course, it has been the priority for all of us and remains a priority. But by doing that and nothing else, it ignored the problems that led to the creation of ISIS, and then the problems that have been created since. For example, we have a genocide — an ongoing genocide — in Iraq: the Yezidis, the Christians, others who have been targeted by ISIS. That has opened up so many wounds new wounds, old wounds. Then you have the tensions between the Kurds and the Arabs, the Shia and the Sunni, and Christians and Yezidis, Muslims, every kind of tension that you can think about. All of those issues have been left aside, in the hopes that with a military defeat of ISIS, somehow everything would fall into place. But I think that was a naive expectation. Unfortunately, these kinds of wounds just get worse. They fester, rather than heal themselves with time.

CO: We will leave it there. I'm sure we will be speaking again. Ms. Abdul Rahman, thank you.

BSAR: Thank you very much.

JD: Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman is the Kurdish Regional Government's representative in Washington D.C. And that is where we reached her.

[Music: Ambient]

Bernie Sanders

JD: This weekend, United States Senator Bernie Sanders took to the stage at the University of Toronto. In a 30-minute speech, he praised the Canadian healthcare system for providing universal access to doctors and hospitals — despite its imperfections. And while doing so, he predictably pulled no punches in criticizing American health insurance plans. Here he is speaking to a sold-out crowd in Toronto.

SOUNDCLIP

BERNIE SANDERS: Right now, in the United States of America, as many of you know, we have 28,000,000 Americans who have no health insurance — none whatsoever. We have what you don't know is even more than that people who have high deductibles and high co-payments who are under-insured. Which means that when they get ill — and I know it has been hard for Canadians to understand that — but when they get ill, they do and not go to the doctor because they don’t have enough money to pay with the deductibles or the co-payments? Maybe it's 50 bucks, maybe it's 30 bucks. They don't have that money. And as a result, when they get a symptom, when they’re ill, they hesitate going. And they wait and they wait and they wait. And I have talked to too many doctors in my state of Vermont, and all over this country, who tell me that there are times when people walk into their offices so ill that, in fact, their situation is terminal unnecessarily. They could have been dealt with if they came in when they should have. And the truth is not widely discussed in America: that we lose thousands and thousands of people every single year, unnecessarily, because they don't go to the doctor when they should.

JD: That was United States Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking at the University of Toronto this weekend.

[Music: Inide rock]

Bob Nault on NAFTA

Guest: Bob Nault

JD: "Napping on NAFTA." That's the title Stephen Harper chose. And, no, the former PM was not trying his hand at writing bedtime stories for budding economists. He was writing a damning memo, made public over the weekend, about the Liberal government's handling of the free trade talks with the U.S. and Mexico. But Bob Nault says he and his colleagues have been far too busy to sleep. The Liberal MP is the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, and he spent last week running from meeting to meeting in Mexico and Washington. We reached Bob Nault, however, in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Nault, Stephen Harper says the Liberals are asleep at the switch when it comes to the NAFTA talks. How do you respond?

BOB NAULT: Well, I'm a bit surprised that Stephen Harper — who's the ex-leader of the government of Canada, obviously, retired, defeated — would come out in a fashion that would, in some respects, damage our abilities to negotiate and to use you know the objectivity that we've been using all along, a good deal for Canada is a good deal for everybody.

CO: But aside from that, is he right or wrong?

BN: I think he's wrong. The government of Canada has put a very solid position forward at NAFTA. The real issue for us is the other side has a particularly different strategy than we have.

CO: He says that Canada has been too quick to reject U.S. proposals. Lo look at look seriously at what United States is offering, call it poison pills, red lines and we're not looking at this seriously. Is there some truth to that?

BN: No, there's no truth to that. Because frankly, if you want to roll back the clock as it relates to free trade then sure, you could look at those particular offers made by the president and his team. But it's pretty clear when you speak to people in Washington that their strategy — Mr. Trump's his team — is to find a way to get Mexico or Canada to walk away from the negotiations. As he said to some legislators that we've been made privy to, the strategy is basically to put this in a six-month, high-cooker type of negotiation. And so if you put poison pills or issues that are not anywhere near something that Canada could accept then that might drive the agenda towards negotiation that he thinks is the best approach for him as a negotiator. Because I think Mr. Trump sees himself as a great negotiator, has done these kinds of what he thinks deals in the private sector and he's using the same scenario. Will it work with institutions like ours or Congress? I don't think so.

CO: But then if that's what's happening — if that's what you're hearing — then there must be some truth to what Stephen Harper is saying that these talks are in real trouble.

BN: Well, these talks are going to be difficult and these talks are going to be long and drawn out. And I think that's the objective of the exercise for Chrystia Freeland and the government is to stay at the table and to work hard with not only the negotiators, but Congress and the representatives who have a big say in whether NAFTA is renewed or not. And, in my opinion, that's the approach to take. And negotiations aren't in trouble until they're in trouble. And as far as I can tell, they're still at the table, still working and it's still early days. They're still early rounds. And so I think the fact that Mr. Harper is out there making these public comments is going to affect us at the negotiating table because next time we meet, of course, the American side will say well even the previous prime minister of Canada thinks that you should be a little more flexible and a little more willing to give things up.

CO; You went first to Mexico last week, and then went to Washington and New York to talk about how you're going to nudge this along and what compromises that might be necessary. But why stand beside Mexico? Why is it necessary to say we're not going to leave our Mexican partner in this? Why not, as Stephen Harper suggests, if you have to strike out on your own — why shouldn't Canada do that?

BN: Well, I think it's a little early in the process to be making a decision about striking out on your own when this is a tripartite negotiation — has been since the 90s. And Mexico is our partner, as is the U.S. And to suggest through tweets of the president or other matters of how they're negotiating that somehow we read into that, that we have to walk away from one of our partners. I think that's foolhardy, premature and really suggests that somehow either Stephen Harper is missing the point of what we're here for, or he's putting forward initiative or suggestions that sounds like he has a grudge to bear based on the last election. Because even Brian Mulroney is keeping quiet, so I really don't understand why Stephen Harper thinks it's to his benefit to be doing this at this stage?

CO: It's interesting you should use the words premature and it's too early in the process to say. Does that suggest — it certainly does to me — that you would consider a bilateral deal? That is something down the line that Canada might strike with the United States?

BN: Well, when you're at the negotiating table, of course, there's all the options are on the table. And you're working your way through this with the understanding that you're trying to renew the NAFTA agreement; you're not trying to rip it apart and start over. And so keeping that in mind, we'll see where this all goes down the line. And what I've been suggesting all along is to slow this down because you have a very unstable government in Washington with a lot of issues that are floating to the surface. And when I talk to the legislators in Washington, it was more obvious to me that they were looking at talking about what's going on with the Russian situation? What's happening with reforms to the tax structure? And, at some point, we'll get to NAFTA. As many of the Senators in the House of Representatives said to me in the meetings, we'll get to NAFTA when it starts to get hot and/or on our radar. But right now, we've got other matters, including North Korea. So I think we should just stay calm, stay cool, work our way through this and not be in a big hurry because it's too important for us to go real quick.

CO: All right, we’ll leave it there Mr. Nault Thank you.

BN: Thank you very much.

JD: Bob Nault is a Liberal Member of Parliament, and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Ambient]

Catalonia government worker

Guest: Xavier Diez

JD: Last week, he delcared independence. But today, Catalonia's leader is nowhere to be seen -- and reportedly not even in the country. On Friday, the Spanish government dissolved Catalonia's parliament, and took over administration of the region. Now, it's been reported that the ousted president, Carles Pugdemont, is in Belgium, where he may claim asylum. Xavier Diez is a teacher and spokesperson for Catalonia's largest teachers' union. We reached him in Girona.

CO: Mr. Diez, you work for the Catalonia regional government. Does that exist anymore?

XAVIER DIEZ: At this moment, the Catalan government is under control of the Spanish kingdom at this moment. So well, the thing goes people work at this moment. But we have seen really strange situation where our democratic institutions are controlled.

CO: But do you know who you report to? If you work for the Catalan regional government, and I guess it doesn't appear to exist at this point. Who do you report to?

XD: The Catalan institutions are under control of the Kingdom of Spain. But we hope that things like the schools, hospitals, the administration run in a normal way, or more-or-less a normal way.

CO: Well, how can they run in a normal way when your parliament has been dissolved, and all your affairs in Catalonia are being run out of Madrid?

XD: This is this kind of strange situations because it's like to live in a dictatorship. Well, people who have memories it’s like before 1977, when our Catalan government was in exile in France.

CO: I want to ask you specifically about being in the in the teachers’ union. What would that what would happen if Madrid actually started to run your schools?

XD: One of the interests of Madrid is to finish the linguistic immersion system that, at this point, is quite similar to the Quebec. And maybe impose the Spanish as a normal language in schools. And also, to impose some Spanish curriculum, with, for example, point of view of history similar to the Francoist period, you know?

CO: Well, I know what would happen in Quebec If Ottawa — the capital — ever imposed in the English language on Quebec, and took over its broadcasting and education system and tried to reverse language laws. So you're saying it would be something similar in Catalonia?

XD: Yes, yes, like this exactly. In fact, there's a connections between the system in Quebec and Catalonia. There are some politicians who cross who have been in contact for this type of system. And now, it’s in danger.

CO: I want to ask you about what's happening with the leader of Catalonia, Carles Pugdemont, who has fled the country. He's he has gone to Belgium, where he appears to be seeking political asylum from Belgium. What do you make of that?

XD: Well, that's terrible news. We know that, at this point, all the Catalan government is in danger to put in jail. Carles Pugdemont stays in exile because, probably, he has to choose between to be in exile or to be in jail. The probability is very high.

CO: But Madrid is saying this isn't imposing a dictatorship on Catalonia. It’s saying that Catalona — the Catalans — broke the law. They violated the Constitution that this is the law that exists in a democratic state of Spain, and that the people who are being arrested are being arrested for having broken the law and violated the Constitution. What do you say to that?

XD: You know, popular party was in the majority in Spain. You saw represented only 8 per cent of voting in Catalonia. This is a situation very close to the Turkish dictatorship. Turkey's dictatorship could have a constitution, but it’s a dictatorship.

CO: But how far are you willing to go? How far are you and others who want independence willing to resist Madrid in its efforts to stop your movement?

XD: It's difficult to guess. This is the real question. It is difficult to guess. We hope, or we want to hope, that European institutions can do some mediations. Or an international intervention could try to make an agreement for instance to do legal referendum, or to try to stop the repression.

CO: But you need outside help then you're saying? It has to be some outside intervention to solve this?

XD: Yes, this is one of our hopes, of course.

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

XD: Thank you to you.

JD: Xavier Diez is a teacher and a spokesperson for Catalonians largest teachers’ union. We reached him in Girona.

[Music: Percussive]

Lee Maracle

JD: In 1975, Sto:lo writer Lee Maracle published her first book, "Bobbi Lee: Indian Rebel". Shortly after it came out, Ms. Maracle says, she was giving a talk when a man in the audience asked her, quote, "What are you going to do with us white guys — drive us into the sea?" Unquote. Since then, Ms. Maracle has spent more than four decades facing Canadians' questions about colonialism, identity, race, violence, art and more. Last week, Ms. Maracle spoke to CBC's Duncan McCue at the International Festival of Authors about her new book called “My Conversations With Canadians”, which was inspired by these encounters — and about the importance of making space for a different kind of conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

LEE MARACLE: You know, colonialism is about the absence of space. And so it's patriarchy. You know, the guys sit around the table and the women are left out in the cold. And they don't even think about it. Very often, they don't think about it. Or they'll make a plan. And the women are sort of wondering what their role in this plan is supposed to be? Nobody tells them. So they get left out of the plan. So space is a big part of being together — sharing space.

DUNCAN MCCUE: One of the concepts that you talk about in the book about making space is something called the “Knowers Chair”. So what's the “Knowers Chair”?

LM: Yeah, I'll tell you that. I was in a conference. They asked me to be the keynote. First of all here's my key note. Whew…. There you go. Anyway, before my keynote, which is the big moment, there's four women up there and they're all white. And they're talking to an audience that is over half people of colour. What's wrong with that picture? And I thought Jesus, we've come a long way in 30 years. 30 ago, those would’ve been four white guys. Now, it’s four white girls. And I thought they brought the wrong person to the party. Because here I am talking next, and I thought what is that? And then they started to talk and I realized they were teaching us. I freaking hate that: When someone presumes to teach me. I'm 67-years-old and I know how many times some white guys come up to tell me about colonialism. Really? I mean he learned it yesterday. I've been living it for 67 years. Thank you very much. Sit down and listen. But that's what I realized. They think they own the frickin “Knowers Chair”. There's this chair that whenever they sit in it, they're the ones who have the expertise — whoever's sitting in it. And they speak as though they know. That's the interesting part. I hope I don't sound teacher-ish to you. If I do say shut up, sit down Lee, have a drink. I mean it's just awful when you get that. And some people said well it's paternalism. Maybe, but I think it's just the “Knowers Chair”, pull the chair out. If you're all sitting in a circle looking at each other, nobody has the mikes so to speak. You're not in charge. You're having a conversation.

JD: Lee Maracle is a celebrated sto:lo poet and author from North Vancouver. She spoke with CBC Radio's Duncan McCue in Toronto about her new book “My Conversations With Canadians”, at the International Festival of authors.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 30, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This