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 March 1, 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: gun shy. After pressure from its members, Mountain Equipment Co-op announces it will no longer carry brands owned by a Utah company — because along with water bottles, it makes rapid-fire semi-automatic rifles.

JD: Firing lines. Russian President Vladimir Putin talks big about his new invincible nuclear weapons and their potential. Our guest says all this talk of giant arms is a colossal mistake.

CO: Metal fatigue. After months of exhausting threats, U.S. President Trump reveals some unclear but disturbing details about new tariffs on steel and aluminum. And Canadian steel workers aren't sure how to forge ahead.

JD: Intense and in tents. Indigenous protesters are angry about the pattern they see in cases like those of Colten Boushie and Tina Fontaine. And they say that they'll camp outside the Saskatchewan legislature until they get justice for their kids.

CO: Boilermakers drinking Boilermakers. Then, a group of Newfoundland oil refinery workers might move on to your most expensive champagne, because they just won sixty million bucks — one of the biggest Canadian jackpots ever.

JD: And… hair trigger. Something caused Bridget the lioness to start growing a sort of luxurious muttonchop-mullet-beard that zookeepers are calling a “mini mane”. But no one can make hide nor hair of it.

JD: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that presents a powerful drama entitled “Cat, And a Hot Tan Ruff”.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: MEC CEO, steel tariffs, Newfoundland lottery

MEC CEO

Guest: David Labistour

JD: Today, Mountain Equipment Co-op announced that it will drop five brands owned by Vista Outdoor. For now. Though MEC has never sold guns, the outdoor equipment retailer has faced mounting pressure over the last week to stop selling brands owned by Vista, because the company owns popular outdoor gear brands like Camelbak and Bushnell. But it also owns brands that produce rapid-fire assault rifles with high-capacity magazines. David Labistour is the CEO of Mountain Equipment Co-op. We reached him in Vancouver.

CO: Mr. Labistour, what message is MEC: trying to send out by halting the sale of brands owned by Vista Outdoor?

DAVID LABISTOUR: So, we as a co-op and a member-based organization, listen to our members. It was an interesting one because normally when we hear concerns there are only two sides to a story. But in this case it was quite different, and there was a lot of emotion around it and a lot of different points of view. There were a lot of nuanced points of view. Probably the one central piece that came through was the concern about gun control. So what we've chosen to do is to focus on the issue of gun control. And we know that we have no control over the issue. It would be hubris to believe that we did. But I do believe that we are able to influence and be a catalyst for the conversation around gun control.

CO: But I just want to ask you about this one thing. You talked about how you were consulting members, and some were criticizing you because there was a petition with 50,000 signatures on it. Jim Byers — one of the founders of MEC — was saying that you're waffling. That it took you days to come to the decision that you shouldn't be supporting a corporation that has holdings in the manufacture of assault style weapons.

DL: Yup, that's true. He did; he was very critical. And we've had a number of people that are critical. But we've always prided ourselves on getting all the facts before we make a decision. And I personally want to be able to look anyone with any opinion in the eye, and be able to tell them that the decision we've made was made with all the facts available.

CO: You said yourself in the release that on a personal note that you had proudly served in the military, you grew up in rural areas where hunting was commonplace, I’m presuming that you have a comfort zone around the idea of firearms. Did you have members who said you shouldn't be doing this? Those who thought you were wrong to make this decision?

DL: Yes, of course, we certainly do have members that don't agree with what we've done. And again, I would challenge people are you willing to have a discussion about gun control? And this is not about sports shooting or hunting. This is about the broader discussion around the appropriate ownership of weapons.

CO: You also say that you're only suspending your sales of this. And there's a curious line also in your release where you say you will continue to engage with these brands. What are you trying to say?

DL: Throughout our history, whenever we've had criticism on things we've never just walked away from something. Because I believe that once you walk away from something, you lose any ability to influence that situation in any way, unless you have massive power which we don't have. I've always believed in remaining engaged, and trying to make change through engagement. We've been with these brands most of them from way before any acquisition by Vista. And we know that the people in these brands are very much like us. So we want to keep this discussion going, and we want to see if we can encourage these people that advocate for gun control.

CO: What exactly would you need to see in order to start bringing their products back into your store? What specifically would you need to see?

DL: If they become advocates for constructive gun control.

CO: That’s a wide range of things. Some people think gun control is background checks or deal with mental health issues. All the way to people saying a wide range of weapons should be banned. What would be a position on the part of this company that you'd say you were actively engaged with some kind of gun control?

DL: The objective of responsible gun control would be to ensure that gun ownership is restricted to people that have the ability and the correct use for that weapon. So it's all of the above. And I can't tell you offhand exactly in a linear way what that looks like. But once that discussion it's the middle ground and it gets really vibrant and really rich, it will then have the momentum to carry forward to a responsible place.

CO: Well, for many people the bottom line would be that there would be a ban on these assault rifles, and on bump stocks, and anything that is of that nature. Would you agree that that is a kind of necessary beginning?

DL: Yes, absolutely, there's no question about that.

CO: So that is fairly far-reaching. You’d need to see to all that before you would reengage with this company?

DL: Yes. So it's advocacy for that. I mean as I say, we don't control it, but we would like to see advocacy towards that end.

CO: What have you heard back from them — from Vista Outdoors — since you've made this decision.

DL: We actually spoke to Vista before we made the decision. I'm not going to speak for Vista; I would recommend you reach out to them. What I can tell you is this is Vista is in a really tough spot with this. They have two different businesses, and they have two very different stakeholders.

CO: But what are they saying to you about their difficulty with that?

DL: Carol, I don't want to speak for Vist. I think that the conversations we have had with them have been for the most part respectful. And I would like to keep those between the two of us.

CO: Are they angry with you?

DL: I can just tell you that they're in a difficult spot. They've been very respectful and businesslike, but I'm sure that they must be… it's got to be tough for them. And I can't speak for them.

CO: But can you say do they disagree with you?

DL: Obviously, if they agreed with us, we'd be in a different situation. So we have a difference of opinion.

CO: I just want to ask you about the whole idea of consumer efforts like this one. And there's lots of doubts about whether any kind of boycott or consumer pressures really do anything? And that leveraging change through purchasing power is not a substitute for leveraging political power. Do you think that consumer and corporate actions like the ones we're seeing can actually bring about change?

DL: Yes and No. And I agree with you on one hand: I think total boycotts do not necessarily work. I do, however, think that in this case is trying to drive a conversation through a financial disengagement, but remaining engaged on the relationships side and having these conversations is the way to go.

CO: But do you think that leveraging purchasing power can do what political power is supposed to be doing — or can be doing in these situations?

DL: Not entirely, no. No, I think you have to have significant enough of a movement. And the way those movements happen is they put pressure on political power. But you have to create that movement of discussion and feelings first.

CO: Just finally, some of the brands that you will now no longer be selling are very popular in your store. I’m thinking of Camelback, who makes those water bottles and the backpacks with them. Bushnell makes binoculars; lots of people like to buy them. What's this going to do to your business?

DL: The financial impact is not immaterial, but it's not massive and we do have alternative products. What we don't know, which has to unfold, is the sentiment behind this decision is going to I think be more material than the actual products themselves.

CO: What do you mean?

DL: Well, are more people on the payroll or the minus side of this decision? Because we know that in taking this decision — regardless of how considerate and thoughtful this is been — we're not going to make everyone happy.

CO: Well, We'll be watching to see what happens. Mr. Labistour, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DL: Thank you very much.

JD: David Labistour is the CEO of Mountain Equipment Co-op. We reached him in Vancouver.

[Music: Jazz]

Steel Tariffs

Guest: Darren Green

JD: Donald Trump has left Canadian steel producers hanging. After months of threats, the US President announced today that he's going to be imposing a 25 per cent duty on steel imports, and 10 per cent on aluminum. But he didn't say whether those duties will just apply to China — or whether other countries, including Canada, are also going to be on the list. Here's President Trump, speaking at the White House, alongside top US steel and aluminum executives.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: We'll probably have everything completed by next week. We'll be imposing tariffs on steel imports and tariffs on aluminum imports. And you're going to see a lot of good things happen. You're going to see expansions of the companies. I know that David, you said you'd be expanding. Jim, I know you said you were expanding your role. Pretty much all of you will immediately be expanding if we give you that level playing field. If we give you that help. And you’re going to hire more workers. And your workers are going to be very happy. They're going to be very, very happy. And again, what's been allowed to go on for decades is disgraceful. It's disgraceful. And when it comes to a time when our country can't make aluminum and steel. And somebody said it before and I will tell you, you almost don't have much of a country — because without steel, and aluminum, your country is not the same. And we need it. We need it even for defense if you think. I mean we need it for defense; we need great steel makers, great aluminum makers for defense. So we'll probably see you sometime next week, we'll be signing it in, and you will have protection for the first time in a long while. And you get to regrow your industries. That's all I'm asking you; you have to regrow your industries.

JD: US President Donald Trump, at the White House earlier today. Now, that isn't what Darren Green had been hoping to hear. Mr. Green works at a steel wire plant in the Hamilton, Ontario area; he's the President of the United Steelworkers' Local 5328. We reached Darren Green in Hamilton.

CO: Mr. Green, what would a 25 per cent U.S. tariff mean for the company where you work?

DARREN GREEN: For my place, it’s going to have a big impact. We've hired over the last year over 100 employees. And three quarters of our product is shipped to the United States. And those 100 people could be right back out the door.

CO: And that's just where you are. What would it mean for the steel industry in the Hamilton area?

DG: in Hamilton, particularly with Stelco just getting back up on its feet, and I can tell you Dofasco has trucks lined up outside their gates waiting to load steel and take it to the United States. It's going to have a big effect. We're a wire producer, and our product goes into auto parts. And it's shipped to the states. It's formed into spring, or nail, or a tack, or staples, or coil springs, and it's sent back up here for implementation into a car and vice versa.

CO: Do you think that's one of the elements that's missing in this increasingly heated debate about ripping up NAFTA, or rethinking NAFTA? That it's not so much a trade agreement as it's the integration of our two economies?

DG: Absolutely, especially the steel industry. I mean we don't have a Canadian steel industry, and they don't have an American steel industry, so to speak. It's an integrated steel industry encompassing really North America. So if it affects us here, it's going to affect them down there because if we can't get our product to their producers, then they're not going to be able to replace that product. I mean it's back and forth daily. It starts in Canada and it it's processed in the States. It’s sent back to Canada for further production and vice versa.

CO: Why do you think that that's not getting across to the White House?

DG: I think it is actually. You know you listen to Donald Trump, and he says one thing one day, and he does something different the next day. There's been a great deal of lobbying by politicians of all stripes here in Canada talking to the White House — people in the White House — to governors state governors and Congress, trying to convince them that we need NAFTA. And we need to have the continuation of the integration of our borders.

CO: In this case though it seems it's not just some whimsical moment in the part of Donald Trump just to divert attention or just something he thought up. This is something that seems to have come out of the Department of Commerce — that seems to be something that Wilbur Ross was recommending. He was talking about a tariff of about this amount. It appears that the White House is pretty serious about this tariff.

DG: If they are that serious, then it's really scary. It’s scary for us here. My members at my workplace rely on our ability to transport or ship our product to the United States. We're in an international union; our headquarters is in the United States — it’s in Pittsburgh. Leo Gerard comes from Ontario. He's there fighting the battle for us. And he's fighting for American jobs. And he’s fighting for Canadian jobs. And there's some good pushback in the United States on him imposing tariffs on Canada. So I guess we'll have to wait and see. But, hopefully, there is enough pressure, and he sees the light a little bit.

CO: We saw the budget come down; we were interviewing the liberals the other day. And asked specifically what the plan is if something should happen enough to NAFTA? If NAFTA gets cancelled, revoked, torn up as Mr. Trump has threatened. And what was clear as mud was that there doesn't seem to be a plan. If there is one, they're not divulging it at this point. Does that concern you? Do you wonder if there is a contingency if we should lose NAFTA?

DG: Well, there should be. I mean there should be a manufacturing strategy here in Canada to begin with. But at the same time, you know I talked to my company in the last number of weeks and asked do you have a plan if this goes through? And they really don't. So there's a lot of people relying on the fact that Donald Trump will change his mind.

CO: And that's it. That's as much as you can hope?

DG: That's it. It's a pretty bad situation. Like I said, there's been all kinds of lobbying and everything else done. I mean the Canada senators are kicking back at Trump. The congressmen are kicking back at Trump. We've had so many politicians and so many delegations go to the United States to do this lobbying that I just can't see it coming to fruition against Canada, and I certainly hope not.

CO: But from what you've heard from your company, there isn't a plan B.

DG: No, there isn't because that's our market. You know my company we don't ship out west. I mean we're tied just because of our location to the United States through the transportation sector, and they don't have a plan. They've got a plant in Quebec, and they service the eastern seaboard. But for us here in central Ontario and Southern Ontario, there's no plan.

CO: We're not going to find out until next week if Canada will be exempt from this tariff. And so that's a bit of a nail-biter. What is this going to be like for you? What kind of stress levels are you and the workers going to be feeling in these next few days?

DG: I can tell you that I'm feeling the stress on this, and I'm hoping this week that we've been given before he made his decision; he could have made it today, but it's going to happen next week. It gives us time to get down there and bully ourselves a little bit down there because it's going to have a big effect. A lot of the people that are recently employed at my place come from other facilities that have closed. So they've lost their jobs in manufacturing, and they're quite fortunate that they've found a job at our place. They're sitting with fingers crossed.

CO: Hoping that Mr. Trump changes his mind.

DG: Absolutely.

CO: Wow! Mr. Green, I appreciate speaking with you. Thanks.

DG: Take care.

JD: Darren Green is the President of United Steelworkers Local 5328. We reached him in Hamilton, Ontario.

[Music: Ambient]

Newfoundland lottery

Guest: Lindsay Barrett

JD: Fittingly, perhaps, Come by Chance, Newfoundland just got lucky. A group working at the oil refinery there has just won the lottery. And not just any lottery: theirs is the biggest lotto win ever in Atlantic Canada. Sixty million bucks split between thirty-one members of the Boilermakers Local 203 Union. Lindsay Barrett is one of those thirty-one. We reached him in Arnold's Cove, Newfoundland.

CO: Lindsay, big congratulations.

LINDSAY BERRETT: Thank you.

CO: Tell us how you found out that you'd hit the jackpot?

LB: Oh, we were asleep in bed; 22-minutes-after-five I think it was. I actually got a text from Sherry, and she said how does it feel to be a millionaire? And so I looked at the time, and at 5:22, no, I don't think Sherry is joking. We better check the tickets. So we checked tickets, and actually passed my phone over to my wife because I didn’t have my glasses on, and she checked them and looked at them, and she said you better wake up. And by the time then everybody was awake in the house just like Christmas morning. It ended up being unreal.

CO: Now, Sherry is the person in your group of 31 who she bought the ticket, right?

LB: Yup, she was the only female. And she's the one that was the organizer of it all, and buying the ticket and all that. She’s awesome.

CO: Sixty million dollars shared among 31 people. How much of that do you get? Do you know?

LB: A little over one-point-nine-million.

CO: A little chunk of change.

LB: Yeah, a little chunk, yeah.

CO: That will get you through the weekend.

LB: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it will; a lot more weekends.

CO: What's that going to mean for your life?

LB: Well, definitely, I don't even really believe it yet. But I’m going to be debt-free anyway that's for sure. And one of my goals I wanted to do is I wanted to buy a new boat. I already have a small boat, but I wanted something bigger, so I can take the family in comfort. And a few things like that. You know I’m going to invest it. I’m not going to go and waste my money. I'm only 48, and the wife is 44, and we've got a 20-year-old daughter. So you know it's going to fix us up good.

CO: You're all part of the same local — the Boilermakers local 203 — it's your union. And you all work at the same place. So are people leaving? Are they all quitting their jobs there?

LB: No, no, they're actually going back Monday morning. They get rest this week of now, but they're going back Monday morning, and are at the job that they're going to finish it.

CO: And are you going back to work on Monday?

LB: Yeah, I would say.

CO: How much longer do you think you'll do that?

LB: Actual work?

CO: Yes, old-fashion stuff.

LB: Yeah, old-fashion work. I'll stay on, but if there's guys with less hours and stuff like that, I'll go to the bottom of the list and let them get their hours, especially ones that weren't lucky enough to be in on the draw. And just give them extra hours, right?

CO: You're in a community very small, and the place where you work — Come By Chance, Newfoundland — it's not very big; we’re talking about hundreds and maybe thousands of people. How is that going to change your community that so many of you are now millionaires?

LB: Well right now, I live right next door to the Come By Chance refinery. Actually, four of us are right in the immediate area. The rest of the guys live in Avondale and out around Holyrood and out that way. So that's an hour-and a-half drive — hour’s drive from here. It’s great because right now the economy the way it is, and it will certainly help out a lot of people I'm sure.

CO: Do you think people will stay?

LB: You mean in Newfoundland?

CO: Yeah no, stay where you are; stay in your community around Avondale or Come By Chance?

LB: Oh yes, I’m sure they will. That’s their home, so.

CO: And if any of you find that boat that you want, what are you going to name it?

LB: I don't know. I'm not sure. We were talking about actually better two hours ago, when my buddies were here.

CO: What were some of the ideas?

LB: Probably “Lucky Strike”. I’m not sure.

CO: I think that would be suitable. You know I just want tell you that the people here it As It Happens are trying to be happy for you. But it's hard because we had 50 bucks in that on that draw. And we thought we had it. And so we just got some free plays out of that. We're feeling a bit jealous over here. Do you feel at all sorry for us?

LB: Oh, I do feel for sorry for you. But that’s the luck of the draw.

CO: It sure is.

LB: It was nice that it was spread out for so many people. That’s the way them big jackpots should be.

CO: We were going to share it. I promise. Thanks, Lindsay. Take care.

LB: Not a problem; you too.

CO: Bye bye.

LB: Bye.

JD: And, Lindsay, if you want to spread it out amongst a few more people, were here.

Back To Top »

Part two: Putin nuke speech, lioness mane

Putin nuke speech

Guest: Daryl Kimball

JD: "No one listened to us. Listen to us now." With those words, Russian President Vladimir Putin was no doubt trying to strike fear in the hearts of his supposed allies, specifically the United States. President Putin delivered a speech to his nation today, claiming Russia was developing new, quote, "invincible" nuclear weapons that could overcome U.S. missile defences. Daryl Kimball was definitely listening. And today, he called the announcements, quote, "dangerous and stupid". Mr. Kimball is the Director of the Arms Control Association in Washington D.C. That's where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Kimball, President Putin put a chill down more than a few spines when he said during his speech this is not a bluff. Did it spook you?

DARYL KIMBALL: We are in a nuclear age that has lasted 70 years. It is disturbing that President Putin is talking about acquiring, developing, testing, deploying more nuclear weapons capabilities. So I think this is an irresponsible boasting session today. And the United States and Russia need to get back to an adult conversation to talk about how they reduce nuclear risks, reduce nuclear tensions, and reduce the excessive arsenals that the two countries have.

CO: You tweeted today that President Putin delivered a, quote, “very good Kim Jong-un impersonation today.” What made him seem to be similar to the North Korean dictator>

DK: Well, like the North Koreans, President Putin today showed videos of some of the new capabilities that he was boasting about. You know responsible nuclear armed states don't flagrantly display their capability to wreak destruction on other countries. It was a flagrant display of their capabilities. We also have to understand that President Putin was essentially giving his major campaign address ahead of the Russian presidential election. Most of this speech was devoted to the Russian economy and society. And he added this section on nuclear capabilities at the end.

CO: But isn’t it understandable that he would inflate the rhetoric — he would go there — given the fact that as an adversary the United States, and the president there — President Trump — is using quite similar rhetoric, very bombastic rhetoric, threatening to wipe countries off the map. This kind of rhetoric is likely to get the same reaction from others, is it not?

DK: Oh, I agree completely. I mean I think that's what I mean when I say you know responsible leaders don't boast about the size and the capability and the destructive potential of their arsenals. We have to remember that Presidents Trump and Putin each possess the authority to order the launch of about 800 nuclear warheads each. And those weapons would arrive in 30 minutes, and there's no one else in their governments that can veto that decision. So these two guys have enormous power. They need to be more responsible in the way they talk about that power. The other thing I would just add is that President Putin's comments and President Trump's comments send the wrong message to somebody like Kim Jong-un.

CO: Was it just escalating rhetoric that we heard from Mr. Putin today? Or is he suggesting that he is escalating the actual arms race? He mentioned some specific weapons — nuclear-powered — weapons that could go great distances, could move in ways that could be less likely to be detected, and can do an extraordinary amount of damage. What do we make of that? Can you explain what weapons he's talking about?

DK: Well, he mentioned four different weapons systems. Some of which was known about that Russia has been developing them. He mentioned a new heavy ICBM — an intercontinental ballistic missile — that can carry nuclear warheads. This will replace an older Cold War system. Another system that he mentioned was a nuclear-propelled cruise missile. A cruise missile flies at lower altitude, it's maneuverable, it can evade missile interceptors. The third thing that he mentioned is — and I think this is one of the most disturbing — a nuclear-armed underwater drone that can travel long distances and travel at high speeds. Neither the United States, nor Russia, or any other nuclear armed country has a nuclear-armed underwater drone. So the Russians are developing this. They have not produced it or deployed it. But this is the kind of system that would hit a harbour. This is a weapon system that would have catastrophic destructive potential. It would hit civilian populations.

CO: We were supposed to be going in the other direction, weren't we? It's not just that it's that nothing has improved, but that it's, as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, warns as we're closer to midnight on the Doomsday Clock.

DK: Well, you're right. We are closer to midnight than we've been in many, many years. I think for two reasons: one is there are more countries today that have nuclear weapons than during the Cold War years. There are more nuclear flashpoints. There's India and Pakistan. There is the threat of a conflict in the Korean peninsula that would go nuclear if there were shots fired across the DMZ. There is the U.S.-Russia rivalry. There is the possibility of a flare up over the South China Sea between China and perhaps the United States. The other reason why nuclear risks I think are higher today is some of the agreements and the methods for reducing nuclear weapons arsenals and numbers are at risk. So one thing I would just note is that the one treaty that does exist today between the United States and Russia that limits their strategic nuclear arsenals — their long range systems — the New START treaty — is working. But it will expire in three years. The United States has not made a decision about whether it wants to extend the treaty. And so if that treaty is allowed to expire, we would for the first time since 1972, not have legal limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. And the risk of a real arms race would be very real. It's necessary to reduce the risks today.

CO: You're saying all this is necessary, and you're also saying that we're not dealing with grownups here. I mean this kind of rhetoric is not what mature heads of states, especially heads a superpower say. They're jostling. Are we all supposed to just sit back and let these guys threaten each other and duke it out, and perhaps get us even closer to midnight? Or do other countries need to step in and say hold the phone?

DK: I think we're in a new world in which new leaders will have to step forward with some new ideas. And they're going to have to encourage Presidents Putin and Trump to talk with one another in a more serious and pragmatic way.

CO: Do you think there's anything Canada should or could be doing?

DK: Well, I think Canada has a long tradition of supporting nuclear risk reduction and disarmament. Canada's Foreign Minister has played an important role in trying to bring about a solution to the Korea crisis. I think Canada can play a more significant role, along with countries like Germany, and Sweden, and Japan, and Australia that have had a long record supporting a ban on nuclear testing, nuclear non-proliferation, and nuclear weapons reductions.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Kimball, I appreciate speaking with you, though it's very depressing and worrisome. But thank you.

DK: Thank you. Bye bye.

JD: Daryl Kimball is the director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. That's where we reached him. For more on this, go to our website. We have an extended story there: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Newsy ambient tune]

Listener Response: Prison farms

JD: Cows outside of Kingston, Ontario will soon be happily munching on their straw in prison. As you heard on the show last night, prison farms are opening back up. The federal budget pledged 4 million dollars to re-open the farms at Joyceville and Collins Bay federal penitentiaries. When the Harper government closed them a decade ago, officials said it was because they weren't effective in rehabilitating inmates. Diane Suter from Smithers, B.C. disagrees with that reasoning. She sent us this email, quote, "My late father grew up on a farm in southeast Ohio. It was 100 hilly acres near the Ohio River valley. There was no way any of the kids would be able to take over that farm and raise another generation on it. "Instead, Dad went to a 2-year business school. And he got his first bookkeeping job with the National Biscuit Company because — so said the guy who hired him — a young man who grew up on a farm would be used to getting up early and working hard. "And he and my mom raised two kids on that job. I can't imagine anyone could really believe working on a farm doesn't teach you how to do lots of jobs. I'm glad the prison farms are coming back." Well, thank you, Ms. Suter for sharing your thoughts. And if you would like to comment on anything you hear on the program, we are on Twitter and Facebook, both of those accounts @cbcasithappens. Our email is aih@cbc.ca. And you can call 416-205-5687.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Lioness mane

Guest: Jennifer d’Agostino

JD: Bridget is finally letting her hair down. And no one expected it. Bridget is the senior lion in the pride of lions at the Oklahoma City Zoo. And lately, she's been getting a lot of attention for her lush new mane. Yes, I said "her mane", because Bridget, as you might assume, is a lioness — and she's grown a beard. Dr. Jennifer d'Agostino is the Director of Veterinary Services at the zoo.

CO: Dr. d’Agostino, how is Bridget doing with this beard?

JENNIFER D’AGOSTINO: Well Bridget — our African lion here at the Oklahoma City Zoo — is doing actually quite fantastic. She is in very good health for an 18-year-old girl — doesn't really seem to even be bothered that she has a little bit extra hair around her chin and her neck area.

CO: When you say a little bit extra hair, can you describe what she looks like?

JD: Well, it's sort of like she's growing a bit of what we're calling it a “mini mane”. She has sort of a beard almost, a lot of extra hair around her neck area and under her chin, and sort of going up a little bit behind her head.

CO: And have you seen this before where a lioness grows a beard like this before?

JD: We personally have not seen this condition before. This is definitely new to us. Since this story has come out and we've been talking with a lot of our colleagues, there apparently is a few other instances out there where folks have seen something similar in African lions. There has been a report that there were a few lions potentially in the wild, actually in Botswana. Of course, they’re wild animals. Nobody was really able to get their hands on them to try to figure out what the condition was or what was going on with those animals. But there have been a couple of other instances with lions here in the United States under human care that have potentially grown a similar amount of abnormal hair like our female is doing. And so we're kind of starting to consult with those folks and see if they found anything that could be an answer to why this might be happening.

CO: When did you first spot the hair growth on Bridget?

JD: Well, we really noticed something was very off towards the end of last year — towards the end of 2017. So in March — towards the beginning of the year — she looked completely normal. Around November — around Thanksgiving time — we noticed that the hair was actually getting really quite thick, and was definitely something that was abnormal. So at that point in time, we started some discussions on what we could do to try to investigate the problem further.

CO: And you call the problem a condition. You're convinced that this is something's wrong with her?

JD: Yes. So normally, only the male lion will develop a mane, or the excess hair around the head. And the neck and that is due to the higher level of testosterone that they have in their system that develops those secondary gender characteristics. Typically, that doesn't occur in a female. So when we saw this happening in Bridget, we certainly thought maybe she has an extra high testosterone level in her body for some reason that's actually stimulating this additional hair to grow. Sort of like it would in a male developing a mane.

CO: Has she had babies? Has she had a litter?

JD: She actually has. Back, in November 2007, she had a litter. They were perfectly normal and healthy. And so she did everything fine in that regard. So she definitely had normal fertility as a female.

CO: So she had, or has normal ovaries. And so what would create the testosterone in her? Can you give us a sense of why she would end up producing testosterone?

JD: So we have a few ideas of what could be going on. Given her age, which is becoming an advanced age for a lion, we think that there could potentially be some sort of small benign mass or tumor in either her adrenal gland, her ovaries, or possibly even her pituitary gland. And sometimes, when those abnormal masses will grow they can actually secrete hormone abnormally. So she could have a small, little benign tumor somewhere that's actually secreting testosterone.

CO: Is it possible that this is more common than we know? Given that there may be other female lions who develop this later in life?

JD: Absolutely. I think it's just you know since we've started talking with our colleagues, I definitely think it could be more common than then what we realize. We're hoping that with some blood testing in and things we can actually try to pinpoint exactly what's going on, so that we can learn from that, and share that information with our colleagues caring for these animals.

CO: Now, for instance, you are getting reports from other other zoos — other people — who study and watch lions. And they are telling you yes that they have seen this before. Have there been any studies of lions in the wild who develop the beards?

JD: There has not. To our knowledge, we have talked with a couple of the foremost researchers of lions that work with these animals in the wild. And to our knowledge, there has not been any sort of study done to look at the cause of these. So I think with the animals that we have here under our care, this would be a good opportunity to learn and potentially translate that information to animals in the wild, and see if it's something that is similarly happening.

CO: And if not, is it possible that this is a condition that develops in captivity?

JD: It's possible. I think it definitely would be more related to just the age. I mean it's pretty unusual for a lion to reach the age of 18 in the wild. It just doesn't typically happen. They certainly live a much longer life under human care. So if that were the case where it was something that we see only in animals under human care, it's probably going to be a function of a relation to age.

CO: And any concerns that this might develop if it is some kind of a growth that she has a larger problem?

JD: At this point, I don't think that there is going to be any sort of risk to her health or condition. You know it's most likely, as I said, a benign condition. They typically are very small masses. They can certainly grow, and sometimes they can develop into a malignant type of tumor. So that's something that we want to keep our eye on. But at this point, her behavior is completely normal. Her health is otherwise normal. So I think this is just sort of an incidental finding and something that makes her look a little bit different, but ultimately is not going to affect her health at all.

CO: And the testosterone is not making her more aggressive or changing her behavior?

JD: Nope. At this point, that's something we definitely are keeping our eye on. But she has not had any changes in behaviour at this point. Everything seems to be perfectly normal, other than her slightly modified appearance.

CO: How are the other lions in the pride reacting to Bridget’s beard?

JD: Everybody seems to be tolerating it just fine. We haven't noticed any changes in the social structure or the behavior of the Pride.

CO: Taking it in stride.

JD: Yes.

CO: Dr. d'Agostino, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JD: Well, thank you so much. We appreciate it.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Bye bye.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Dr. Jennifer a'Agostino is the Director of Veterinary Services at the Oklahoma City Zoo. And that is where we reached her. And that is also where you can see Bridget and her main. Or if you don't happen to be in Oklahoma City, you could just go to our website, or Twitter. We've posted photos there.

[Music: Jazz]

Donald Glover

Actor Donald Glover was on “The Late Show” last night, promoting the new season of his TV show “Atlanta”. But then about halfway through the interview, Stephen Colbert shifted the conversation as Mr. Glover about his music, which he creates under the alias Childish Gambino. In particular, Mr. Colbert was curious about a viral video of a young Childish Gambino fan who had recently remixed one of his songs to help sell Girl Scout cookies.

SOUNDCLIP

STEPHEN COLBERT: She used your song “Redbone” to try to sell some of her Girl Scout cookies. Do we have this, Jim?

[Sound: A girl spoofing “Redbone by Childish Gambino]

SC: So when you see that, that's impact. That’s changing people's lives.

DONALD GLOVER: Childish Gambino is for the Children, man.

SC: So what do you think when you see something like that?

DG: It’s beautiful. But it’s also crazy to me like I was like yeah man, I never was like I'll make this and then one day, a little girl will sell Girl Scout cookies to it. It’s pretty great. I don’t know, like a lot of people sent that to me; I was really touched, especially that they’re from Atlanta. It’s beautiful.

SC: Does it make you hungry for Girl Scout cookies?

DG: Yeah, I would actually really like to buy some from her. Like, I really do.

SC: Well, you're in luck because her name is Charity Joy, and she's right here. Come on out.

DG: Hello, how are you?

SC: Hi, Charity. Thanks so much for being here. This is her dad, Seymour.

SEYMOUR HARRISON: Yes sir.

SC: Seymour, thanks so much for being here. Seymour and Charity Joy Harrison. Now Charity, are you a big fan of Donald Glover’s?

CHARITY JOY HARRISON: Yes.

SC: Yeah, so I see what did you bring for him over there?

CJH: Girl Scout cookies

SC: It’s the order form for the Girl Scout cookies. What are you thinking getting over there, Donald?

DG: Well, it says my cookie goal is 113,

SC: Her cookie goal is 113; she needs to get 113 more cookie orders?

DG: Yeah, I'll take them all. You know what? I’ll take them all.

JD: That was actor Donald Glover on “The Late Show” last night buying, 113 boxes of Girl Scout cookies from one of his biggest — and most enterprising — fans.

Back To Top »

Part three: Atwal: Conservative, Saskatchewan legislature protest

Atwal: Conservative

Guest: Jim Eglinski

JD: In Ottawa today, everyone seemed to have questions for Daniel Jean. Mr. Jean is the Prime Minister's national security adviser. And Conservative MPs say he's the one who first told reporters that "rogue elements" in the Indian government might have had a roll in that recent diplomatic debacle — the one involving the convicted attempted murderer Jaspal Atwal, and his invitation to a reception with the prime minister. The Liberals voted down a Conservative motion to have Mr. Jean appear before committee. That left reporters scrambling after Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale for some answers.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Rouge elements and the MP could both be involved in this man’s attendance, is that what you’re saying?

RALPH GOODALE: That's what a number of people have speculated.

REPORTER: But what are you saying?

RG: Look, that's the point. I'm not speculating, because that is contrary to best serving the responsibilities that I have to discharge.

REPORTER: Then why would a government official opt to tell the media that?

RG: Look, when a public official makes comments, especially one from a diplomatic background, and from a background that involves national security and public safety.

REPORTER: It makes it look like he's doing an apology job for you guys.

RG: No, look, a public official — when they when they engage in providing information, offering advice presenting, information — is motivated by one thing only, and that is serving the public interest of Canada.

REPORTER: But the Prime Minister's Office facilitated that conversation with journalists that day.

RG: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever.

JD: That was Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, speaking to reporters in Ottawa. Jim Eglinski has some unanswered questions of his own. Mr. Eglinski is the Conservative MP for Yellowhead, but in 1986, he was one of the first RCMP officers to arrive on the scene after Jaspal Atwal tried to assassinate an Indian cabinet minister. We reached Mr. Eglinski in Edson, Alberta.

CO: Mr. Eglinski, what do you make of the response we hear from Ralph Goodale about what role that the government played or didn't play in this conspiracy theory?

JIM EGLINSKI: Well, what he said this morning or afternoon he's trying to defend the government in the best way. But you know the way I look at this whole situation dealing with Mr. Jaspal Atwal is that Mr. Atwal is well-known in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We have Members of Parliament from the lower mainland who are of Indian descent, who are traveling with the prime minister to India, who invite Jaspal Atwal to a major function in India. Knowing fully well his background and that at one time, he attempted to murder an Indian Member of Parliament in Canada. And to put their party in that position really shocks me.

CO: I know that you have a personal connection to Jaspal Atwal, and that 30 years ago, you were the one who tracked him down after he attempted to assassinate this Indian cabinet minister. And you were the one who finally arrested him. So you have known him for decades.

JE: Well, not me personally, but our team. I mean we work in a team at Whistler and in those rural Vancouver Island detachments. It was the whole group of us on the island that were able to make that arrest and stop Mr. Atwal.

CO: And so when you heard that he was possibly going to attend a dinner till he was found out. And in India, and that he had posed for photographs with the prime minister's wife. What went through your mind?

JE: Well, I think at first, I was a little bit shocked and then appalled that why would they have him at a state dinner for what he's done in the past? I mean prior to him trying to do the attempt murder to Mr Sidu, he had tried to beat our former premier in an underground parking lot. He was charged, and I don't think he was ever convicted of that. But they know his background…

CO: But he didn't attend, did he?

JE: No, they took the photo ops. I mean he's sitting there in a photo and the prime minister's wife with him. Why would they put themselves in that position?

CO: The controversy now is that there's this person, Daniel Jean, a diplomat, a public safety adviser, who’s a civil servant. Who has said to reporters that he believes that it's possible that rogue elements within the Indian government set them up; that actually were responsible for getting MR. Atwal into these events. That's the issue here.

JE: Do you really think that’s the issue? The issue is the Defence Minister, who's a former police officer, is of East Indian descent, is a former intelligence officer with the military when he was in the reserve services; he's a Member of Parliament from the lower mainland. The other gentleman that said I'm sorry for inviting him is an East Indian member. Do you think the blame is on a public service official? Or is it on the people — the senior leadership of our government — who invited this person to attend? And it's the responsibility of the different ministers within this government to protect Canadians and to protect the prime minister, and they failed miserably.

CO: What Daniel Jean was telling reporters — and this is well-known — that many people within the Indian government in India have a real problem with Canada. They think that Canada and our government is soft on Sikh separatism and Sikh extremism. And they were attempting to keep Canada's prime minister from getting too cozy with India's prime minister. What do you say to that?

JE: Well, that's speculation. And I can't comment on the speculation because I do not have the circumstances around there. The only circumstances I do know is that there's two prominent Members of Parliament from the Liberal Party. One who's a senior minister, who knows Mr. Atwal. Why was he there? He should have been vetted ever before that happened.

CO: But again, it's this idea that the Indian government is very concerned that Canada is soft on Sikh separatism and terrorism. And they include in their criticism the RCMP, of which you were part. And that you got your man, there are a lot of cases that have never been solved, including the biggest terrorist act on Canadian soil: the Air India bombings. So they have a real issue with Canada, and with our police and our and our security apparatus. Do you appreciate that?

JE: I appreciate that. And I would appreciate if the government would appreciate it. And be careful in who they take with them, or invite to their state dinners in the country that they know we have difficult relationships with.

CO: We need more details, don't we?

JE: Yes.

CO: And maybe that's I guess what they're asking today is if Daniel Jean — the person who made the made the statements — could be before some kind of a panel and answer the questions.

JE: That's right. That's what was asked. We need to have some questions answered.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr. Eglinski, I appreciate your contribution. Thank you.

JE: All right. Bye bye.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Jim Eglinski is a Conservative Member of Parliament. We reached him in Edson, Alberta.

[Music: Ambient]

Halifax police checks

JD: Carding. Street checks. Whatever you call them, Robyn Atwell wants them to stop. Last year, a CBC investigation found black Haligonians are three times more likely than white to be street checked. A street check, in case it’s not the vernacular you know, is, of course, when a police officer stops someone in the street, or in their car just to check their I.D. Robyn Atwell is, herself, a Sergeant with the Halifax Regional Police. She's black, herself. And she has sent letters to — among others — the mayor of Halifax, the Premier, the Minister of Justice, and the Chief of Police of Halifax, calling for a moratorium on such stops. She told CBC Halifax's Phlis McGregor why she thinks they need to check the checking.

SOUNDCLIP

ROBYN ATWELL: We can do policing without targeting one specific group within the population, you know? I feel it's bad policy. Nothing's coming out of it except negativity. At the same point, they continue with it. We're supposed to protect when we put on the uniform — protect and serve. But help protect the community. And here it's obvious that my community — our community — is being targeted.

PHLIS MCGREGOR: Why do you think the people who you work with — your fellow officers — why do you think they're street checking three times more quote/unquote “black people” than non-black people, or Caucasians?

RA: Obviously, there's an issue where black people are being checked because they're black. You know they say conscious or unconscious racism, or biases, whatever. But at the end of the day, for whatever reason, you know this is why we're asking for a moratorium because our community is being subjected unfairly to this treatment. And we have to keep pushing — keep working — to get this practice removed. Because I truly believe — and like a lot of us — that it's a violation of Charter rights. I keep going back to bad policy. What's the fruit from this policy? It's all negative.

JD: That was Halifax police Sergeant Robyn Atwell. She has called for a moratorium on police street checks in the city of Halifax.

[Music: Violin]

Saskatchewan legislature protest

Guest: Richelle Dubois

JD: Yesterday afternoon, a group of people from Regina's Indigenous community began setting up a camp in front of Saskatchewan's legislature. And they made sure it was sturdy — because they may be staying there for some time. The camp is called "Justice for our Stolen Children." Richelle Dubois is one of the people at the camp. And that's where we reached her.

CO: Richelle, can you describe the scene where you are right now?

RICHELLE DUBOIS: We got four tents up, a teepi ready to get put up, lots of food that has been coming in from people passing by and just bringing us coffee, and snacks, blankets, anything that we need.

CO: What is it you want Canadians to understand about why you're there? Why you've set this camp up?

RD: Well, we want justice for our stolen children. And we came up with that name because everybody is somebody's child. Nobody should have to bury their children. What do we want to get out of this? What is justice? I don't know what that looks like; I've never seen it. I'm not seeing it with other cases around me. I think for the government officials — parliament, provincial, federal FSIN, AFN — to listen to the people, listen to our voices across Canada. I think if more cities band together and we communicate, they can't ignore us. And from the feeling I'm getting here, there's a lot of stories.

CO: And you have a story that you're telling there too about your son, Haven.

RD: Yes, my Son, Haven, passed away May 20^th, 2015 on the east side of Regina, Saskatchewan, in the Pilot Butte Creek. In the morning, I got a call, a kid has brought his sweater to my house, and Haven was nowhere to be found. I called a school; I was at work. I raced home; went to the school. About half-an-hour to an hour later, I found my son in a creek that is roughly three feet deep. My son was a 14-year-old, just two weeks shy of 15. He was a swimmer; he swam for years. He does know how to swim.

CO: And the coroner ruled it an accident?

RD: Yes. Coroner ruled it an accident. The police had determined it was not suspicious before I even got home from the hospital.

CO: And you want answers to that?

RD: I want answers. I want answers. The coroner changed the coroner's report — they changed four things in the coroner's report. They took out marijuana being a significant contributing factor. They took out that he vomited. They took it how he was found; they said he was found face down. Well, I found him; he was not first down. They never took a statement from me, and they had an anonymous letter in the corner’s final report. I don't know how an anonymous letter makes it into a final report? It would never stand up in court, so why would it stand up in a coroner's report? And to me, that proves that an adequate investigation was not done. I’ve done everything they said that you're supposed to do when you don't agree with them, filed my complaints, and all the parts of the system, went to the Minister of Justice, went to the RPS, went to the Police Complaints Commissioner, my son's case is right now at the final stages of the Ombudsman. So I am waiting to find out what her final decision is. I'm not prepared to throw all my eggs in one basket. So I'm here to keep bringing awareness. We’re treaty Indians; the Queen is supposed to protect us. Where is our protection? Whereas my son's protection? My son, Haven Dubois, deserves justice. He deserves not to have his name pulled through the mud. And that is not who he is how they made him sound when my son passed away.

CO: I'm so sorry about what happened to your son. It's just tragic. And you deserve answers. How many other people in that camp with you now — you said everyone has a story — how many others are trying to get answers about the deaths of loved ones?

RD: There’s no number. There’s no number. I have started a book of visitors that have been stopping in since we set up camp. We have some boards that they write their concerns — their injustices — and put up pictures if they like of memories of the loved ones that they've lost to the system. And let them be heard.

CO: How long do you plan to stay?

RD: As long as it takes. I'm hearing people are tired and sick of the way the system has been treating us. How long do we sit back and take it? We've got to do it peacefully, I believe, and with love in our hearts, and open minds, and willing to listen to each other.

CO: Richelle, we're listening. And I really appreciate you telling us the story, and telling us about Haven today. Thank you.

RD: Thank you very much for taking the time, and reporting about my son. I miss him every day. And I do this for my son, and any other mother out there that has lost her own child. Nobody should have to bury your children. And everybody is somebody’s children. Each and every one of us has a mother and father.

CO: I hear you. Richelle, thank you.

RD: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

RD: Bye.

JD: We reached Richelle Dubois in Regina, at the “Justice for our Stolen Children” camp in front of the Saskatchewan legislature.

[Music: Ambient]

WCBA promo

JD: In recent months, allegations related to the #MeToo movment have targeted and toppled many powerful men. People Harvey Weinstein. But the story has moved well beyond Hollywood. This weekend, the CBC program "White Coat, Black Art" looks at the #MeToo movement in medicine. The program heard from dozens of female doctors-in-training, who shared stories of being harassed, abused, and even assaulted by higher-ups. One student told host Dr. Brian Goldman that after she asked for an extension on a deadline, she and her mentor went out socially. And afterward, he violently assaulted her.

SOUNDCLIP

GUEST: He dropped me off, and then he followed me from his vehicle into my apartment. And yeah, I remember him asking let me just come in. And I was like no, no, no, and you know this is where that whole question of consent when you're drinking comes in. Like, I really don't think that I had the ability to consent at that point. And I think that he knew his intentions from the very beginning. I think I was very naive to that. And I am the first to admit that. But at the same time, yeah, I don't think that what happened should have happened regardless. So he assaulted me, and I didn't know what to do.

BRIAN GOLDMAN: I've certainly got my theories, but I want to know from your perspective what you think it is about the culture of medicine that makes it so hard for people inside the system to speak up?

GUEST: It's been kept silent for so long, so no one else knows that this is going on. Subsequently, this culture of silence perpetuates itself. And there's also fear of reprisal, right? As a medical professional, to go through all this, and to potentially have your name on documents, and potentially have to take on supervisors and people that are some of them world-class in their field, it's a huge ordeal. And people don't necessarily want to believe that this person is capable of that. And so this is not an uncommon event in medicine. We do such a poor job of recognizing issues like sexual assault, like wellness. That if these things aren't brought to the forefront, you know we'll just keep on silencing them.

JD: You can hear more on the #MeToo movement in medicine this Saturday at 1:00 pm on CBC Radio One, or on Sunday after “The World This Weekend”, on “White Coat Black Art”.

[Music: Ambient]

Onion sewage

JD: It sounded like this story was full of excrement. I mean, it was about excrement, but I also mean that you probably laughed at it and said, "what a load of excrement!" But the thing is, it was partly true. This week, a major website published an article with the headline, "Cleveland Finishes Construction On New Elevated Sewer System". It detailed the city's new, quote, "one-of-a-kind open-air wastewater transportation system", which would, quote, "Move an estimated 90 billion gallons of raw sewage across the city each year." And it quoted Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, who mused, quote, "Clevelanders will be able to look up at these spectacular overhead canals carrying away their bodily waste and think, 'This is my city'." Unquote. But that major website was The Onion, a humour website that makes satirical points by making up outlandish premises. In this case, the satirical point: Cleveland is gross. The outlandish premise: Cleveland has an elevated sewer system. Thing is, Cleveland does kind of have an elevated sewer system. Unlike the one in the Onion piece, it does not send "thousands of tons of excrement...flowing through crisscrossing series of open ducts now running above all major streets." But two elevated sewers do extend across the Cuyahoga River, about twelve metres up. One's been there since the 1930s — the other since the late '80s. So the joke went beyond a joke decades ago. And apparently, these raised sewage pipes are marvels of engineering. Doesn't mean The Onion article isn't funny. Just means it's sort of true. And if you wrote it, you may be kicking yourself for not doing your research. But hey, excrement happens.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 1, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This