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 2018

The AIH Transcript for February 16, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Alleged crime and punishment. United States Special Counsel Robert Mueller lays his first charges that indict Russian people and Russian groups for what our guest calls an attempt to “steal democracy”.

JD: Paying more than lip service. In defiance of criticism that the compensation would be overcompensation, the mayor of Stockton, California plans to experiment with providing his poorest citizens a guaranteed basic income.

CO: Going, going… oh, wait, no, he's back. Patrick Brown — the embattled former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party — announces his intention to become the un-embattled future leader of the PC party, by joining the leadership race.

JD: When the chips are down. To protect themselves from predators, male crickets in Hawaii no longer make any noise. But apparently no one's told them, because they're still trying to belt out love songs.

CO: Rock of rages. It was burned, and the rules say if it’s burned, it can be removed. But Canadian curling skip Rachael Homan’s decision to remove an opponent's stone starts a flame war at the Olympics and beyond.

JD: And… we knew we had ice in his veins. But until the Winter Games began, Wwe didn't know that Mr. T, of Mr. T fame, had pebbled ice in his veins. And tonight, he'll tell us about his new passion for curling FOOL!

JD: As It Happens, the Friday edition. Radio that wants him to share the specifics of his new love, and some sweeping generalizations.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: Russian indictment, Patrick Brown: Latest, burned rock

Russian Indictment

Guest: Mark Rasch

JD: Today, the first charges related to interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election were handed down. U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian organizations. They're accused of attempting to, quote, "defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government," by sowing political discord online through phony social media accounts. Mark Rasch is a former cybercrime prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice. We reached him in Bethesda, Maryland.

CO: Mr. Rasch, I know you've read through this indictment. What do you make of it?

MARK RASCH: It's a fascinating indictment. First of all, it reads like a 1980s spy thriller. And really the impression you walk away from reading the indictment is that this is a conspiracy essentially to steal democracy.

CO: What was the intention? I mean we know it was to steal democracy or to meddle with this election. But what was the purpose of this operation?

MR: Well at least according to the indictment there were two purposes. One was to get whomever these Russian’s favoured candidate was elected. And that indicates that they favoured Donald Trump and disfavoured Hillary Clinton. But there was a second sort of equal problem here, and they wanted to sew sort of disharmony and discontent and confusion and chaos in the U.S. election campaign in going all the way back to 2014.

CO: Now, let's talk about what the indictment actually says — what they're accused of doing, and what way they interfered. Can you give us a lay out some of that for us?

MR: Sure. So, first of all, the technical counts of the indictments revolve around two separate crimes. The first crime is identity fraud and identity theft — stealing of U.S. persons names, addresses, Social Security Numbers, other identification information so that they could create false accounts in the United States. That way they could directly influence the election, and it would look like it was coming from a U.S. Internet address and from a U.S. person.

CO: OK, that's the one part, because there’s not just cyberspace that they're operating in. Tell us a bit about that?

MR: Well, they're operating both in cyberspace and in the real world. What the indictment essentially alleges was that there was these Russian troll farms that were trying to influence U.S. elections, U.S. opinion, U.S. social media, and they were generating content. But there was also physical presence in the United States, organizing rallies, organizing political events both using cyberspace and physical organizing.

CO: What could have been the purpose of having two efforts to have campaigns, one by a group calling itself “Heart of Texas”, under the banner of “Stop Islamization of Texas”. And the other one being ostensibly from a Muslim organization wanting to have a competing rally at the same place, same time called “Save Islamic Knowledge”. What would have been the purpose of that?

MR: Well, the first thing, of course, is discontent and disharmony works to the advantage of these individuals and organizations. The second thing is by having competing rallies at the same place at the same time, you generate news and reporting about those events themselves. The fact that there is confusion and fighting and infighting that generates the news, and we saw this all throughout the campaign in 2016 that it wasn't the content of the ideas. It was the fact that there was controversy around it that generated the news.

CO: And now, is there evidence in this that this actually affected the outcome of the 2016 election?

MR: The indictment itself doesn't say that any one candidate would or would not have won without this. But certainly, it indicates that it was the intent of these parties to influence the outcome of the election.

CO: Does it bring us any closer to what Mr. Mueller’s job is to see if there is a connection between this Russian interference and the actual campaign of Donald Trump?

MR: Sure. So it intimates that, but it doesn't tie everything together. What the investigation is by Mueller and his team essentially are into collusion or a quid pro quo that the Trump campaign itself promised some Russian that if they got him elected or helped him get elected, the Trump presidency would do something that would be in favour of either the Russians, the Russian government, or something like that. That's the collusion. This doesn't address collusion, but remember if I pay you for something, the fact that I receive that something makes it more likely. So this goes to the receipt of the something, which is some Russians trying to help Donald Trump get elected.

CO: These are the first indictments dealing with Russian interference. There have been other indictments by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And he's building something brick by brick, isn't he — some kind of a narrative. What do you think is it shaping up to be?

MR: Well, that's very typical of a prosecutor function. You don't start out and indict everybody for everything. You build your case brick by brick. And the ultimate goal here is to really get to the truth of what happened. So this is half of the indictment, which is that the Russian government actually meddled in the U.S. election, and did so with a candidate in mind. The next question is why? That's what he's working on on the other side of the of the investigation. He’s working his way through the Trump organization and through the national security apparatus to determine whether there's a connection between that and what's charged in this indictment. And I want to point out something that's important, and that is that the fact of the Russian government wanted to influence a U.S. election, and that they had a favorite candidate, doesn't mean that that candidate knew anything about it or did anything to encourage that fact. But on the other hand, the evidence may show that that actually did happen. We have to wait for the evidence.

CO: And the indictment does say the Trump campaign unwittingly coordinated with those indicted.

MR: And part of that is the fact that these Russians created a grassroots campaign and grassroots organizations. And they did this under all kinds of different names. I think what they're saying in the indictment is that the Trump Campaign coordinated with grassroots organizations without necessarily knowing that those organizations were being funded, financed, and supported by these Russian oligarchs and others.

CO: Will any of these 13 people or three organizations will they ever be brought to book in the United States?

MR: I think it's highly unlikely that any of these people will see the inside of a U.S. courtroom. Certainly, it’s unlikely they'll see it on their own volition, and unlikely that they'll be extradited from Russia. But they may have their own motivations for wanting to come to the United States. Not so much to clear their name, but to make a political statement on their own. So it's possible that some of these people will decide for their own reasons they want to try this out in a U.S. courtroom. That may also be the desire of the Russian government. They may want to make some kind of a statement in a U.S. courtroom as well. So this is both a criminal indictment and a little bit of political theater as well.

CO: Wow! Mr. Rasch, thank you.

MR: Thank you.

JD: Mark Rasch is a former cybercrime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice. We reached him in Bethesda, Maryland.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Patrick Brown: Latest

Guest: David Reevely

JD: Patrick Brown wants his job back. And in a move that raised eyebrows today — in some cases, nearly right off people's faces — Mr. Brown announced that he'll officially be seeking the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership. Three weeks ago, of course, Mr. Brown resigned from the PC Party after allegations of sexual misconduct were reported by CTV. And he announced his intention to run today just hours after the PC Party caucus kicked him out, today. It's the latest shock in a series of shocks for the party, and for the province, just months before an election. To make sense of it all, we called up David Reevely. Mr. Reevely covers Queen's Park for the Ottawa Citizen. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: David, what do you make of today's news that Patrick Brown is going to run for the PC leadership in Ontario?

DAVID REEVELY: I have never seen a more exciting political contest in all my years of covering politics. He is essentially putting his case to the membership of his party saying do you believe these allegations against me or not? And if you don't, vote me in, and we'll go forward together. It is an incredible move.

CO: In his statement he made late this afternoon, he again is talking about some idea that there is a conspiracy that the party faithful know what's really going on — what's really behind this. What is he referring to? Because he said this in his Facebook post as well that there's something else going on. This isn't about these women?

DR: He hasn't actually specified what he means. There are a couple of theories though that have been advanced by people sort of close to him. One is that somehow the Ontario Liberals put these accusers up to accusing him. There's another theory that he was actually taken out by members of his own party — that it was an inside job from the Progressive Conservative Party — that he came in as an outsider, he won sort of a dark horse candidate who had not been an Ontario provincial politics before, and the party never took to him, never liked him, and he was essentially betrayed by the people closest to him. That's a bunch of bold claims, and I'm not sure how much there is to support them.

CO: For people outside Ontario — people maybe not following this as closely — some of the allegations against Mr. Brown have been tested and altered. We now know there was not an under-aged high school student involved; there’s a young woman who was a year older than that, she was out of high school. But CTV and the women themselves are saying the core of the story remains correct. Just briefly outline what those core allegations are — what remains?

DR: There are two women who say that he acted inappropriately toward them. The first one the initial story was that she was in high school and Patrick Brown essentially picked her up in a bar and took her home and gave her more to drink and then exposed himself in pursuit of oral sex. That story has changed a little bit. He said it couldn't have happened the way she said because he didn't live in the place she described at the time. And she has since modified her story to say oh no, I guess it actually was a little bit later. And that makes her a year older, and so of legal drinking age. But she stands by the claim about his behaviour. And the second story, which is more detailed, and involves a woman who was a staffer of his, and apparently was very involved in organizing an annual fundraiser that he puts on: Hockey Night in Barrie. According to her, after that game that she was instrumental in organizing, they went for drinks. They ended up back at his place, and there was even more to drink, and he essentially tried to force himself on her, again in his bedroom. And he also completely denies that.

CO: But I understand it’s not disputed that 19 year-old-girls were at the house of a 34-year-old member of parliament after hours with lots of alcohol. That stands, right?

DR: As far as I know, yeah. Exactly what his age was at the time I don't know. But even if you believe him, he's a non-drinker, but he had people you know including one who worked for him very drunk in his place. This is not the most honourable behaviour one might hope for from a major political leader. Put it that way.

CO: Someone who wants to be the premier. People have pointed out there’s bad judgment if nothing else. Even the he admits that are true. So now he wants to get back in. Is that going to happen? I mean is there any mechanism that would say no, you can't re-enter this race?

DR: This gets bogged down in interior Conservative Party kind of technicalities, and I'm not intimately familiar with them all. But as I understand it, this is not a situation that the rules really contemplate. And so there's some big gaps here. All you need to run for the party leadership is to be a party member in good standing, which he is, and to lay down the application fee, and to have 100 people sign your nomination papers. There is one detail which is that you have to be eligible to run as an MPP in an upcoming election, which as of now he is, he is the party's nominated candidate in a Barrie riding. So they would have to take the nomination away from him in order to make him ineligible to run for the party leadership, which they could. There’s a nomination committee that has overturned a couple of nominations just in the last couple of weeks — people Patrick Brown supported. His successor, Vic Fedeli, kicked him out of caucus this morning. And that was the big news of the day until this new thing came along. And that does not strip him of his nomination. It does not strip him of his party membership. But stripping him of the nomination would be the way the party could keep him out.

CO: Patrick Brown insists in his Facebook post and social media that he's seen tremendous support from the public — that’s what’s giving him the strength to… he says he’s been hit by a truck twice and now he's up and he's going to fight this, he's going to go recover his career. Does he have support? I mean I guess we haven't got polls yet, but is there a sense that there are a lot of people who believe that he was smeared in some kind of conspiracy and that they're trying to bring him back?

DR: There absolutely is a very significant percentage of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party that believes that. And he got elected party leader as an outsider not all that long ago. And he did have support. He didn't have support from a lot of very senior people in the party, but he had a lot of support from the rank and file. And very many of those people either believe that it was a setup; don't believe any of the stuff happened. Or believe that it's not that bad and that he was betrayed and essentially forced to resign as a result of unjust accusations. And I would absolutely not rule out the possibility that he could win.

CO: Wow! OK. As you say, you've never seen anything like this. This is quite extraordinary. David, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DR: It's pleasure, thanks.

David Reevely covers Queens Park for the Ottawa Citizen. And we reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Funk]

Burned rock

Guest: Doug Suerich

JD: Last night, Canada's women's curling team faced a tough loss against Denmark. But that wasn't the worst thing that happened to skip Rachel Homan and her crew. Ms. Homan made a decision on the ice that rocked the foundations of the curling world. One fan from Newfoundland tweeted, quote, "I know it's easy to curl from my couch, but after what I've seen tonight I'm not sure I can still support this team." Another, from Edmonton, called it, simply, hashtag-HomanGate. The reason for all the soul-searching: Ms. Homan, the Canadian skip, removed one of Denmark's stones — in what is being called a "burned stone controversy." Doug Suerich goes by the handle @CurlingGeek on Twitter. He's a curler in Waterloo, Ontario. We reached him in Los Angeles.

CO: Doug, it seems the Canadian Curling world is usually a pretty civil place, but they're up in arms about last night's game. Why is that?

DOUGH SUERICH: Well, the Olympic curling pressure is always going to bring out every little tick and foible. And in a game defined by sportsmanship, you get someone going by the side of what’s the generally accepted etiquette then people are going to get up in arms very quickly.

CO: But what exactly happened? We're talking about this match between Canada and Denmark —the women's game. And what’s the moment that has got everybody's dander up?

DS: Well, so Denmark was throwing a stone and they were they were sweeping it towards the house — standard curling protocol. And one of the Denmark player’s brushes, right toward the end of the motion, made contact with the stone, which is classified as a burnt rock. Because there are no officials in curling, that puts the pressure on Rachel Homan — of the non-offending team — to make a decision as to what should happen to that stone.

CO: And Rachel Homan is ours; she's a part of the Ottawa foursome that the Canadian team, right?

DS: That's right; she's the Canadian skip. And within her rights under the rules of the game, she chose to have this stone removed from play. In a traditional sense, in a club curling sense, you'd rarely see that. One of the other options she had was just to leave the rock where it was, or maybe tick it a little bit you know a millimetre or two to the side to where she thought it would have landed had it not been touched by the Denmark brush. But she chose to remove it, which is slightly non-traditional. Again, it would never happen or rarely happen at the club level. But at the pro level, it's a lot harder. Rachel was in a tough position there where she had to make a decision about you know was she going to go absolute as hard as she can to try and win the game, or was she going to kind of go with the warm and fuzzy curling etiquette and let it stand?

CO: All right. Now you're the Curling Geek, so you can explain to us what this means? It’s a burnt rock is what you're describing; it’s been touched. And so you're saying there's three ways they could approach it. She took the most dramatic one, which has to have the rock removed?

DS: That's absolutely correct. So when players are sweeping rock to influence how it travels down the ice, they're sweeping that the ice, but not touching the stone itself. But certainly, not uncommon for an accident to happen and for a broom to touch the rock, and if the if the broom touches the rock dramatically and knocks it to the side, it’s fairly common for that rock to be pulled out of play. What can sometimes happen though is just that the most gentle little kind of a kiss or tick of the broom on the rock. And that's sort of what happened here, and that's where a judgement call ends up having to be made.

CO: We heard on of the curling analysts on the CBC, Joan McCusker, said that was a rash move to take that off; they should have left it in play. It doesn't look good on you. What does she mean by that?

DS: Well again, it comes down to curling etiquette. I mean that the game has no officials; it's self-policing. And there's a strong tradition of the game of trying to win the game on the ice. You’re not trying to win the game with lawyers or with nitpicking on tiny rule violation. There's a lot of fussy little rules in curling about you know when you can sweep, and when you can start sweeping. And they're hard to judge. And usually, the benefit doubt goes to leaving things as they are. So certainly, in a case like this where the stone barely moved — if at all — tradition and curling etiquette would say you just leave it, and then you try and win the game by throwing a good rock next.

CO: Curling is our game; we always expect to do really well. And the Canadian women's team is not looking good. Tell us how they are at this point — where they stand?

DS: The pressure is on the Canadian team to win the gold medal, and anything less than a gold medal in curling for the men or the women would be seen as a failure. So the pressure is enormous. It's not necessarily fair by the Canadian curling fan; the world is certainly caught up. These top-level teams are often nationally-funded; most of them train here in Canada. Certainly, Rachel's a favourite, but the pressure's on. And I think that pressure factored into this decision in the heat of the moment.

CO: They'll have to win every game from here on in I guess to qualify?

DS: Yeah, pretty much. History says they might be able to lose one more game and still catch a tiebreaker. But they're pretty close to the win or go home.

CO: Given all the pressure that's on her, and given this standing right now of the Canadian team, do the critics take that into consideration?

DS: No, the critics like to criticize. I think that was absolutely a factor. And I'm a little bit curious about you know because we've had some tough-as-nails male skips over the years who might have done the same thing, and I'm wondering how much of that is feeding into that perceptions and stuff that you know a lot of male players might be able to get away with taking every single possible advantage under the rules, and maybe the ladies aren't supposed to be able to do that.

CO: It's funny you should mention that because what we noticed online is that a lot of the criticism is really glaringly sexist. So do you think that if this is a male team — if this was a male skip — that did something aggressive — sort of elbows out like this — that it would be treated differently in the world of curling?

DS: Absolutely, I think it would. Especially for particular skips that you know historically have had a reputation for win at all costs type things. I think people would sort of shrug their shoulders and say well, that's just don't go being so-and-so being so-and-so, and move on. I think there’s absolutely a double standard.

CO: So what happened at the end of this game, even after the rock was taken out?

DS: Well, perhaps karma reared its head, and Denmark won anyway in an extra end. So you know it'll be interesting to see how the team handles this. They've got a pretty good head space. Adam Kingsbury, he's their coach, and he's a good mental coach, and he’ll help them to get to a better spot here. But yeah, this is going to be in the back of her heads. And you know the other teams are going to know this. Everybody's watching; everyone’s going to be talking about it. Hopefully, they're hiding from social media right now, not reading the outburst, and just focusing on throwing good stones.

CO: I appreciate speaking to you, Doug. Thank you.

DS: Thank you very much. It was nice speaking with you.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Doug Suerich is a curler in Waterloo, Ontario. Also he is known as the “Curling Geek” on Twitter. We reached him though in Los Angeles. For more on the story, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: hip-hop]

Dateline: Montreal snow

JD: Dateline: Montreal.

[Music: Dateline theme]

JD: So you want to buy a snowblower, you've got some decisions to make. I mean, you want electric, you want gas? Well, that'll depend on your needs and your budget. Single-stage, two-stage, or three-stage? What you need to consider there is what kind of snow you got? Light and fluffy, or wet and heavy. Basically what you're looking at is a price spread from, say, two hundred to pretty much two grand. Unless you're renting, and you're the city of Montreal, in which case it'll run you, let's see, upwards of five. And by that I mean five million. I have no idea if that's fair, but I know the amount of snow Montreal has got this winter isn't. Over a whole winter, typically, the city usually averages 190 centimetres of snow. This year, it's already had 184 centimetres, and there's still an unknown amount of winter to come. Every snow-dump site in the city is pretty much full — each one holding a gross, polluted mountain of the stuff. According to the Canadian Press, crews have collected enough to fill 6,400 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Although, I personally have no idea why they would do something like that? This all costs a lot of money. And now it's going to cost more: the city has rented 10 super-powerful snowblowers for two months at a cost — including labour — of 5-point-2-6-2 million bucks. And that would fill 41 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Or 12? — I don't actually know how big those pools are. Does anyone? Anyway, it seems like a lot of money. But then again, it's a lot of snow. A city spokesperson says that, as it is, quote, "The snow will be here until July. Maybe August." Well, be brave, Montreal. To defeat city snow, be like city snow: stand tall, show true grit.

Back To Top »

Part two: Mr. T, Michael Tubbs

Mr. T

Guest: Mr. T

JD: Curling has a new ambassador. Ever since the beginning of the Winter Games, he's been glued to the sport, he has been tweeting feverishly about the sport, and his name is...Mr. T. As in, Mr. Freaking -T. We reached him in L.A.

CO: Mr. T, How's the armchair curling going?

MR.T: It’s really going good. See, first I want to say I'm embarrassed about all this attention. And I was just relaxing at home and said yeah, I like curling. And you know and boom and you know wow! But I'm just a student in it. I just want to learn and I want to see and you know I got to understand the rules and all that, you know? So I liked what I saw, you know? I liked the finesse, and then the cool and the calmness of everything. I like the strategy. You know I like things like that. And then like I said, me being an athlete who played football, boxed, wrestled — all the tough stuff. You know this is calming.

CO: But you're Mr. T, I mean you’re macho. There's something wrong with this picture that you're watching and enjoying these nice Canadians sliding rocks across.

MT: That’s what makes Mr. T who he is; that’s controlled mayhem, you know? I am a tough guy, but I'm not a bad guy, which means my toughness is for righteousness. But I'm not a predator; I don't go starting on stuff, you know? I don't run from it either. You know I admire the strategy of curling; it looks so cool. I did the rough stuff, and that’s what makes me able to appreciate curling. You know there's no trash-talking. I like that there's no getting each other face. And I like how they release the stone. Wow! They make it look so effortlessly. And then the way that you know the sweepers move down the line, and not touch no other stone. Wow! That takes practice. I know that, and then I got understand you know even though I grew up on the south side Chicago, around the cold, you know I got to keep understanding that the game is played in the cold, you know? So you know I got to understand all that.

CO: Do you understand the rules to curling?

MT: No, that’s why I say I’m learning as we go. You know I’m studying it just like if I want to play golf, I've got to understand golf, I've got to understand what's points, what's out of bounds, I got to understand the lingo, to the dress code, what do I need, you know? Like I was saying earlier, for me being a ex-rough-tough-guy, I know I need some knee pads; I hope that's not against the rules. I got me some elbow stuff, you know? I know I’m going to slip down you know? So I got to learn that; I got to practice that. But at the end of the day, when I see the finished product, and see whichever team how they go out with their strategy, how they gracefully let go of the stone, and how they move and talk, and the instructions. It’s different; I like it.

CO: Now, do you know what they're saying? When they are hurling the granite down, there's something they’re yelling. I just learned yesterday what they're saying.

MT: Some kind of language, but they’re telling whoever the sweeper is what they need to do. I know that much, you know? I mean some kind of minor but what is it they tell them they will sweep which what they need to do. I knew that…. Tell them exactly what she sees what you like because you know you're the captain of the ship; you know you’re looking at the vertical and horizontal as they go down. So now you can guide your other teammates, tell them what to do, and sure that’s what it means. You know after it’s said and done, I'm sure that's what it meant.

CO: Well, apparently, they're saying hurry, hard. Hurry, hard. What do you think that means?

MT: Well, sometimes they say that, and I know sometimes they don’t; I watch, you know? So right there I’m learning. I’m learning the scoring system, one point, three points, other little stuff. You know I want to learn to practice what kind of exercise I should do, and other stuff. And do I need more yoga? Do I need to go see the masseuse more to loosen up?

CO: There's a bunch of etiquette as you know around curling. And one of them when I was growing up I learned — didn't know what it means, but Canadian Club and 7 Up is something. Rye and ginger — performing-enhancing drinks in curling. Did you know about that?

MT: No, se that right there, I’m learning again. See, I don't drink; I just do water, you know? Me, I just would want to curl and just have fun, drink water, and stay warm — maybe hot chocolate. Is that against the rule? Can I have hot chocolate?

CO: No, no, it’s fine; you could get that at the club for sure.

MT: That's what I'll be doing. I'll prefer a hot chocolate. Yes, yes.

CO: OK, but what I'm hearing is this suggestion that you might like to get out. I'm trying to picture Mr. T out there on the ice with his little broom, working the granite. I mean do you want to play? Do you want to get involved in curling?

MT: Yeah, yeah, see that's the problem I got there. Because you know I have the old football injuries, the knees, and stuff like that. So I don’t know if I’m good to be the sweeper or what not. At least I’m honest, I know I’m not that light on my feet to miss someone else’s stone as I go down. It’ll be a total mess! It’ll be like the Three Stooges if I try to sweep the stone. Everybody would be falling, they’d be taking pictures, and they'd be selling them on the Internet. I’d be the joke of the town, you know? It’s like any sport: you want to know what you’re good at. So I wouldn’t be good at being a sweeper, or a pusher, whatever the title is.

CO: Well, I learned just when I was coming here to talk to you that you're 65, so you're a senior citizen; you shouldn't be out on the ice.

MT: Yeah, I want to know can I get into the senior citizen bowl, you know? And do I get a little break? I like the sport, like I said, because there’s no trash-talk — I ain't seen it yet. I miss the old time where people have good sportsmanship. You win, you fight hard, you do the best you can. As I was taught, you were with modesty you lose with dignity. You know my TV personality is “Hey, Fool!”, and this, and that. But deep inside, it’s humility. Notice I say humility — gotta get that T in there.

CO: Well, Canadians are loving your hashtag. #curlingiscoolfool.

MT: Yes, yes, yes, because I'm respecting the sport. Like I said, I'm not going to come in to clown or whatnot. I do want to learn more about it, you know? Slowly, I’ll eventually get to the ice, I'll get to the rules, I'll get to the equipment. You know and I’m a fan, I'm a spectator, you know? So I like to watch it, you know? And so I'm enjoying it.

CO: Are you going to be watching the game tomorrow: the U.S. women face off against the Canadian women — that is going to be quite the game.

MT: Yes, yes, I was watching a little bit of the hockey. Boy, you guys are still tough up there, you know? So, of course, I'm going to be watching, you know? Sure, I'll pull for my country. But at the same time, I respect true sportsmanship.

CO: Mr. T, it's great fun to talk to you. Thank you.

MT: Oh, thank you for allowing me to talk.

CO: Enjoy the Olympics.

MT: I will. Thank you so much.

CO: Bye

MT: All right. Bye bye, now.

JD: We reached curling enthusiast Mr. T. in Los Angeles, California.

[Music: The A Team theme]

Michael Tubbs

Guest: Michael Tubbs

JD: As it is doing in many places, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow in the United States. The reasons are complex, and the offered solutions are often contested. The mayor of the city of Stockton, California believes one possible solution is introducing a guaranteed basic income. That is a regular, liveable, no-strings-attached sum of money from the government. So, in a trial that is going to begin this year, a few hundred of the city's poorest citizens will receive an unconditional payment each and every month. The mayor has received a lot of criticism for this program. And this month, his reply to one of his detractors went viral. We reached Mayor Michael Tubbs in Stockton, California.

CO: Mayor Tubbs, who would qualify for this money?

MICHAEL TUBBS: So right now, we just hired a program director who will be working with our community advisory board to develop a set of criteria that will be targeted in its impact, but also be as universal as possible. Because the idea is to show that it's not just people who are in poverty or people are on government assistance who are struggling in this economy, but the majority of Americans. The fact that half of Americans can't even pay for one $500 emergency necessitates us to have a conversation around social safety net.

CO: Let's focus in on Stockton, who is going to qualify in Stockton?

MT: Right now, in Stockton, we're developing the criteria. So we don't have a hard and fixed answer yet. The idea will be the criteria will be as universal as possible, but also targeted for those most likely to benefit have the best chance of getting it.

CO: There was a tweet from one of your biggest critics, I think you know this, Chuck Woolery, and he wrote: Twenty-six year-old mayor of bankrupt city will give free money to the poor. Implement universal basic income. How is this trial going to work exactly? That was his tweet. What did you say back to him?

MT: I just made a couple of corrections. I said number one, I'm actually 27. Number two, please look up the word universal. Meaning universal doesn’t just mean poor; it means you and me — everyone. I said number three, actually, the city hasn’t been bankrupt for years. We’re actually named the second most fiscally healthy city in the state. Number four, it’s philanthropically-funded, meaning not taxpayer dollars. I said number five, the majority of people are struggling in this economy; we have to deal with that.

CO: Your response went viral. What have people said about what you said?

MT: I was actually shocked with 90-plus-thousand retweets, and people sharing their own stories of economic hardship, but also support for the idea that it's time to be really forward-thinking and really creative. And continue the work that Dr. King started before he died in terms of how do we make sure that everyone benefits from the wealth that’s generated in this country.

CO: This is an idea that has been around in other places; in Canada, we've discussed it. Even as progressive as some governments have been, they have not found a way to give a guaranteed income. What model are you using for your plan?

MT: So in the States, the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund is just one to two thousand dollars a year, but it’s universally distributed. That's been the model we've left out because 90 per cent of Alaskans think it's a good idea; that's part of being an Alaskan citizen.

CO: Always the pushback with this plan of universal income is the argument that it deincentivizes people from working. That if you give them free money, then they won't earn the money they need. They won’t pull up their socks and do what they have to do. What do you say to them?

MT: Well, I would say that the research that has been done thus far has shown no adverse labour market impacts. And that's all we have to go off. We can speculate, but there’s actually studies in the states that show when they receive their disbursement that actually people didn't stop working. People were able to work better, and maybe work a little bit less so they can spend more time with their families, which I would argue is a good thing.

CO: But you've received a lot of criticism for this, haven't you? It doesn't seem to be the “American way” that to give people money. You’re supposed to encourage them to do it for themselves.

MT: To be completely honest, I've also been surprised with the amount of support for the idea as well. I find gaming to ideologies around kind of work and things like that, and some of the interesting relationships we have with people who are poor, I thought 90 per cent of people would be against it. But I’ve found a lot of support across spectrums ideologically. But definitely, there’s been some pushback.

CO: You say that Stockton is doing well, but did declared bankruptcy five years ago. So what are the poverty levels in your city?

MT: The poverty level is 25 per cent. And we declared bankruptcy five years ago, but this year, we were named the second most fiscally healthy city in the state because of the bankruptcy. So we're not perfect yet, but we're not all doom and gloom. And there's a lot of good things happening.

CO: You are the first African-American mayor in Stockton, and you're certainly the youngest mayor they've had. Are you taking a lot of heat in city council?

MT: There's always critics, but that's been happening since I was at city council at 22. So for a lot of change we're making we own 70 per cent to vote. That still means 30 per cent of people want to see somebody else, or had different visions for where we should go. I guess that's part of governing, so we've been negotiating and dealing with that for sure.

CO: You were elected last year with 70 per cent of the vote. And yet, there is now a petition to recall Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs. And it's finally won approval. You've got some pretty formidable enemies who are trying to push you out of office. They say that you are misusing the office. What do you say to them?

MT: Well first, I would just disagree with the characterization as formidable. It’s the same group of people who tried to get me out of city council. Same group that campaigned for that person beat by 42 points. Same people that it took two times to get ten signatures to trigger the ability to collect 16,000 more to get something on the ballot. But also, I would say again, I think the majority of the people of Stockton, but also of this nation, are taking note of what's going on in Stockton and are excited. They're excited about the basic income. They're excited about the scholarship fund we launched. They're excited about the things we're doing for the homeless and to advance public safety. So a lot of good things are happening, but I mean the way human nature has worked whenever there’s progress, there’s always a little bit of backlash.

CO: Well, the people who accuse you of abuse of office, they have 160 days to collect all those signatures — 16,000 to get this petition voted on in Stockton. If they're successful, what will happen to your plan for a guaranteed income? Is anybody else going to carry that for you?

MT: Well absolutely, because it’s imbedded in my office, also some nonprofits. But if the 16,000 signatures go through, that means we have to run another campaign. If you look at my track record, the first campaign I ran with no experience, I got 62 per cent of vote. In the last campaign I ran, I got 71 per cent of the vote. So campaigns are actually things we do pretty well.

CO: All right. We'll be watching. Mayor Tubbs, thank you.

MT: Thank you.

JD: We reached Mayor Michael Tubbs in Stockton, California.

[Music: Ambient]

Sixties Scoop

JD: They were among the thousands of Indigenous children forcibly taken from their families between 1951 and 1991. And now, a group of survivors of the so-called "Sixties Scoop" want the government to do more. In October, the federal government announced an 800-million-dollar settlement. But after receiving details of the settlement last week, some are saying it's not enough. They want to see the deal scrapped. Priscilla Meeches is a Sixties Scoop survivor from Manitoba. She's one of the plaintiffs in the national class-action lawsuit. She spoke to CBC Manitoba's Ismaila Alfa about the settlement. Here's part of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

PRISCILLA MEECHES: To be perfectly honest, I'm not happy. When you break it down, we don't actually know how many adoptees are out in Canada; not just Canada, but continental, nationwide, overseas — there's hundreds or thousands of us. So when you break down the amount that's been proposed, how it's going to work out is we could get up to 25,000-50,000 they're saying. And perhaps even less. So depending on the amount of people, it could be like maybe 11,000 if you do the math per person. And for being in care for 18 years, for myself, I had good parents, I had really good parents. I was raised in Altona; I had great parents. It was the community bullies that really gave me a difficult time. That's when I left at 18; I couldn't do it anymore. And I couldn't share with them what I was going through because I didn't want to hurt them. They knew I was angry teenager. So, at the end of the day, I mean people say to me what do you mean it's not enough? When is enough enough? Well, you know what? If you look into their residential school survivors what they got, that would be helpful. A little bit more would be helpful for what we went through. My sister passed away when I was 16. Four social workers voted to come and get me to ask me if I would like to meet her; she was on her deathbed with cancer. Three social workers said yes and one said no. No one asked me. I was 16 years old. No one asked me what my opinion was in that. So I mean that's just one thing that I went through, and I have to carry to my grave.

ISMAILA ALFA: I mean you mentioned the money issue in there, but it sounds like it's about more than just the money here?

PM: Oh, it absolutely is. It's about our mental health. It's about the PTSD that we suffer, and it's a daily thing. It's about trying to fit into society. Like I don't fit in in Long Plane, where I'm from. I mean I have family there and they love me. But I mean I don't have a bond with my siblings. I don't go back to Altona. There's nothing there for me at this point. And I'm just I'm getting older. I have my own family now. I have my own children now and grandchildren. At the end of the day, you know it's a lot. It's my loss of culture. It's my loss of language. It's my loss of my bond with my family. I've lost two mothers in my lifetime: my biological mother Dorothy Meeches, March 4th of this year is 25 years she's passed away. And then the mother that raised me when I turned 18, you know? The door was shut and it never was reopened. So how do you explain that to someone? You can't, so it's a lot.

JD: That was Priscilla Meeches, speaking to CBC Manitoba's Ismaila Alfa. Ms. Meeches is a Sixties Scoop survivor who's not happy with the Canadian government's settlement. The proposed settlement is yet to be approved, and there are four court dates planned in May regarding this case.

[Music: Piano]

Back To Top »

Part three: Rice rediscovered, silent crickets, Bieber exhibit

Attorney-General Rosenstein

JD: By now, as we told you earlier, U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller issued the first indictments for meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Thirteen Russian national, three Russian organizations — including a notorious troll farm — stand accused of attempting to sow discord across the American political landscape. Earlier in the program, we spoke to a former cybersecurity prosecutor by the Mark Rasch about the substance of the indictments, and political theatre at play. Now, from this afternoon, here's Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein outlining the charges:

SOUNDCLIP

ROB ROSENSTEIN: The defendants allegedly conducted what they called “information warfare against the United States”, with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates, and the political system in general. According to the allegations in the indictment, 12 of the individual defendants worked at various times for a company called Internet Research Agency LLC — a Russian company based in St. Petersburg. The other individual defendant, Evgeny Victorovich Posogon, funded the conspiracy through companies known as Concord Management and Consulting LLC, and many affiliates and subsidiaries. The conspiracy was part of a larger operation called Project Lacta. Project Lacta included multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation. And others targeting foreign audiences in multiple countries. Two of the defendants allegedly traveled to the United States in 2014 to collect intelligence for their American influence operations. In order to hide the Russian origins of their activities, the defendants allegedly purchased space on computer servers located here in the United States, in order to set up a virtual private network. The defendants allegedly use that infrastructure to establish hundreds of accounts on social media networks such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Making it appear that those accounts were controlled by persons located in the United States. They used stolen or fictitious American identities, fraudulent bank accounts, and false identification documents. The defendants posed as politically and socially-active Americans, advocating for and against particular candidates. They established social media pages and groups to communicate with unwitting Americans. They also purchased political advertisements on social media networks. The Russians also recruited and paid real Americans to engage in political activities, promote political campaigns, and stage political rallies.

RR: The defendants and their co-conspirators pretended to be grassroots activists. According to the indictment, the Americans did not know that they were communicating with Russians. After the election, the defendants allegedly staged rallies to support the president-elect, while simultaneously staging rallies to protest his election. For example, the defendants organized one rally to support the president-elect, and another rally to oppose him; both in New York on the same day.

JD: That was Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein earlier today, outlining the latest indictments from U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. The White House has released the following statement in response to the indictments, quote, "President Donald J. Trump has been fully briefed on this matter, and is glad to see the Special Counsel's investigation further indicates that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected." Unquote.

[Music: Folk]

Rediscovered rice

Guest: B.J. Dennis

JD: For people enslaved in the American south, rice was an important staple of both diet and culture. The particular species they grew for themselves was known as "hill rice". It was believed to have been imported from Africa. For years, chefs and historians have believed that hill rice had been lost to time in North America, taking with it a pretty significant part of the history of slavery and food in the American south. But then B.J. Dennis — a chef from South Carolina — came across a crop of the stuff in Trinidad. Now, he's cooking with it. We reached B.J. Dennis in Charleston, South Carolina.

CO: B.J., how was this Rice found in Trinidad? Who did that?

B.J. DENNIS: Well there's a guy, Francis Marine, he reached out to me. He is a descendant of the Americans who are the group that still grow the rice in Trinidad. We did a hill rice symposium in 2016. And while in Trinidad, I realized that this same hill rice was this African glabberima rice that many people thought was extinct in the Western Hemisphere.

CO: And you saw it growing there?

BD: Yeah, I saw it growing, yup. It was growing, it was still being harvested, still being eaten, and funny enough, mainly still in the countryside of Trinidad. Even in a lot of Trinidadians didn't know about this rice.

CO: And who was growing it?

BD: A group called The Mericans; their name is Creole short for American. They were descendants of people from the low country of Georgia, South Carolina, who migrated back to Trinidad after the War 1812. They were able to get their freedom by fighting for the British, and they had the option of going to Trinidad. And they went to Trinidad, and they had this seed with them for 200 years.

CO: Wow! And so they’re descendants of slaves?

BD: Yes, decedents of slave Africans.

CO: And did they know that this was a long-lost rice — this hill rice that people had been looking for?

BD: No, no, not at all.

CO: And when you told them that, how did they respond?

BD: You know I think people still are kind of in shock. I mean, at first, I don’t think it really resonated. But now you know with all the publicity, people are kind of like wow! This is something very important!

CO: How did you respond when you confirmed that this was, in fact, the long-lost hill rice?

BD: I was very shocked. Not more-or-less that the rice was still here, but the story behind it and how it got there. How it was lost, and we were looking for here, but people who left here 200 years ago took it with them, and they were still growing it. I mean it was still being grown in these parts. But after a while, I think for what we know, it’s been lost.

CO: What makes it so special?

BD: It's one of the few strains that's indigenous to West Africa that came over here with the enslaved Africans. It's a distinct rice because it's a red rice that has a red colour once you hull it. It's a business to the culture. I mean the story behind being brought here by enslaved people, and being grown here during that time as part of the nourishment. It kept that connection to their roots — to where they were from.

CO: There are so many theories as to how this rice actually got to the United States because the Africans who were taken into slavery were not allowed to bring things with them. What do you understand is the reason or the way that this rice got to those communities in the south?

BD: Well, a lot of African women would hide seeds in their hair. You know being that people of African descent, for the most part, typically have thicker, woolly hair — stories of African woman's hiding seeds in their hair because they knew the importance of agriculture and seeds. And then you know some of the rice, obviously, you know it became a part of the economic system. So you know you have during the transatlantic trade, enslaved Africans also brought crops of vegetables overseas and whatnot. So those are the two reasons I personally think the seed was brought here.

CO: There’s one theory that a barrel of this rice was delivered to Thomas Jefferson, and he was taken with it — he liked it — and he was sharing it around as well. What do you think of that story?

BD: Yeah, I can see that. I mean he did have a garden in the farm where he was at. Obviously, you know those stories are always going to be documented because Africans were unable to read or write. I mean they weren't allowed to. If you knew how to read or write, you were a threat; you could be killed. So you know the story of Thomas Jefferson will always be told because you know those stories were documented. But like the stories of the enslaved, obviously, the story we’re talking about right now. Those stories were never really written, and so you know we were researching to find these stories. And having it go back to these places, and trace these steps.

CO: So what are you going to do now that you found this rice? You, obviously, want people to rediscover it. Can it be grown in the United States now?

BD: Yes, that's the plan. You know we’re giving seed to people for personal use. They can grow it for their own personal consumption. Also, we got folks in the process of working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to get the OK from them to get the seed back in mass-production. We have seeds that we’re going to give out to the community. That's the big plan for me is that this rice is good for your rice, it’s an easy to grow rice, and I would love to see this get back into the hands of the people whose ancestors brought it here. That's part of their heritage and lineage.

CO: And you as a chef, what are the best ways of cooking it? What do you eat with it? How is it best served?

BD: You know it's very diverse. When I was in Trinidad, they would cook it in coconut milk, and put a fig leaf or banana leaf on top and steam it, and it comes out almost like a sticky porridge in a sense. And they will top it with the West African sesame seed. They would make a sesame seed chutney, which would be like hot pepper, sesame seed, and garlic, and an herb. And they would serve that over the rice. But this rice, you could cook it like a risotto, you can par steam it, you can do it with stew chicken, vegetable stews, whatever you like.

CO: You're making us all hungry.

BD: I’m getting hungry now, and I just ate.

CO: and you can just grow it in a regular garden; you don’t need anything special?

BD: No, it's not a lagoon rice or a wetland rice where you need to flood the fields or whatnot. It's a rice that grows in dry soil just using natural rain.

CO: What a wonderful rediscovery.

BD: Yes, very much so.

CO: B.J., thanks for telling us about the rice.

BD: Thank ya’ll. Thank ya’ll so much.

CO: Bye bye.

BD: Bye.

JD: B.J. Dennis is a chef from Charleston, South Carolina. And that is where we reached him.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Silent crickets

Guest: Marlene Zuck

JD: Hawaii's crickets are falling silent. It is not that they're dying. It's just that the males are no longer squeaking away with their little wings. The species has adapted to the presence of a parasite that hunts them down when it hears their songs. Now, scientists have discovered what, exactly, those males are doing instead of chirping out their love ballads. Marlene Zuk has been studying Hawaii's silent crickets for years. She's a professor of Entomology at the University of Minnesota. We reached Professor Zuk in St Paul.

CO: Professor Zuck, when and how did you first notice that the crickets had gone silent?

MARLENE ZUCK: So I always tell people that it's one of these moments of cognitive dissonance where your mind is telling you something that, in fact, that you feel like can't actually be happening. And I must preface this by saying that if you're a cricket person, then you understand. And I realize that many listeners will not be cricket people. But if you're a cricket person, then you know you understand that a cricket's whole reason for living has to do with calling. And male crickets sing, and that's what they do — it's how they attract mates. And so I was in a place where you know I had known that the populations were decreasing, and I hadn't heard anything. When I'd been there a couple of years earlier, I'd barely been able to find any to lay eggs for my lab colonies. And so I thought Oh okay, that's it. They're just going extinct and that's the end of it. But you know we were going make one more try. And we didn't hear anything and I thought all right, this is it. But you know you may as well get out of the car. Snd so we got out, we had our headlamps on, and were walking toward the field on Kauai — where we were usually collecting them — and suddenly in the grass, I start seeing all these crickets. Like, way more than I'd seen before. But I wasn't hearing anything. And so that made me go through one of those cognitive dissonance loops where it was like wait, why am I seeing crickets if I'm not hearing anything? Why am I not hearing anything if there are crickets? And I literally was picking them up and looking at them and thinking maybe these aren't crickets? No, no, they really are —I've been working with them for years. And it took us a while to figure out that the crickets were literally unable to call. It wasn't that they were behaviourally refraining from calling. It was that they simply couldn't.

CO: Why do you think they've done that? What's your theory?

MZ: There's a parasitic fly that homes in on the exact same song that the males use to attract mates. And what the fly does is deposit larvae that burrow inside the cricket while the cricket is still alive, and consume what a student of mine used to call the gooey bits while the cricket is still alive. And this goes on for about a week, as the larvae grow and grow and grow. And they're consuming the cricket from the inside. And, eventually, they burst out, and it's all very alien-like and you know gruesome. And so from the cricket’s perspective, what this means is that they're in a dilemma because the more they call, the more likely they are to attract females, which is a good thing from the standpoint of a cricket. But the more they call, the more likely they are to attract this deadly fly, which is a bad thing.

CO: So what do you do with nature's inner contradiction here? That they can survive the parasites if no one can hear him, but he can't get mates if no one can hear him?

MZ: Trying to solve that is exactly what you know driven my lab for the last 15-years-plus. So yeah, that's exactly what we're trying to understand. And we have a partial answer to it we think. But there's still a lot to be discovered, and that's why this new paper I think is very cool because it sheds a little bit of light on what might be going on with those mutants. So one short version is that the flat-wings — the males that can't call — there's always some callers in the population; we don't have any populations where there's zero callers. So there's still some what we call normal-wing males. And when the males can produce the song then, of course, they attract females. Well, they also will attract males that kind of hang around them and will intercept females that are on their way to the caller. And we think that that helps those flat-wing males find a mate. So they are, in effect, parasitizing the efforts of the callers.

CO: Oh dear! But the crickets — except for the ones who are still able to make the nice sound that gets them killed — the other ones are they just staying mum?

MZ: Well, So it's a mutation that means that the flat-wings literally can't call. So even though they're rubbing their wings together, as the new paper shows, it's not making any noise.

CO: But doesn’t that use an awful lot of energy for nothing?

MZ: Probably.

CO: OK, so there has to be a way for evolution to figure this out, right?

MZ: So that's such an interesting question because you know evolution can't figure things out; it doesn't know how. All evolution can do is spread a mutation that made the bearers of that mutation have an advantage. And if it also means that, as you say, they're wasting a bunch of energy rubbing their wings together. As long as they're passing their genes on, evolution doesn't care; evolution can't care. Evolution is uncaring.

CO: But those last few brave crickets with their love songs, eventually, I mean they'll get killed off too, right, because those parasites are going to find them?

MZ: Because it turns out that the females will mate with the males that can't produce their own song. Because there's actually two songs, the crickets produce. There's the song that you hear if you go outside at night, which is the chirp, chirp, chirp. But there's also a structurally different song that crickets make when they've encountered a female. And that's called the courtship song. And at least you know according to conventional cricket wisdom, it's necessary for the male to switch to this other song before the female will go ahead and mate with him. But the flat-wings can't produce either song, so the females they will mate with them under some circumstances, but you know they're quite reluctant to. So the males that can produce the song are at a tremendous advantage in terms of attracting mates. They just pay the price in terms of attracting the fly. And so it's this balance that goes back and forth. If you look at the offspring for instance, if you take eggs from females that you just catch in the field, and you look at their babies, and you see whether they're normal-wing or flat-wing. Way more of them are normal-wing. But if you look at males that are adults that are out there in the field right now, way more of them are flat-wing. So clearly, the females are kind of seeding the population because they're preferring to mate with the normal-wing males.

CO: But it sounds like a completely unsatisfactory sex. Quite unsatisfying, I would say.

MZ: Well, you know it depends on how you feel about rubbing you wings together, I guess.

CO: Well, I’m not a cricket.

MZ: It's always hard to know because I think one of the things I really like about the studies showing that the flat-wings are doing exactly the same thing as the normal-wings is that you know you just can't be anthropomorphic about it. People are always saying oh but, you know the male shouldn't know what they're doing, and they should stop. And it's just they're not people.

CO: Professor Zuck, thanks for speaking with us.

MZ: Thanks very much.

CO: Bye.

MZ: Bye.

JD: Marlene Zuck is a Professor of Entomology at the University of Minnesota. We reached her in St. Paul.

[Music: Ambient]

Bieber exhibit

Guest: John Kastner

JD: It's not often a small-town Ontario museum gets a barrage of calls from media and fans across the world. But for the past week, the people who work at the Stratford Perth Museum have been on the phone pretty near non-stop. And it's all because of local-boy-made-good-and-occasionally-bad, Justin Bieber. This weekend, the museum will be unveiling an exhibit called "Steps to Stardom". It will feature memorabilia that tracks the Bieb’s career from his days busking on the streets of Stratford to international stardom. John Kastner is the general manager of Stratford Perth Museum. We reached him in Stratford.

CO: John, how many calls have you been getting from Bieber fans around the world?

JOHN KASTNER: Well, I think we've had lots of telephone calls. Also, I think the first weekend it sort of leaked out was about the third weekend of January. And you know one of our jokes was that from Thursday afternoon when it leaked out the Sunday morning, I had a thousand emails.

CO: Were you expecting this?

JK: No, no. And I’ve said a number of times did we see it coming? I guess we should have. But in all honesty, you know we didn't.

CO: Well, how did you come to put this together? How did the Stratford Perth Museum get the goods and the material to have this exhibit of Justin Bieber?

JK: Well, the idea of it came actually you know it's a common question that we get here at the museum. And that's something that sort of stuck with us. And then you know when we went to do our exhibit planning you know it came up. And then Peter Van Loan — who’s a cabinet minister — was here. And then he said you know you have a great museum; I’m surprised you don’t have anything about Justin Bieber. And that was not the first time you know we'd heard that. And then you know we knew the grandparents, I met them, and we floated the idea, and they talked to Justin, and they talked to the mom, and you know from there things started to unfold very quickly.

CO: The grandparents helped a lot. The family was really keen on this. I understand Justin Bieber's mum has been there a number of times.

JK: Yeah, I think she's been here every day this week. You know and she's just been wonderful. You know I would say like genuinely appreciative of the exhibit. And they came through it on Tuesday — the grandparents with Pattie — and you know there’s tears and lots of ooos and awes and, and I forgot about that. And it was it was pretty good.

CO: Like what? Tell us some of the things that you have in your exhibit?

JK: You know one of my favorite things there’s a set of drums. A local group got together; they had a little bit of a concert for Justin, and to buy him a set of drums. And he'd been in music stores, and he'd sit down with bands, and get behind the drum set, and play the drums. And these local guys said we should buy this kid a a set of drums; he's got real talent. And we've got a video of him nine-years-old, playing that set of drums that these guys bought for him. And we've got the set of drums in the exhibit as well.

CO: And some of his earlier forays into sports you have as well as. You want to tell us about that?

JK: Yeah, a Minor Atom hockey jacket. So if you're Minor Atom you’re about ten-years-old. He's got his minor hockey jacket. And on that jacket, it's got you know right across between the shoulders of the back “Biebs”.

CO: What's the story that you think that your exhibit tells?

JK: I think one of the things we tried to do with the exhibit is we've tried to not just tell the story of his career, but we've tried to tell the story of his life. You know there's no question that he's got great ability. But one of the things that is undeniable is that he put the work in. Like, one of his friends says he you know one summer he busked on the steps you know 200 times. And this was as a little kid; he wasn't very old. And, certainly, he hass God-given talent, but he put a lot of work in. And he got identified by people like Scooter Braun and Usher. And I think his success isn't a complete accident.

CO: OK, so that's the general story you're telling. Of course, I'm wondering if you tell this story warts and all? Because there are some controversies around Justin Bieber — the story of his pet monkey was confiscated by German officials, he had that scuffle with the paparazzi and the egg, and he was videotaped peeing into a janitor's mop bucket, so any of those controversial asides in the exhibit?

JK: No, it is a very positive exhibit to be sure. And are we aware of those things? You know yes we are. Do we talk about them in the exhibit? No, we don't.

CO: And what do you make of those incidents?

JK: You know I think one of the things, and we have had this narrative here amongst ourselves, and I think the one thing is one of the decisions came up even amongst our staff and volunteers. You know as a 16 or 17-year-old, if I was followed around or somebody else was around and had a camera with me day and night, I think I'd be a little red-faced too about some of the things. And I think we're cognizant of that that he was young, and that he was had a lot of money, which was new to him. And I think he'd be the first person to say that his behaviour at that time wasn't the greatest. And I think we've tried to present another image of him: A kid whose talented, who gives a lot of money to charity, who gives money locally, loves his grandparents very much, loves his mother very much, and all the dealings that we've had with him have been nothing but fantastic.

CO: Have you talked to Justin Bieber himself about the exhibit?

JK: Yes, actually, it was just in mid-December. Of all places, we met at a Tim Horton’s just down the street here.

CO: And what was that conversation about?

JK: It was very curious. I mean we'd gone back and forth with his company and his grandparents a lot. And you know I was on the way out to work on a Saturday morning, and headed out here. And he's in line in front of me a Tim Horton’s. And I tapped on the shoulder. He said Oh hey, how are you? You’re the guy from the museum. And I said thanks a lot for you know letting us do this exhibit. He says oh, it's terrific. And he couldn't have been nicer.

CO: Sounds like an iconic, almost cliche Canadian moment.

JK: Meet in the line at Tim Horton’s, tapped him on shoulder, and he said he said just you know, we don't have very long. And I didn't really know what he meant. And within about five minutes, there was people starting to line up.

CO: Because they'd seen him?

JK: Yeah, and you know people on phones starting to text. And next, you’d see people starting to congregate in the parking lot.

CO: And speaking of people lining up, what do you expect to see this weekend?

JK: Well, we talked about this. On a regular third-weekend in February, you know we might get 25 people here would be a good weekend. This weekend, I expect we'll probably have close to 1,000 people go through here; Our Sunday is sold out.

CO: Wow! Good luck with your exhibit, John. Sounds like it's going to be a successful one.

JK: Thanks very much.

CO: Take care. Bye.

JK: Bye.

JD: John Kastner is the general manager of the Stratford Perth Museum. We reached him in Stratford, Ontario.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 16, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This