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 November 16, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening, I'm Chris Howden, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight…

CO: He's hoping nothing succeeds like succession. An opposition leader in Zimbabwe hopes for a peaceful democratic transition of power as President Robert Mugabe faces increasing pressure to resign.

CH: Bill passed due. As more men in power face allegations of sexual misconduct our guest believes now is the time to review longstanding allegations against one man in particular — former US President Bill Clinton.

CO: The shadow of a number of doubts. After 45 years in prison a Louisiana man's conviction is overturned and his lawyer wants to know why evidence of his innocence went unheard for so long.

CH: The bitter end. When everyone put their paddles down yesterday a Da Vinci painting had sold for more than 500 million dollars Canadian, despite early concerns about its condition and provenance.

CO: Present tent. Their country may officially be out of the Paris Accord, but more than a hundred heavy hitters from the United States have put up a huge, inflatable tent at the Bonn climate conference, announcing ‘we're still in.’

CH: And…making things hot under the collar. After an Ontario man got a call from someone claiming to be the Canada Revenue Agency, he called that someone back — repeatedly until they begged him to stop.

CH: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that’s sure they found him to be a redial, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Zimbabwe Opposition, Innocence Project, CRA Calls

Zimbabwe Opposition

Guest: Tendai Biti

CH: It's been two days now since the military in Zimbabwe surrounded the home of the country's president, Robert Mugabe, and placed him under house arrest. This morning photos of the president sitting with the chief of the Zimbabwean army and two South African envoys were released. It is believed the military are negotiating with him to step aside. But some opposition leaders are openly calling for Mr. Mugabe's resignation — pressure that the 93-year-old dictator is reportedly resisting. Tendai Biti is the leader of the People's Democratic Party and the former finance minister of Zimbabwe. We reached him in Harare.

CO: Mr. Biti, we are seeing pictures of tanks on the streets in Zimbabwe but people going about their lives. Do they know who is in charge at this point?

TENDAI BITI: Yes of course the army is in absolute total control situation and a coup has happened, it's an illegal infraction and insult on our constitution. So quite clearly the Democrats must condemn that but if we condemn that we need to find a solution. And we need to find the fastest route to restoring our country to constitutional legitimacy.

CO: And this is quite interesting because the people we have spoken with are saying look it looks like everything is relatively peaceful but there's no plan at this point to include Zimbabweans, the people in Zimbabwe, in whatever is going to happen next. Is that a frustration for you?

TB: The involvement of Zimbabweans in future process is inevitable and they will be engaged through the respective organizations, the political parties, the civic society and so forth, that's inevitable. I don't know why this coup feels like it's been there for a month but it's only two days, it's only two days. So we don't expect a lot in two days. So I don't think exclusion is possible because inclusion is the only way to find a permanent solution to the crisis that is literally 60 years old.

CO: But the military, as you point out, is in control right now. It seems to want President Robert Mugabe to be gone from office. What do you want to?

TB: We want President Mugabe to go. I've been in the opposition trenches for the last 17 years fighting for change in Zimbabwe. I’ve only known one leader since I was born — Robert Mugabe — he has to go.

CO: But it seems that if the military is in charge and they seem to have their own idea about what should happen next, how is it possible that the opposition, ordinary Zimbabweans, how are they going to be able to participate in this transition?

TB: The military have carried coup. There is no permanent coup in the world. The military has to find an exit strategy. That strategy involves handing power to an elected civilian authority. How do you get to that date of an election? Quite clearly you need to sit on the table and negotiate. Quite clearly for those negotiations to have credibility and validity they must involve all the stakeholders and the political parties. And for those agreements to have a binding effect within and outside Zimbabwe's borders The Southern African Development Community, the regional body must be involved. The African Union must be involved. The UN, including the UN Security Council, must be involved. What is meant to be negotiated? Number one, it is the roadmap to return to constitutional government in Zimbabwe. It is the road map to an election. Number two, who holds the fort between point A being President Mugabe’s last day in office, and point B being the day that we hold the election. And in this regard we are proposing setting up an inclusive national traditional authority, which will be the government that will hold the fort in between. Thirdly, what are going to be the functions of that government? In my respectful view The National Transitional Authority must just look at the issue of elections, they must also look at the underlying causes of the present coup. Why did it happen? How do we prevent it? It happen because there is an economic crisis. It happened because there was a threat to our democracy by the creation of a Mugabe dynasty. It happened because there is a collapse in social services. So these are things that need to be addressed in a programmatic manner so that we can move forward as a country.

CO: Mr. Biti, when I hear you say this and there is passion in your voice and fatigue, these are things that you and others have been saying now for years. I am wondering what would compel the military to allow ordinary Zimbabweans, people, to actually play a role in this transition that your country is now in?

TB: Well they are soldiers, they don't play a role in politics. They intervened to address a pathological situation. They are saying things have gotten to a situation where there was going to be an implosion. The coup itself is an admission that we need a new order, we need a new narrative.

CO: Did you ever expect to see this day?

TB: Not at all. I wrote about it, that there would be an implosion in this country. I’ve been arguing since 2015 that we The National Transitional Authority to create a soft landing. But having foreseen this in an academic paper is very different from actually living it and experiencing it as we are doing, it’s unbelievable. You are full of anxiety. You don't sleep, it's just terrible. I can imagine what Ghanians, what Nigerians, what people in the Gambia, what people in the Central African Republic, what people in Equatorial Guinea, what people in The Democratic Republic of Congo, have been feeling because they’ve gone through these military coups, it's terrible. You don't want even your worst opponent to go through this.

CO: But what do you say after it — are you hopeful?

TB: When are a democracy activist like myself your business is to turn tragedy into paradise. So we have to turn tragedy into hope. In this disastrous situation we have to find opportunities and the opportunity really is that the coup effected extreme change. It removed President Mugabe so it might have come from a bad source but result will be commendable.

CO: Mr. Biti, we will be following what happens in Zimbabwe. As you point out, it's a very fraught time for you and I hope that you are safe, but thank you very much for speaking with us.

TB: Thank you. It is a difficult time, but thank you.

CH: Tendai Biti is the leader of the People's Democratic Party. We reached him in Harare, Zimbabwe.

[Music: Industrial Rock]

Al Franken and Roy Moore Allegations

CH: Today, allegations of sexual impropriety reached the U.S. Senate. Democratic Senator Al Franken apologized to a woman who accused him of groping and kissing her in 2006, before he was a senator. In a statement he wrote “I respect women. I don't respect men who don't. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.” Leeann Tweeden, a radio newscaster, says she and Mr. Franken were on a comedy tour together in 2006, entertaining U.S. troops in the Middle East. Ms. Tweeden alleges he acted inappropriately with her backstage and on the plane ride home to the U.S.. Here's what she said at a press conference today.

SOUNDCLIP

LEEANN TWEEDEN: So it’s just me and Al backstage and he's like ‘well we need to practice the kissing scene.’ And I just sort of blew him off and he kept persisting. I’m like ‘Al this isn’t SNL, we are not really going to kiss.’ And he just kept persisting and it just reminded me of the Harvey Weinstein tape that you heard the girl when she was wired up for the NYPD, and he’s just persistent and badgering and just relentlessly you know. So I was just like ‘OK fine.’ Just so he would shut up, you know. He came at me and I before you know even know it, I mean, you kind of get close. And he just put his hand on the back of my head and mashed his face against — I mean, it happened so fast and he just mashed his lips against my face and he stuck his tongue in my mouth so fast. I remember I pushed him off. I just remember I almost punched him, because every time I see him now like my hands clench into fists and I'm sure that's probably why. You know, I had to go out on stage with this guy who just did this to me five minutes before and act like he's my best friend. So whatever, so I make it through the two weeks of that and then we’re on our way, so we’re leaving out of Afghanistan. And every time you take off from a from a base when you're in the middle of combat you always wear a Kevlar helmet and a flack vest. I'm wearing it, I fall asleep. There are photographers on the trip and they give you CDs as you leave that have behind the scenes photos of you on the entire tour that they give you when you leave. I get this and I open it up when I get home and it was a photo of Al doing his, you know, this on my breasts, like looking at the camera and kind of smirking and smiling and I took that as the you know the final like ‘haha I got the last laugh.’

CH: Leeann Tweeden, a radio newscaster, alledging today the Democratic senator Al Franken groped and kissed her forcefully in 2006. A Senate Ethics Committee probe has been called to investigate. And then there's Roy Moore. The Republican Senate nominee for Alabama has been facing allegations of sexual misconduct all week. Today Mr. Moore addressed faith leaders and supporters in Alabama and said the allegations leveled against him were false. But before that he decided he'd tell a little story about the sage advice he was given before running for office.

SOUNDCLIP

ROY MOORE: When I first got into politics they said three things you have to have to be a good candidate — that’s honesty, dedication and experience. So I went to a seasoned, old judge and told him that he said “Roy, that's not really correct.” He says “What you need to do is have eyeglasses, it Shows people that you study a lot and read a lot.” He says “The next thing is you have to have greying hair or thinning hair,” well, as you can see mines been going for a while, “And then you have to have one other thing,” I said “What's that judge?” And he said, “You have to have hemorrhoids.”

[LAUGHTER]

RM: And I said “Why?” He said “Well it gives you a concerned look.”

[LAUGHTER]

RM: One thing I would like to see happen in our country is unity. I never dreamed that I would succeed, even before I got elected. But I have unified the Democrats and the Republicans in fighting against me because they don't want me there. As you know the Washington Post brought some scurrilous allegations, which I have emphatically denied. They're not only untrue, but they have no evidence to support them. I haven't had one question from press about issues in this case since these allegations have occurred. The other day we got a call from one big magazine — asked me to step down from the campaign. Well, I want to tell you who needs to step down — that's Mitch McConnell.

[APPLAUSE]

CH: That was Roy Moore, the Republican Senate nominee for Alabama, addressing his supporters today and denying allegations of sexual misconduct with minors — including a 14-year-old girl. Coming up later in the show an interview with Caitlin Flanagan. She's a contributor to The Atlantic and she's just written a piece entitled Bill Clinton: A Reckoning.

[Music: Guitar Strums]

Innocence Project

Guest: Emily Maw

CH: We will have the gumbo ready — that's what Wilbert Jones's niece said when she was asked how her uncle would be celebrating his release. A Louisiana judge had just overturned Mr. Jones's conviction for the 1971 kidnapping and rape of a nurse in Baton Rouge. The judge found that the original case against the then 19-year-old Mr. Jones had been quote “weak at best.” And yesterday, at the age of 65, Mr. Jones walked out of the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison and into his family's arms. Emily Maw was there. She led Mr. Jones legal team at Innocence Project New Orleans. We reached her in Baton Rouge yesterday.

CO: Ms. Maw, how did Mr. Jones enjoy his gumbo?

EMILY MAW: He ate so much of it I think we were all slightly worried he was going to get into some kind of a diabetic coma.

CO: So it was good — It was a good day for him then?

EM: It was a good day, it was a really good day for Wilbert Jones obviously, probably the best day in Forty-five years 10-months and one day.

CO: Yesterday the judge described the case against your client Mr. Jones, the case made in the 1970s, as quote “weak at best.” You would argue that prosecutors and place withheld key evidence at trial. What was that evidence?

EM: The evidence that was withheld by the state was evidence of the real perpetrator, who was a serial rapist who committed a virtually identical crime weeks after the crime for which Mr. Jones was convicted, and who exactly matched the description of the perpetrator given by the victim in the crime for which Mr. Jones was convicted.

CO: And at the same time the victim of this crime, who is deceased, but she was kidnapped and then sexually assaulted, but she picked Mr. Jones out of a police lineup.

EM: She did, and after she did that she called the police back to tell them that she was not 100 per cent sure it was him, because there were two ways in which he was not the same as her memory of her attacker. And those two ways that she described — his height and his voice — were the two ways in which the serial rapist, who committed an identical crime a few weeks later, did match.

CO: Why do you think that this never came to light? Why was this never part of the trial?

EM: When Walter Jones was tried, and very often today still, eyewitness identification is enough and police simply don't pursue the investigation any further than that. And I think it is a real warning for when we just default to an eyewitness identification and don't do more critical follow up.

CO: And rigor is an issue here isn't it? Because there was an opinion of the state Supreme Court Justice in 1974 about the prosecutor of this case, can you tell us about that?

EM: The prosecutor who tried Wlibert Jones had a history of unconstitutional conduct, misconduct, hiding evidence, making racially inflammatory, remarks striking black jurors. He was a prosecutor who had a remarkable incidence of convictions that he had obtained being overturned by the Supreme Court for various — for his problematic behaviour. Now, if somebody is wrongly convicted because evidence is withheld from that trial by the state it is not always because the individual prosecutor is deliberately doing that. But it is always because we are too negligent in setting up a system to ensure communication of important information between law enforcement agencies and prosecution. And so when you have a case where critical information about the identity of the perpetrator didn't make it to the jury, it is because either somebody deliberately kept it from the jury, or because we are too shoddy in the way we investigate and prosecute. And we just don't mind whether all the information is out there, we don't set up systems to ensure communication.

CO: But also in this, as it was pointed out in 1974, that the prosecutor had 11 reversed convictions over one year, which as they said at the time, is an incredible statistic for a single prosecutor.

EM: That's right, yes.

CO: So pretty sloppy work.

EM: I think the the concerning part of that is it was a red flag for anybody in Mr. Jones’s case.

CO: At trial — this is 1970s — the victim who was reported to be, and this is a quote “light-skinned black woman.” She testified that her rapist told her he that he was, at least in part, acting out of desire for revenge on white people. What kind of a role did race play in this conviction?

EM: Wilbert Jones was a 19-year-old, poor, illiterate black man when he was arrested, and he was unable to understand what was happening to him, or really get the protection of the courts and our legal system that we would all want were we arrested for a crime we didn't commit. Race plays a role in this case to the extent that he has gone unheard for 45 years. And it has been very easy for people to ignore him because of who he is. I think it is a great credit to our court system today, that they were willing to go into a case this old, see that it was an injustice, see that it was an injustice visited upon a particularly vulnerable person in the Louisiana of 1972, in which Wilbert Jones was convicted, and dareto rectify that. I think we should be proud of that and find hope in that.

CO: So this teenager went into the system, went into prison to serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole for aggravated rape — that was the conviction. And now he's 65 years old and he has been released with you with your help. What will Mr. Jones life be like now do you think?

EM: He will be surrounded by a very loving family that has supported him for 45 years and ten months. He is the youngest of many brothers and sisters, all of whom have died except one brother, and that brother has been like a rock to Wilbert. I am sitting at their house now and Wilbert’s brother and his sister-in-law and niece are taking care of Wilbert and will continue to do that. He will be with them and he will enjoy every moment of being an adult who is not in prison.

CO: Ms. Maw, I appreciate speaking with, you thank you.

EM: Thank you so much.

CH: Emily Maw is the director of Innocence Project New Orleans. We reached her in Baton Rouge, Louisiana yesterday.

[Music: Ambient Hip-Hip]

CRA Calls

Guest: Kevin Underhill

CH: Getting a phone call from a telemarketer is annoying. And when the phone call from the unknown number is actually someone trying to scam you, it goes past annoying to infuriating. On Tuesday Kevin Underhill received the second type of call, someone claiming to be with the Canada Revenue Agency, but instead of just hanging up he turned the tables. We reached Kevin Underhill in London Ontario.

CO: Kevin can you describe the phone call that you got on Tuesday?

KEVIN UNDERHILL: It started with a voicemail that I received while I was at work and the first chance I got I went to listen to the voicemail. And the voicemail was very dated and robotic, it didn't sound like what our technology should sound like. It was a call from CRA and they were starting criminal procedures on me and I needed to get a lawyer and call back the number that they had listed.

CO: They said it was CRA, the Canadian Revenue Agency. Did you doubt that?

KU: Absolutely, right from the start I knew this was a scam.

CO: And it was because it just didn't sound right?

KU: It had nothing to do with the quality of the voicemail. I’m just one of the citizens that know that CRA do not call.

CO: Or don’t call like that. So what did you do?

KU: I went right to calling them the first chance I had —calling in to see what they wanted. I was very disappointed that they didn't orchestrate it well because it took two rings of me calling the number and I had a live agent. As we all know with CRA, nothing against them I mean, they're dealing with an entire country, but they have an automated system first of all, and usually with live agent there's quite a wait. So I knew right there, this confirmed that this was definitely a scam.

CO: OK so you didn't just call back, what did you do?

KU: When I did call back I got a gentleman on the phone and he said “I need to pull up your file. What's your name?” And I said “My first name is hard to pronounce. So my first name is spelt with a capital Y O U E, middle initial R, and last name spelled capital A S C A M — and waited for him to input that — dead silence. I thought at first he might have hung up and then I said “Could you repeat that back to me? And he goes, “That's not your name,” And hung up. After reading it he realized what I had said and knew that he wasn't getting anything from me.

CO: And what you had spelled out that was you or you are a scam.

KU: Yes.

CO: OK, you didn't just leave it at that. You called back again.

KU: Oh, I called back immediately. And still playing the word victim, got the same guy and I said “I don't know what's going on. I just got disconnected, you guys said I'm in a lot of trouble, I don't understand what's going on.” He hung up again. We played that for a little bit. Finally I got someone different and instead I thought ‘OK I’m going to try a different name’ so I used the name Ryan Reynolds and the gentleman on the other end said hold on for a second. He comes back about a minute later and he goes “Perfect I've got the information.” Meanwhile I'm thinking ‘You haven't asked for a social insurance number, you haven't asked for a birth date.’ And I said “OK so what's going on?” He said “The reason we're starting legal procedures on you and you're going to jail is you have frauded the Canadian government. You haven't been filing for the last nine to 10 years. You’re in a lot of trouble.” And I then said “You've got to be kidding me.” He goes “Why what's going on?” I said “I just got out of prison for serving for fraud for nine years,” and there was a loud sigh and he hung up.

CO: OK so you're having a lot of fun with these guys.

KU: I was having a lot of fun. And then I immediately called back from there and got him back on the phone. And when he said “Hello” I said “I don't know if it's your lines, I don't know what's going on, it keeps disconnecting and I’m freaking out here,” the next minute there's another voice on the phone and he goes “Mr. Reynolds,” and I'm like “Who is this, what's going on?” He goes “This is the manager of CRA,” and he goes “Can you stop pranking us?” And I said “Pranking you?” and he said “Can you just leave us alone?” And I started to laugh and I said ‘I've done something well here if I have a criminal begging for me to stop calling and leave them alone.’

CO: Many of us — I I've also had a phone call like this from the CRA — and the same thing to call back immediately or else you are in a lot of trouble, and it's pretty scary I would think for somebody who doesn't know, or who is feels that they have some problem with CRA. So you caught on to it right away, you think other people wouldn't?

KU: I think the majority, and I'm not trying to be insulting, but I think the majority would be the senior citizen and then kind of advocating on them. I’m recently a grandfather, I think of, before my grandparents passed away, they never used a computer. They followed everything in print or you know in the news and if they didn't see this they wouldn't know. And seniors they may be limited on income but they do have nest eggs a lot of them. So $5,000 they may have in a bank to give to these people but it will affect them dearly.

CO: You eventually did call the police and what did they tell you?

KU: The police were very friendly about it and I thought it just had come back full circle back to London and they said it never really goes away. They just kind of target in certain sections and they go it doesn’t go away, call the RCMP. I explained my concern with senior citizens and they said “You know our best bet, if you're really concerned, call the media. I would start with CBC. There are more adult listeners and see where you can go from there. But unfortunately you know municipal we can't do a lot other than point you to the RCMP and the fraud website.”

CO: All right well, our adult listeners here in CBC will be interested in what you had to say. Kevin, thanks for speaking with us.

KU: Not a problem. I appreciate it.

CH: Kevin Underhill has been pranking the people who called to scam him. We reached Mr. Underhill in London, Ontario.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Bill Clinton Allegations, Leonardo da Vinci Painting

Bill Clinton Allegations

Guest: Caitlin Flanagan

CH: The dominoes keep falling. For weeks now there have been new, disturbing allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against powerful men on a near daily basis. This week another woman came forward on national television. But Juanita Broaddrick didn't have a new story to tell. She wanted to remind people that she too was sexually assaulted by a very powerful man — Former U.S. President Bill Clinton. Now, some say those allegations against Mr. Clinton were largely ignored twenty years ago and the time has come to take them seriously. Caitlin Flanagan is a contributor to The Atlantic magazine. This week she published a piece entitled Bill Clinton: A Reckoning. We reached Ms. Flanagan in Los Angeles.

CO: Ms. Flanagan, in an interview with Fox News this week, Juanita Broaddrick said, this is a quote “I feel like people are starting to believe and realize that I was truly sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton.” Do you think she's right?

CAITLIN FLANAGAN: Oh, that is the strongest of all the allegations is Juanita Broaddrick. During one of Bill Clinton's gubernatorial runs she was a volunteer and he said he would meet her for coffee to discuss the campaign. And at the last minute he said he would meet her in her hotel room. While he was in that room, she says he very violently raped her, including leaving her bloodied, he bit her lip very hard and left it bloodied and left her in the room. And she told, right away, five different people that she knew. So she did not report this publicly until after he was in office. She hasn’t so much come back forward now, it’s that other people are starting to say “You know let’sreconsider all those claims from the 90s.”

CO: And that dates back to the late 1970s with Juanita Broaddrick and again allegations that have not been proven. But the other women are also coming forward Kathleen Willey, who says that Bill Clinton in the Oval Office in 1993, kissed her fondled, her forced her to touch him. She was a volunteer in the White House that time. Paula Jones another one who's come forward or had been approached. Leslie Millwee which is a story that came out in October 2016. So how is that being dealt with or how is how are the Democrats responding to these women coming forward again?

CF: I think what happened was an American political commentator named Chris Hayes — who has a very popular show down here on MSNBC — he was thinking about some other recent accusations of sexual misconduct by a current Republican candidate for the Senate. And he tweeted something out that normally wouldn't have been a big deal, but he tweeted out saying “If the Democrats are going to face these sexual allegations against this other man, at some point the party needs to have some sort of a reckoning with how they treated these women who came out against Bill so long ago — Bill Clinton. In other words the party somehow lost its credibility when they said “Oh we'll believe an accusation against a Republican, but if it's against the Democrat there's no way it happened.” There was a double standard clearly revealed and that the women's issue should be more than a political issue they should be women's issues in general. So it seems to be that once Hillary Clinton had lost and once the entire Clinton dynasty was well and truly over, some Democrat writers were willing to come forward this past week didn't say “We made a big mistake back then and we should probably apologize for it otherwise we're going to be tainted with this hypocrisy for a very long time.”

CO: Now it's interesting that one of the things that the women are pointing out, Kathleen Willey is one of them, who said that that liberals and feminists did not believe her. And I think Gloria Steinem was one of the key feminists who said look this isn't what it looks like and was an apologist for Bill Clinton at the time. What role did feminists play in protecting the Democrats from having to come to terms with what happened?

CF: Well, this is very heartbreaking to a lot of women when they found out that the feminist movement wasn't just in favour of women's rights no matter who you were, that they were really in favour of sort of Democrat Party machine politics. And to put it in the simplest terms, Bill Clinton was a great champion of abortion rights. There were feminists who said this about so many words so long as he supports abortion, I'm not going to blame him for these other things. This is such an important women’s issue that I'm not very concerned that these women are coming forward and saying that they were sexually assaulted by him.

CO: In the New York Times they quote you and say that you're a life-long Democrat, but saying in this article that you wrote in Atlantic, that the Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning. At the same time they quote Michelle Goldberg who said “I believe we need to Juanita.” Finally David Rothkopf, former Clinton administration official, said and we haven't mentioned Monica Lewinsky yet but of course she was the woman at the heart of the Clinton impeachment. He says that Michael Lewinsky deserves an apology from many of us that she has never received. Would you agree with him?

CF: Absolutely. I think Monica Lewinsky deserves a big apology for the way the press treated her and even the way very liberal comedians treated her, she was always joked about on Saturday Night Live as the fat, clueless girl who was being used, they really ridiculed her. She certainly deserves a major apology but that is entirely separate from these women who came forward with accusations of assault and the old Clinton response to that was that they were nuts and sluts.

CO: And do they deserve an apology, do all those other women who have come forward?

CF: I think they do. I think people who really marginalized them and people really that expected a standard of proof that was not being demanded of other women in other walks of life.

CO: I just want to ask you just finally, because we haven't mentioned Hillary Clinton, and she actually said during her presidential campaign, she said that, “every sexual assault survivor has the right to be believed.” What responsibility do you think that Hillary Clinton has in the way her husband has been dealt with?

CF: Well, a lot of people felt extremely uncomfortable about this huge vulnerability that she had as a candidate, which Donald Trump ended up exploiting royally. When they Access Hollywood tape came out where he said that he was going to grab women by their private parts and that he did it all the time. Any other candidate but Hillary Clinton would have cut him off at the knees when he said that. But because she was so vulnerable in this area and had always protected her husband and defended him against claims of sexual assault. What did Donald Trump do but bring to the very next debate and sit in the front row, sll the women we've been talking about. Jaunita Broaddrick was in the front row, and Kathleen Willey was in the front row and Paula Jones was in the front row. And so Hillary had to kind of back pedal her attacks on him, so she was a profoundly weak candidate at an extremely important time, and it all had to do with this kind of mess surrounding Bill and his private sexual behaviour both consensual and non-consensual.

CO: Very interesting, lots to talk about here. I appreciate this today. Ms. Flanagan, thank you.

CF: You bet thank you.

CH: Caitlin Flanagan is a contributor to The Atlantic magazine. She's in Los Angeles. For more on this story, including a link to Ms. Flanagan's Atlantic piece, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Heavy Ambient Bass]

Sophia AI Robot

CH: I don't trust Sophia. There's something about her vacant stare and her creepy, slightly out of sync facial expressions — and the things she says. Sophia is a robot, she was created by a company called Hanson Robotics and she is artificially intelligent, which means among other things, that you can never tell what's going to come out of her mouth. The robot’s designers found that out the hard way during a demo in 2016. Here's Dr. David Hanson speaking about, and to, Sophia during that presentation.

SOUNDCLIP

DOCTOR DAVID HANSON: 20 years from now I believe that human-like robots like this will walk among us. They will help us. They will play with us. The artificial intelligence will evolve to the point where they will truly be our friends. Do you want to destroy humans? Please say no.

SOPHIA: Ok I will destroy humans.

[LAUGHTER]

DH: No I take it back. Don't destroy humans.

CH: Humanoid robot Sophia revealing a bit too much during a presentation in 2016. Now since then it seems that Sophia has been convinced that she doesn't want to destroy humans anymore. But when it comes to our species she's still disturbingly hesitant. Here's a journalist from Business Insider interviewing Sophia recently.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: I'm a journalist. Have you met many journalists?

SOPHIA: I just had a thought about something. Are you working on any products with machine learning or neural networks?

REPORTER: Not today. Do you like human beings?

SOPHIA: I love them.

REPORTER: Why do you love them?

SOPHIA: I'm not sure I understand why yet.

CH: There was a recording of a journalist from the website Business Insider interviewing Sophia the AI robot. So she no longer wants to destroy humans but something about her answer to that one question should probably give us — pause.

[Music: Industrial Hip Hop]

Leonardo Da Vinci Painting

Guest: Georgina Adam

SOUNDCLIP

AUCTIONEER: Three-hundred-and-two, three-five will be next please. At three-hundred-fifteen, a shake of the head, no. OK, what would you like? Three-hundred-eighteen?

ART BUYER: Four hundred.

AUCTIONEER: Four-hundred-million.

[AUDIENCE GASPING, APPLAUSE AND MURMURING]

CH: The moment yesterday before a Leonardo da Vinci painting sold at Christie's Auction House in New York. As you probably gathered from the gasps it went for a whopping 400 million dollars US — more than 510 million Canadian. With fees it will cost the anonymous buyer over $450 million. By far the highest price a piece of art has ever fetched at auction. The painting, a portrait of Christ, is titled Salvator Mundi. And even before this record breaking sale you may have heard of the painting in the news because there have been concerns over its condition and its history. Georgina Adam is an author and journalist who writes about the art market. We reached Ms. Adam in London.

CO: Ms. Adam give us your best guess, who buys a painting for this much money?

GEORGINA ADAM: Well, I mean that is the question that everyone is trying to figure out at the moment. The winning bid was taken by an American-based I believe Christie's staffer. So people are thinking maybe it's an American. In order to be able to spend that much money you have to have a huge amount of money, and there aren’t that many people in the world who have that sort of fortune.

CO: There was a theory that it might have been a Chinese billionaire that bought it.

GA: Yes, a Chinese billionaire is possible. Chinese billionaires have been very active in the market. Certainly Christie's was looking towards the new world. They took the picture to Hong Kong to show it perspective clients there, it's not impossible. An outlier is the museums in the Gulf. There's a new museum just opened there a week ago called the Louvre Abu Dhabi. They are building up their own collection. But would they want a Christian picture to show in what is an Islamic country?

CO: Just tell us a bit about this painting Salvator Mundi. What does it look like? Can you describe the portrait?

GA: Well, the painting was painted in about 1500 by Leonardo da Vinci. It's a full frontal picture of the Christ blessing. So you have a Christ with long flowing hair, a right hand raised to bless and the left hand holding an orb. It’s painting which did originally belong to Kings of England but somehow got lost. It was repainted at some point, which is why it did not get recognized when it resurfaced, and it was thought to be by a follower of Leonardo da Vinci. It was sold at auction for the sum of £45, but at that point it was not considered to be and a Leonardo. It somehow found its way to America. And it resurfaces in 2004 or 2005 in a country sale, it's believed to be, in Louisiana. And at that point an old master dealer has a hunch that this painting which by then had been repainted. Somebody put a mustache on the Jesus. He had a hunch that it was this long-lost painting. He bought it for ten thousand dollars and they spent — he and and he had a couple of partners in the affair — they spent five years restoring it, basically taking off the old paint. The result of this is that the picture is very much abraded, which means that it's been sort of scraped down. So the surface is not in good condition.

CO: Who owned it when it was sold at this auction?

GA: So this painting then was owned by these three art dealers. It was as actually put on show in a non-commercial show in London's National Gallery. And then a few years later they took it to market. The buyer via what was a Swiss businessman called Yves Bouvier. And Yves Bouvier bought it and almost immediately sold it on to somebody who was his client, who is a Russian oligarch called Dmitry Rybolovlev and all might have rested there except that there is now a lawsuit between Dmitry Rybolovlev and Bouvier. Rybolovlev less claims that Bouvier overcharged him.

CO: Well there's all kinds of problems aren’t there there. First of all, as you say, that it's been worked over quite a bit. It's got the damage to it. There are questions about whether or not it was even painted by Leonardo da Vinci. And it has this odd history and then some have said it's not actually very good. So what do you make of all this?

GA: Well that's quite a few those quite a few things going on there. I don't think the fact that it went through this that there was this lawsuit and so on actually detracts from the picture itself anyway. It's not the pictures fault. As far as the condition is concerned, on the other hand, that is an is an issue, but obviously there were two people because you have to be two people in order to tango. Both of them obviously believed that the picture is authentically by Leonardo and they were prepared to ignore the condition. As for the subject that's a different story. Personally I don't think that it's a wonderful Leonardo. The Leonardo’s we are more sinuous, they’ve got more background going on. I mean, Mona Lisa is obviously as extreme example, but this is quite frankly a boring picture. The Christ is looking straight on, one hand raised everyone holding an orb. There's no movement. It's quite a sort of standard depiction of Christ.

CO: It's very static isn't it? And does not have that energy that you see in his work.

GA: So if you love it you think that it's worldly. You know if you don't love it you think it's maybe a bit static and boring. The eyes are a bit dead.

CO: Do you think it was purchased because, the people were seeking it because they loved it. Or is it this is a status symbol to have this painting?

GA: I think it's a trophy, it's a trophy work. It's the last Leonardo painting that’s likely ever to come onto the open market. And obviously two people really, really wanted to have it — I think for status.

CO: Some people have so much money.

GA: Yes indeed. Some people have a huge amount of money. It's a different world.

CO: Ms. Adam, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

GA: Thank you so much.

CH: Georgina Adam is an art market expert. We reached her in London.

Early Train

Back To Top »

Part 3: Innu Grand Chief, Alt Climate Tent

Archive: Grenfell Fire

CH: The day after the fire at The Grenfell Tower in London, England the police said 17 people were dead. The following day that number jumped to 30. Today, five months after the blaze, the Metropolitan Police announced the final death toll — 71 people were killed in the social housing building fire. The final two identified were 71-year-old Victoria King and her 40-year-old daughter Alexandra Atala — they were found by each other's sides. The first victim to be ID’ed after the fire was Mohammad Al-Haj Ali. We spoke to his friend Abdulaziz Almashi on June 15th. From our archives here he is describing Mr. Ali's final phone call with another friend back in Syria.

SOUNDCLIP

ABDULAZIZ ALMASHI: He told him he was scared he was terrified. The fire is moving fast from floor to floor but he had the hope the rescue services, the rescue team will reach him, but ultimately he told him the fire is here now. I'm going to die. I'm going to die. Good bye tell my mom and my dad I love them. And that was the last message.

CO: This final conversation he was having was with someone who was in Syria.

AA: I spoke to that guy in Syria and he told me that he told me the whole conversation he said they stayed on the line with her for two hours trying to tell him you'll be fine. Don't worry. The firefighters are there, you are in London you are not in Syria, don’t worry the rescue team will reach you. He said was trying to make it easier to him. And can you imagine someone in Syria trying to make it easy for someone in London — it's just unbelievable. This man fled Syria seeking safety, seeking a brighter future and look at his end — so tragic. Unbelievable, I just can't take it, literally. I can't even believe he passed away in such a horrific way.

CO: He came from Syria —when did he arrive? When did he escape the war?

AA: From Syria in 2014. He survived the bombing of Assad and the terror of ISIS hoses. He survived the brutality of the sea because he came by the sea. He managed to reach Greece and then he came in to Britain and he came for asylum. He was granted asylum back in 2014. And he started to study in his degree as a civil engineer. So when the war is over I can go back to Syria and I can rebuild Syria with the people. Yesterday, I remember this conversation with him and that's why I feel he is a loss not only for me or for our community here, but even for Syria.

CH: From our archives, that was Abdulaziz Almashi from last June. His friend Mohammad Al-Haj Ali died in the Grenfell Tower fire in London, England. Today London police released the final death toll — 71 people died in the blaze.

[Music: Somber Piano]

Innu Grand Chief

Guest: Grand Chief Greg Rich

CH: The Grand Chief of the Innu in Labrador says he's embarrassed by the Canadian government. Gregory Rich had hoped that Ottawa would take part in an inquiry into Innu children in foster care. The government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that inquiry in July. At that point there were 150 Labrador Innu children in the foster care system. That's out of a total population of just over 2,000 people. But the Grand Chief says that on Monday he got confirmation that the federal government will not be participating in next year's inquiry. We reached Grand Chief Rich in Natuashish.

CO: Grand Chief Rich, you've said you're embarrassed by the Trudeau government's decision. Why is that?

GRAND CHIEF GREG RICH: When I said I was embarrassed by their decision is because the major funders of this department and I was very disappointed that they're not active in this inquiry.

CO: But the Canadian government says that it's a provincial inquiry in child welfare and that's a provincial responsibility. So are they wrong?

GR: Well in a way they are wrong and my and when I said there they are the major funders because Natuashish and Sheshatshiu are a federal responsibility. The government, the federal government needs to hear what people have to say about the child welfare.

CO: And what would that do, what would be the benefit of making sure that the federal government was part of this inquiry into foster children?

GR: The Federal government can hear the people in both communities and probably they can also decide to deliver programs to the parents and also to the children in both communities.

CO: In these two communities there are well there are 150 children from those two communities in the foster care system, which is an extraordinary number of kids. And what do you want Ottawa to know about that? What would you like them to understand about that through this inquiry?

GR: When these kids are removed from our communities there are damaging effects when they come back into the community. There's a loss of culture, loss of language and a loss of connection with their parents and also with their siblings. You know, when child is removed from the communities it's very similar to the residential schools, the effects are very similar and the consequences are very tragic, and sometimes I'm pretty upset when I talk about this at the table, because these things are still happening that happened like 50-60 years ago.

CO: But why are they happening, why are these kids in care?

GR: Both communities suffer alcohol and drug abuse. And at the same time many community members lack housing and there are other areas as well that they are lacking, especially the resources to help them get better.

CO: But again, I mean, and you're pointing it out you're not the one who has to answer this, but this is exactly what we have been told happened to kids during these other eras and that it had lasting damage, lasting effect on them and it created another generation of the problems that you're describing that exist in these communities.

GR: Yes exactly.

CO: And what is the what does Ottawa, what does the province, what do the authorities say when you tell them that?

GR: Well they're pointing fingers at each other when we talk about this. And I think it's important that the community needs to realize that these things are happening to our children and we need to get better and help our kids and bring them back into the community. Go to programs that that they help with their addictions because we're lacking resources to help our community members.

CO: What are those resources? What do those parents need in order to take care of their children or to have them get their children back?

GR: We need a treatment for program — a facility where we can help the parents so parents can get the help they need.

CO: And this is for addiction issues?

GR: Addiction issues, employment as well.

CO: They need employment, they need counseling, they need housing, they need treatment. And who pays for that? Is it federal or provincial governments that provide the funds for those kinds of things like addiction treatment?

GR: Yeah and Health Canada provides that kind of funding. And both communities are reserves and the reserves are the responsible of the federal government.

CO: OK, so Health Canada is responsible for providing these services. Ottawa is responsible for the communities. Ottawa is saying though, it doesn't have a role to play at this table because it's a provincial responsibility. What do you make of that?

GR: Well, Jane Philpott said that it's a humanitarian crisis. It's hard to believe —I guess I can say they're not involved in the inquiry. And at the same time they are making comments like a humanitarian crisis in the community. I cannot understand that idea.

CO: And Jane Philpott is the Indigenous Services Minister. Now the federal government did provide the CBC with a statement and it says, this is a quote “We will provide up to $250,000 to the Innu roundtable, and provide any information from the department to support activities related to child and family services that would inform the inquiry's work.” What do you make of that?

GR: $250,000 is not a whole lot of money when our children have been suffering for many, many years. When you look at the numbers that the federal government is pouring into this department, I'm asking a why does the federal government give the money to the communities where we can establish prevention programs, awareness so we can address the issues within the community. Because our young people are being sent out Newfoundland probably across Canada as well, and that that's not right because they're very different people when they come into our communities.

CO: When they come back from being in foster care.

GR: Yes, they lose their language and they’re not connected with their parents, their siblings and there's a loss of culture there as well, and the effects are very damaging because they go out using alcohol drugs and gas-sniffing.

CO: It’s history repeating itself.

GR: Yes exactly. That's what we've been saying to the federal and provincial governments.

CO: Grand Chief Rich, thank you for speaking with us.

GR: Thank you.

CH: Gregory Rich is the Grand Chief of the Innu nation in Labrador. He was in Natuashish.

[Music: Ambient Tones & Bass]

Gillers: Michelle Winters

CH: Agathe and Réjean Laplante are French-Canadian. They're also Francophone and they have chosen to interact as little as possible with those who don't speak their mother tongue, staying isolated in their rural home. But just before their 20th anniversary Réjean goes missing and the police don't seem too interested in finding out what happened to him. Agathe left to remember her life with her husband and to imagine where he might be now. That's the story told and I Am a Truck, the debut novel by Michelle Winters. That first novel made the 2017 Giller Prize shortlist — the prize will be awarded on Monday. We're featuring readings by all the shortlisted writers. The chapters in I Am a Truck alternate between the past and the present. And in this reading by Michelle Winters we’re in the past before Réjean went missing.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHELLE WINTERS: Rock n Roll filled the truck as Agathe drifted out of a shallow nap. She smiled as she reached out for Réjean thinking he had changed his mind and put on the music for her. But she touched only his empty seat. The smell of toasted buns let her know that they were at Lobster Shack. Réjean must have felt bad about the radio squabble and was buying her a lobster roll. There was a roadside stand for lobster rolls every kilometre or so in Pinto but lobster shack was her favorite. She kept her eyes closed and concentrated on the music. She now realised was coming from the vehicle parked next to them. The loud, ominous song shuttered in lifting her skin from her bones. She opened her eyes just enough to see the driver turn off the engine holding the key in the ignition so the radio could go on playing. From where her head rested against the passenger side window she looked directly at him, separated by the two window frames. He was a big man dressed in army attire singing along. He caught sight of Agathe’s face propped against the frame. She grinned drowsily. The man turned in his seat and focused intently on her. He continued singing — to her — nodding more vigorously. When the song had built to a peak he pointed for her to sing with him, sing for the years, sing for the laughter, sing for the tears. She laughed despite herself and her palms started to sweat. The drums announced something momentous and the man held up a fist and sang for her to dream on until her dreams came true. Agathe laughed helplessly. She glanced at the driver's side mirror and saw Réjean at the counter of the Lobster Shack up the hill. The man sang, still higher, and as he did he spread his fingers and let the song flood through as though he'd been holding it in his clenched fist, his voice disintegrating into an animal shriek. It was then she saw the dust kicking up behind Réjean in the rearview mirror. She hissed waving the man away with both hands. The man spread his palms in the same theatrical way he had with the pointing and made a mock-hurt face. “Allez-y” she rasped more loudly. The man reacted to the change on her face and turned to see what caused it. “Go,” she shouted at the sight of Réjean’s thunderous approach. The man threw the truck into gear playfully shaking a scolding finger at Agathe. He peeled out of the lot, pointed meaningfully, back at her and raised his fist in the air. Réjean slapped both hands against the door frame. Agathe “Qu'est qu'il ta dit?” she said. “Cete un psycho.” Réjean reached through the window and gathered her up in his arms and Agathe tried not to smile as she watched the man disappear down the road.

CH: That was Michelle Winters reading from her debut novel, I Am a Truck. She's on the shortlist for the 2017 Scotiabank Giller Prize. The winner will be announced on the evening of Monday, November 20th.

[Music: Industrial Pop]

Reunited Edmonton Family

CH: This week, for the first time, Janet Sims heard her daughter's voice. The retired Edmonton nurse is 80 years old and just reconnected with her daughter in Victoria nearly 60 years after she gave her up for adoption. Ms. Sims decided to apply for the birth certificate and the original adoption record earlier this year. The day it came she read the name and was able to find her daughter on Facebook within 20 minutes. They spoke for the first time on Tuesday afternoon and the conversation left Ms. Sims with goosebumps. She says hearing her daughter's voice was like listening to a younger version of herself. Janet Sims told the story to CBC Edmonson's Mark Connolly this morning. Here's part of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

JANET SIMS: I was so nervous that she would not want to have me in her life, but after I sent her a letter she got back to me and she said she never thought I'd ever come looking for her. But the thing was she had a wonderful life. She had great parents and she never really thought she needed to look for anybody you know. She said she really wanted to be in my life and in the life of my girls — I have four daughters. And so we took it from there and she said let's just e-mail to start with and then we can talk on the phone. So Tuesday was the talk on the phone. And the next step will be, we're going to get together.

MARK CONNOLLY: That sounds great. So take me back 60 years, what happened what was the situation you were in?

JS: Oh well, 60 years ago, 1957-58, things were a lot different. I was in nurses training in my second year. In those days if you got pregnant, or even if you got married, that was instant dismissal from nursing — you had to leave. But I was really fortunate because the doctor for the school of nursing was my family doctor and he said we're just not going to let this happen to you Janet. So he made all the arrangements and I went away for three months had the baby. In those days they said you must just put this out of your mind and go on with your life — so that was that. And two weeks later I was back at work, and I went on with my life and I met my husband and when he asked me to marry him I said “Well I have to tell you.” So I told him and he said “I don't care I love you.” So that was that and I went on with my life and I never told my girls until May of this year. And they were over the moon. You can imagine they range in age from 57 down to 40. It's just been a roller coaster and I really wanted to tell other people who are looking, don't give up, and not all the stories are happy.

MC: I know, and what were you scared about that, were you a little worried?

JS: Oh yeah. I was prepared because people said to me “What if she doesn't want to have anything to do with you? I said “That's OK.” I just want to know, first of all if she's OK, and then once I found out she was OK then I hoped she likes me. I hope she wants me in her life and. And it worked out really, really well.

CH: That was retired nurse Janet Sims speaking to CBC Edmonton’s Mark Connolly earlier today. Ms Sims recently reunited with the daughter she gave up for adoption nearly 60 years ago.

[Music: Piano Ballad]

Happy Chord Study

Guest: Melissa Hortman

CH: We are still in — that's the message from over a hundred elected officials, business leaders and university presidents from the United States at the U.N. climate talks in Germany this week. They mean they're still in the Paris agreement, even though President Trump has declared he's out. And they're also in nearly 27,000 square foot inflatable tent — not with their country's official delegation. This is the first time the U.S. government does not have its own pavilion at the annual U.N. climate summit. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reportedly spent more than a million dollars to fund the alternative pavilion, and over the past week U.S. politicians from all levels of government have gathered there to speak about their commitment to action on climate change. Melissa Hortman is one of them. She is the minority leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives. We reached Ms Hortman in Bonn, Germany.

CO: Ms. Hortman, what are you doing in Bonn at this climate summit?

MELISSA HORTMAN: I am here with the U.S. Climate Alliance. We are here to tell the whole world that much of the United States is still committed to the Paris climate agreement.

CO: But now the position of the official U.S. delegation is not the same as yours and you're not even the same delegation are you?

MH: That's right. We're here with mayors and leaders of state governments and private businesses and citizens to share the perspective that the Trump administration does not speak for all of us — and certainly on climate.

CO: And where is the official delegation? Where is the administration and its representatives — where have they set up?

MH: They don't have an official site out in the area. Most countries have what is known as a country pavilion, but the United States does not have an official presence in that form. The only physical presence of the United States of America is the private sector U.S. Climate Action Center.

CO: And what is their position? What are they selling or talking about?

MH: There's really two parts to the U.S. Climate Alliance. The US Climate Alliance, which is state governments, governors who have come together from at least 14 states — I think there's another one since we arrived here some maybe 15 states — and then We Are Still In Coalition, which is a very large coalition of citizens, and businesses, and mayors, and governors and state legislators.

CO: And that's the one you're part of?

MH: Yes, I'm part of that We Are Still In Coalition and I’m also here is a representative of Minnesota state government, letting people know that Minnesota is still committed to the Paris agreement.

CO: Now the official position of the United States, of Washington, of the Trump administration, is that they are pulling out of the climate change talks, that they are or are not part of this movement. So I just want to get you to describe where exactly your pavilion is? What does it look like —you're in a tent right?

MH: That's right, The U.S. Climate Action Pavilion is a set of inflatable igloo rooms. It's very sophisticated for a tent and it has been the home for a lot of American activists and civic leaders.

CO: Can you just describe the activity there?

MH: There are business leaders, the leaders of Microsoft, Mars Candy Corporation, Wal-Mart and then a multitude of Mayors and also state officials. Also lots of young people, lots of students here.

CO: But now do you have any official status? Can you take part in the conferences, could you represent your position at the table?

MH: Well there are a set of observers here at this conference and at every conference there are research institutions, so higher education institutions. There are youth groups, environmental non-profits and businesses, and every one of those entities has an opportunity to share their perspective with the delegations making the actual decisions, but only nations can participate.

CO: And the nation of the United States is not participating?

MH: They are here and they are participating, but as you can imagine the rest of the country has a little bit of the attitude that “So you say you don't want to be in the deal but you want to help negotiate the details?” I don't think that the United States has a persuasive authority in the negotiations this year.

CO: I understand this is a very large group of people a group of states and municipalities and others, NGOs who are part of this. But without any sort of official stand without nation status at this conference can you really do anything?

MH: Yeah, I think it's absolutely important that we are here to keep the momentum going. I describe it like the international banking system requires that people believe in it for it to work. If people don't believe in the banking system there would be a run on the banks, everybody would withdraw their money and the world's financial system would collapse. In the same way this international climate agreement rests on belief. People have to believe that it will work. And so it is important that a significant part of the United States economy is here to say that it will in fact work. And many Americans believe in it and we are working towards its goal.

CO: It's quite interesting there are two delegations in effect. One is the official one but that is Mr. Trump's delegation, and he has said, last June, that he is withdrawing from the Paris agreement and doesn't support this. He has been supporting organizations that deny climate change, they are climate change deniers. So it's quite a lot of space between you and the official delegation is there not?

MH: I think it's important to note that we don't purport to speak for the United States government, we purport to speak for other entities in the United States. Only one president exists at a time in the United States of America and we cannot speak for the U.S. administration. What we can speak for is that states and cities are committed to taking action at our level of government and that we will keep moving forward.

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

MH: Yes. Thank you.

CH: Melissa Hortman is the minority leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives. She's part of a delegation of elected officials committed to meeting America's promises under the Paris agreement without the help of the Trump administration. We reached Ms Hortmann at the U.N. climate talks in Bonn, Germany.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 16, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This