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 7, 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: Talks on toxin. Investigators say it was a nerve agent that left a former Russian spy clinging to life in a British hospital. Tonight, an expert tells us how such poisons are administered, and who might be responsible.

JD: Rabbit in the spotlight. An Edmonton couple gets some vindication, after a court rules the Children's Aid Society was wrong to take their foster children away because of a dispute over the Easter Bunny.

CO: Omission accomplished. Well, not yet. But days after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested every country would be subject to his new tariffs, his Press Secretary suggests Canada and Mexico might qualify for exemptions.

JD: Coming full-circle. After anarchist vandals do serious business to his business, a Hamilton, Ontario doughnut maker reopens with a new flavour — complete with “candied glass shards”.

CO: Time to cut to the chassis. After several years, the city of Vancouver is driven to sell off a work of art sitting next to an overpass: an 11-tonne sculpture that consists of an old tree and a stack of old cars.

JD: And… creature discomforts. In a timely diatribe, a British tabloid newspaper gets out the torches for what it calls “snowflake students” — because of their sympathetic view toward… Frankenstein's monster.

JD: As It Happens the Wednesday edition. Radio that guesses some papers think reading their audience is more important than reading a book.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: Nerve agent, Easter Bunny: CAS, Frankenstein headline

Nerve agent

Guest: Hamish DeBretton Gordon

JD: Sergei Skripal was the victim of a targeted nerve agent attack. This is the latest revelation from British authorities investigating the poisoning case. It began on Sunday when the former Russian spy, and his daughter Yulia, were found slumped on a public bench in Salisbury. The police officer who first attended them on Sunday is now also seriously ill in hospital. Investigators say that they are now treating this as a case of attempted murder. Hamish DeBretton Gordon is a former commanding officer at the UK's chemical, biological, and nuclear regiment. We reached him in Abu Dhabi.

CO: Mr. DeBretton Gordon, what does it say to you that Sergei Skripal was poisoned with a nerve agent?

HAMISH DEBRETTON GORDON: Well, I think, first of all, it's quite shocking. Nerve agents and not something you can knock up in your back shed. The cult in Japan who poisoned the underground in 1996 took two years and several million dollars to make very small amounts of the nerve agent sarin. So I think, first of all, this hints that it's probably from a state-run facility that has made this and delivered it. And I think that is the key thing. I think the other thing is that, hopefully, Porton Down have identified exactly what nerve agent it is, so that they can treat what is I think three people now injured. And, hopefully, give them the best chance of survival.

CO: So there's Sergei Skripal, his daughter, Yuliya, and there is a police officer who responded to the scene who is in critical condition as well. How is it administered? How do people get this substance into them? Is it something you inhale? Something that you ingest?

HDG: Well, it's very difficult to say. And I expect that's what the police are looking at at the moment. Usually, when these chemical weapons delivered, it’s either ingested through the skin or inhaled or even swallowed, so one doesn't know. Usually, they're fatal very, very quickly. The fact that at the moment these people are still living is a positive, which suggests maybe they had a smaller dose. So the nerve agent used is either very old or lost some toxicity. There’s many, many unanswered questions. At the moment the only thing I can say is that these people are probably in the best place in the world being only a few miles from Porton Down — one of the leading toxicology labs in the world — and also one of the leading places for medical countermeasures for this type of thing.

CO: Would somebody have to know what they're doing? This is the same thing we went through when we were trying to understand what happened to Alexander Litvinenko; he was another Russian spy who was that was poisoned with, in that case, radioactive polonium. And it was apparently in his tea in the restaurant he was in. Do you have to know what you're doing? Or can anybody who is trying to get at a target know how to handle this little bit of instruction?

HDG: No, you really need to know what you're doing. There was I'm sure you remember that last year, Kim Jong-nam was assassinated in Kuala Lumpur with the nerve agent VX. And the two people who allegedly did it weren't injured by it. And I think they must be well trained. You can't handle nerve agents unless you know what you’re doing. So I think this again points towards a very professional attack here. And you know a lot of the circumstantial evidence is pointing towards Russia or perhaps some other state that has conducted this. And you know that would fit in.

CO: And would you need to smuggle it into the UK, or is it something that could be obtained in Britain?

HDG: I don't think you could obtain it in Britain, no absolutely it would need to be smuggled in. There are very few places it's available. I suppose the one area of concern North Korea we know has vast quantities of nerve agents, whether they would be prepared to sell it to people who knows? But I expect it’s smuggled in. I expect it was a very small quantity. I mean we’re probably talking milliliters you know possibly half-a-litre at most, which wouldn't be difficult to smuggle into any country.

CO: But now that the police — the authorities — are warning of a possible public health issue. They're saying to anybody who was in that area near these restaurants and shops where they were found that anyone who’s feeling unwell who was in that area should report immediately to a hospital. What are the public health issues here?

HDG: Well, I expect they are minimal. But quite rightly, the authorities are not taking any risks. There is always a secondary contamination issue with nerve agents. And the work I've done in Syria, where nerve agents have been used, sadly, our hospitals at the Union of Syrian Medical Charities, who have treated sarin victims — that's the nerve agent us in Ghouta for 2013 and Khan Shaykhun in 2017 — Some of our first responders and doctors did become ill and, sadly, some of them died. I think the key thing is — and they’re absolutely right — if anybody does feel unwell, they should report to medical staff because there are very effective countermeasures for nerve agents that will provide effective treatment if people go in a timely manner. If it is left then, that's where it becomes more dangerous.

CO: And what about the police officer who responded to the scene and is now in serious condition? How would he have been exposed to it?

HDG: Well, again, probably by secondary contamination, as I expect the daughter was as well. Not knowing what the agent was and what the reason, I'm sure the police officer very bravely went in to help and, sadly, would have been contaminated. Hopefully, he's being given the antidote and being treated, and you know. Hopefully, he will survive.

CO: And there are antidotes for these kinds of nerve agents?

HDG: Absolutely. There is one, which as a soldier for 23 years, I carried on virtually every operation I went on. This is very effective and carried by most soldiers throughout the world who might come across nerve agents.

CO: Mr. DeBretton Gordon, I appreciate you telling us about this. It’s very troubling, and we'll be following this story. But thank you for now.

HDG: Pleasure.

JD: Hamish DeBretton Gordon is a former commanding officer with the UK’s chemical, biological and nuclear regiment. We reached him in Abu Dhabi.

Easter Bunny: CAS

JD: They refused to tell to their foster children that the Easter Bunny was real. And for that reason, the Hamilton Children's Aid Society removed two girls — aged three and five-years-old — from Derek and Frances Baars' home. This week, an Ontario court sided with the Baars, and ruled that their Charter Rights to freedom of religion, expression and conscience were violated. We reached Derek Baars in Edmonton. And a quick warning to listeners with kids in the room: we are going to talk about the Easter Bunny and Santa.

CO: Mr. Baars, what was it like for you to learn that the courts had ruled in your favour over the Easter Bunny.

DEREK BAARS: Well, my wife, Frances, and I were very thankful for the ruling. We see it as an answer to prayer. We know that many, many people have been praying, and we're very thankful to Justice Goodman for the decision that he made. And we're very thankful to the Lord for directing it as he did.

CO: Can we just go back to how this began and when this began in early 2016? And you were in Hamilton then. How did Hamilton Children's Aid Society how did they inform you that they had a problem with the way you were caring for these foster children?

DB: They informed us in a conversation on January the 6^th, and they use the initials “S.C .” and “E. B.” to refer to these two mythical creatures. And they were very much concerned about what we would do with regard to the existence of the Easter Bunny at the time of Easter — whether we were prepared to tell the children that he had hidden chocolates for them to find.

CO: And see being in reference to Santa Claus?

DB: Yes.

CO: So they used initials when they asked you. Were the children there when they were talking to you?

DB: Yes, that is why they preceded it in that way.

CO: So they asked you and what did you say to them?

DB: We said that we had a no lying policy. We were not going to attack the belief in the creatures that the children had. It wasn't our place to do that. We wanted to respect the wishes of their biological parents, even as we were equally committed to not violating our consciences by lying to the children.

CO: Because you said that, how did Children's Aid respond? What was their action?

DB: Well, they made it abundantly clear that this was a problem. And there were a number of phone calls that happened with my wife and with our worker. And the worker was backed up by those who had authority over her. And it became clear that we had two options: either say what the agency wanted us to say. Or not say it and lose the children, and have our home shut down as a foster home.

CO: OK, so you weren't just going to lose these two girls as foster children. You would not be able to be foster parents if you didn't agree to tell the children that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus existed?

DB: That's correct. And we had we suggested a couple of compromises in terms of having the children go into respite care where the wishes of their parents could be respected. That was shut down. When we were told that these children were going to be removed, we asked if we could have toddlers and infants in our care, and that also was shut down. Nor were we permitted to care for children where their culture did not include Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

CO: Because Children’s Aid does have a policy that you're not supposed to impose your beliefs — political or religious or whatever — you’re not supposed to impose them on the children in your care. So was that the thinking behind this insistence on the Easter bunny and Santa Claus?

DB: Well, we were told that we needed to respect the beliefs of the biological parents. There would be huge Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues in terms of not imposing religious beliefs. Then my question would be would they want foster parents not to go to church or their place of worship if they had non-religious children in their care? Are the foster parents then required to abandon all of their particular values which differ from those of the children in their care? That's simply an unworkable position.

CO: Let's just go to the biological parents. There was hope that these two girls would possibly be returned at some point to their mother. Did she know about this, and have a view on it?

DB: There was not a word from the biological mother about a desire that the children be told about the Easter Bunny. We were told in January that the biological mother wanted a picture with Santa Claus. We were told by somebody from the agency. There's a communication book that goes back and forth, and that is the normal way for the biological parents and the foster parents to communicate with each other. In that communication book, there was only thinks from the biological mother as to how we had celebrated Christmas and made it a happy time for her children.

CO: And did she get the photo of the children with Santa?

DB: We were told about that in January. We did not do that. The children came into our home on the 18^th; we had one week to get them gifts — to get them the things they needed. And we would have asked their worker to get that picture with them. We were not asked to do it until afterward. And it would have violated our consciences to do that.

CO: OK, so you had no objection to someone else doing it, but you weren't going to do it with the children if that had come up?

DB: Precisely.

CO: And did the mother have any problem? Were there other issues with your care? Did the mother have problems with it? Did they have any other issues with how you were taking care of these foster girls?

DB: Neither the mother nor the agency had any other concerns whatsoever.

CO: It entirely came down to S.C. and E.B.?

DB: Yes.

CO: And so now the judge has ruled in your favour. What do you make of all this? I mean on first blush, people might find this kind of amusing. And if it didn't have so many consequences would be actually funny. What do you make of this finally?

DB: Oh, I understand the humour of it. And people have referred to The Onion and other satirical sites. I get it. We've had plenty of jokes at the expense of E.B. and S.C. as well. I might note that neither of them have been available for interview I trust. But anyway, moving forward, we're certainly hopeful that agencies will think twice before they discriminate against Christians — people of faith — people with convictions.

CO: Is that your impression that you got from Justice Goodman that these were your rights and you had you had rights to your faith if it didn't interfere with the children's well-being?

DB: He was as clear as he could be that the agency — Children's Aid Society — did violate our freedoms of expression. They were telling us what we had to say in the privacy of our home with the threat that the government would then come in and remove children from our care. So there was the issue of freedom of expression. There's also the freedom of conscience that we would be required to do something that we believed to be wrong. And then there's also the religious liberty issue — the freedom of religion that the Charter guarantees. And that also is violated. And Judge Goodman ruled that the agency violated all three of those rights in our case.

CO: Can I just ask you this: if a foster parent didn't believe in God, and felt compelled to tell children that God doesn't exist, would you support their right?

DB: That's an interesting question, and I need to do more thinking about that. I need to do more thinking about it before I speak to it.

CO: And just finally, will you become foster parents — you and your wife. You’re in Edmonton now. is that your plan?

DB: We hope to adopt children if the Lord opened its doors, and were optimistic in terms of how things are moving forward that that door will open. And we're very excited about the future.

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

DB: I thank you for your time, Carol.

JD: We reached Eric Baars in Edmonton. And we would love to hear your thoughts on this. So give us a call: 416-205-5687. Or hit us on Twitter, that account: @cbcasithappens.

Frankenstein headline

Guest: Deidre Shauna Lynch

JD: The British newspaper The Sun is known for publishing photographs of topless women, and catchy headlines like "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster." So, you know, the editors if they are checking the mailbox for Pulitzers probably shouldn’t be. But this week, the paper outdid itself. A headline read, quote: "Snowflake students claim Frankenstein's monster was 'misunderstood' and is, in fact, a VICTIM." Unquote. Deidre Shauna Lynch is a professor of Gothic literature at Harvard University. We reached her in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

CO: Deidre, did you have to read this headline a few times to make sure you weren't imagining things?

DEIDRE SHANUNA LYNCH: I'm not surprised by anything that I read in The Sun, in all honesty.

CO: “Flakensteins: snowflake students claim Frankenstein's monster was misunderstood and is, in fact, a VICTIM.”

DSL: I think that The Sun has a kind of an investment in making it seem as if young people aren't to be trusted. They might kind of be soft on crime, but there's also this total beginners mistake, which suggests that perhaps the person who wrote the story didn't actually read Shelley's novel ever. Frankenstein is the name of the mad scientist creator, and not the name of the monster. This is something that anybody who teaches the novel correct in the first five minutes of the first day of lecture.

CO: And more kind of things of that nature is that the whole characterization of the monster as being total evil — just unfeeling creature. But that's not how Mary Shelley wrote it. Can you maybe describe how it's possible that Frankenstein's monster was misunderstood?

DSL: Well, the whole centre of the novel is the monster telling his own life story to Victor. I mean and this is a life story that begins with Victor Frankenstein, who is pursuing science for reasons that have to do in part with, I think, his own ego. He succeeds in breathing new life into dead matter. He makes artificial life. His creature opens its eyes; the monster extends his hand towards his creator and Victor's responses to flee. So what the monster does when he finally catches up with his creator is he tells the story of his life as he remembers it. And he tells a story that has shaped profoundly by that initial abandonment. This is an abandoned baby, an orphan, outsider, an outcast. There are all sorts of reasons for students to feel sympathy for him. And Shelley I think quite deliberately sets up the novel so that we don't just hear Victor's story. We also hear the other side of the story. And to neglect that is to show that you don't really know very much about the form of the novel. It's to suggest that you actually only know Boris Karloff’s version of Frankenstein the monster who can't talk. And this monster can talk really well. And speaks in his own defense. And speaks in ways that suggest he wants sympathy.

CO: And there's, of course, in The Sun article, there is a picture from the movie of the monster looking not sympathetic in any possible way.

DSL: No, indeed. Yes, and very green. Yes.

CO: And then, of course, reminder that they do have this that the monster does kill people. So he's not entirely sympathetic, despite the snowflakes maybe finding him a victim.

DSL: Well, I think the novel shows that kind of responsibility for those crimes is distributed across the social world. It doesn't dismiss the crimes that it asks us to wonder whether the monster acted the way he did because he had been abandoned because he had been greeted with hatred by people who could not bear his ugliness. The centre part of the story that he tells in his own words and tells to Victor is an encounter with a blind man, who in not seeing his ugliness, actually listens to him, and does feel as if there is a possibility for fellow-feeling, which is exactly the response the monster has been denied.

CO: Hate to keep going back to this silly article, but it does fit with all the themes that The Sun often hits, which is that there's this whole idea of academic elites who are soft on crime. And snowflakes who are looking for the human rights for people who are who are serial killers, and things of that nature. But one professor even claims that the murdering monster could have been protected by human rights laws today. Is it possible that was said, and that's part of just the sort of re-launch of the anniversary issue of Frankenstein's monster?

DSL: Well, the novel is certainly interesting in the question of rights, and the monster himself keeps using the language of rights. Shelley — as a novelist — is profoundly shaped by the memory of the French Revolution, which is when the people seized their rights. So there is a way in which we can see the kind of outcast, impoverished monster as a kind of emblem of the French people who had risen up against the aristocracy. So it’s not wrong to make the connection to the language of human rights. I think that students who do that are responding to things that Shelley herself wrote in the text.

CO: Well, Mary Shelley would have been accused of being a snowflake if she were around today.

DSL: Absolutely, yeah, and probably would have been quite proud of being on the receiving end of such an accusation is my guess.

CO: Do you think there is going to be a renewed interest in Mary Shelley's novel with this anniversary?

DSL: I think the novel is everywhere in our culture. I mean we refer to Franken-foods for instance when we refer to sort of genetically modified food. So there's a way in which it’s never not been part of our culture for the last 200 years. It would be great if this silly article led people back to the novel — the text that the novel itself — as opposed to weird, inaccurate memories of the novel. I'm not sure The Sun readership would be so inclined, but there’s certainly been a lot of attention in this bicentennial year. I was just telling the students that I teach here at Harvard about a very strange mashup of Pride and Prejudice and Frankenstein called Promethus and Prejudice that was just published in the last couple of weeks where Victor Frankenstein travels to England and meets Mary Bennet, who’s been left alone at home because her elder sisters have married so successfully in the course of Jane Austen's novel.

CO: Don’t let The Sun know because it’ll turn into a story.

DSL: I know! really that would be just terrible.

CO: Deidre, it's great to talk to you. Thanks.

DSL: Okay, thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

DSL: Bye.

JD: Deidre Shauna Lynch is a professor of Gothic literature at Harvard University. We reached her in Cambridge Massachusetts.

Back To Top »

Part two: Tariffs: Bruce Heyman, Trans Am Totem

Tariffs: Bruce Heyman

Guest: Bruce Heyman

JD: The White House appears to be reconsidering the size of Donald Trump's trade war. The U.S. President, of course, has been saying all week that he'll include Canadian steel and aluminum in his upcoming tariffs. That's prompted some frantic lobbying, including a call from Justin Trudeau, which the PM described to reporters this afternoon.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I impressed upon President Trump — as I have publicly many times — the fact that imposing tariffs on steel and aluminium coming from Canada simply makes no sense. We have an incredibly well-integrated economy on steel and aluminium. The number of jobs on both sides of the border, the number of benefits on both sides of the border from the back and forth flow of aluminium both in raw materials and manufactured goods has been good for our growth, good for our economy. And I've impressed upon him that the 23,000 steel workers and the thousands of aluminium workers across this country are counting on me to continue to stand up for their jobs and their interests. I've made it very clear that moving forward; tariffs would be entirely unacceptable. Further, using the national security element as the reason for it makes no sense when Canada and the US have the closest national security collaboration of any two countries in the world. We have fought and died together in multiple World Wars in theaters around the world. We work together very closely on defense of North America and are very close NATO and Five Eyes allies. He was very clear that he was focused on moving forward on NAFTA, and felt that if we could get a good deal on NAFTA, there would be no need for tariffs. We're going to continue to both make the case against tariffs and move forward diligently to try and improve NAFTA as Canadians expect us to in a way that stands up for Canadian jobs and Canadian interests.

JD: That was Prime Minister Trudeau speaking to reporters this afternoon. And then — just moments later — Sarah Huckabee Sanders walked into the White House press room and said this.

SOUNDCLIP

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: We expect the president will sign something by the end of the week. And there are potential carve-outs for Mexico and Canada based on national security and possibly other countries as well based on that process.

REPORTER: Specifically, what would they have to do?

SHS: Again, that would be a case-by-case and country-by-country basis, but it would be determined whether or not there is a national security exemption.

JD: That was White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaking to reporters this afternoon. Bruce Hayman was the U.S. Ambassador under Barack Obama. We reached him in Chicago.

CO: Ambassador Heyman, we're just trying to digest this, but what are we to make of what Sarah Huckabee Sanders says: potential carve-outs for national security purposes?

BRUCE HEYMAN: Well, first of all, Canada should not have even been in this discussion from the very beginning. The president you know I think you know in diplomatic terms was winging it last week. This was not fully vetted within the U.S. government, had not briefed the various departments the executive branch, members of Congress didn't really know what he was about ready to do. I think much of his own staff didn't know. But he took it upon himself, made this proclamation without any details and then, of course, everybody went in scramble mode. And people started making statements of there will be no exemptions. Everybody's going to be rolled in this. And then, of course, the drumbeat of concern coming from within the Republican Party, both in Congress, both at the Defense Department and I believe the State Department saying whoa, what are you doing? This this is our best friend, our greatest ally, one of our most significant relationships in the world.

CO: But, in the meantime, how much energy is expended on this? How much dust is stirred? I mean we're in the middle of delicate rounds of negotiations on NAFTA this week. There are all kinds of issues everywhere. When this happens — when there's something that's just perhaps whimsical, perhaps just to stir the pot — how much time is wasted during these moments?

BH: Untold hours and days, emotions, dollars lost in financial markets, meetings in countries around the world thinking about what they do in terms of retaliation or response. Within the U.S. government, people drop what they're doing to run down to the West Wing to convene people to try to reorient this whole approach. And, of course, he lost his key economic advisor — my former colleague Gary Cohn — in the process. So a lot a lot of damage gets done when you don't do this in a thoughtful way.

CO: But the same time, you just mentioned your former colleague, Gary Cohn, whom you’ve worked with in the past who has left, and regarded as that free trade voice — that non-protectionist, non-nationalist voice — that was there. Losing Gary Cohn, what does that mean to the White House?

BH: OK, let me run through this because I've really reflected on this quite a bit over the last day. And well, you know Gary, and I worked together for decades, and we have some different perspectives on some policy. I do know that Gary was incredibly sophisticated in terms of his understanding of financial markets and capital markets. And so he understood the impact of certain decisions and what it would mean for currency rates and interest rates and where the markets are. Second, his deep relationships not only with business leaders in the United States and around the world, and not only Wall Street, but also heads of government, and so he was able to pick up the phone and test ideas and coalesce viewpoints around the world that bring to the White House, I think, a perspective that is really important. Third, he is he's a clear speaker. Let me put it in diplomatic terms. He would tell the emperor he had no clothes. And he would he would be very blunt in his perspective. But he's a truth teller. And so losing somebody like that is not ever good. Presidents should have truth tellers around him. And that's not always the case. And lastly, my biggest concern of all is that in the hopeful unlikely event that we have a significant financial event like we did in 2008 and 2009, we need somebody who's incredibly sophisticated and can bring people around the table together to solve problems. Gary was that person within this administration that could be there in the event of a significant financial crisis. And you know there's no body of his ability right now. And I'm hopeful that the president find somebody of like stature, but it's a big hole.

CO: But did people try to persuade Mr. Cohn not to do that? I mean given I'm sure it's very frustrating to work in that environment — as we've heard from people as they exit. But, at the same time, did people try to convince him he had a responsibility to stay given that there are so few voices like his left in the White House?

BH: I'm sure there are some. I don't know personally whether that was the case. But you know there have been a number of events over the last year that some people wondered why he is still sticking around given those events. Charlottesville is a perfect example. And I think that what he had said all along — albeit close to resigning — he felt he had a role and a duty to the country. But sometimes you know it's just a bridge too far in terms of what happens. And, obviously, at this stage of the game, whatever was the defining moment and language he’s no longer there now.

CO: And just finally, it is only Wednesday, and there still may be at least one loop of the roller coaster we still have it. Is it possible that what we heard today from Ms. Huckabee Sanders is going to be history tomorrow?

BH: It's very possible. I would tell you every day from the White House the only thing that you can count on for sure is that nothing is for sure. And so I would say that Canada and yours truly believe that Canada should be exempted. Have to continue to work every day until we get to the end and when the president makes his pronouncement. And even then, I think we all have to protect our bilateral interests. I worked every day enhancing the U.S.-Canada relationship. And I will do so in my post-ambassadorial period.

CO: We will leave it there. Ambassador Heyman. It’s good to have you on the show. Thank you.

BH: Pleasure's mine. Thank you.

JD: Bruce Heyman was the U.S. Ambassador to Canada under Barack Obama. We reached him in Chicago.

Trans Am Totem

Guest: Marcus Bowcott

JD: Normally, a five-car-pileup is not the kind of thing you want to see on your drive to work. But in Vancouver, that pileup is a work of art. The colourful stack of cars is an installation. It’s called Trans Am Totem. It's been in place for a couple of years. But those stacked vehicles can't stay parked there forever. And so, the city is trying to find them a new home. Marcus Bowcott and his wife, Helene Aspinall, designed the sculpture. We reached Mr. Bowcott in Vancouver.

CO: Marcus, what are you going to do with your Trans Am Totem?

MARCUS BOWCOTT: I'm not entirely sure right now. There's being interest from various courters, but it's too early to say that anything concrete is going to happen.

CO: This is a massive work. It's huge. Do you want to just describe it for people?

MB: It's an old growth cedar. It's about two-and-a-half metres wide at the base. It's only a partial bit of the trunk. It goes up 20-feet. And it's anchored into the ground with pylons, which you don't see. And on top of the old growth cedar, there's five cars. And they're kind of plunked on top of each other, so they're settled into each other. And they form kind of a circular spiral. And the tree trunk itself has got a spiral in it. So there is kind of a swirl to it. Your eye moves around the piece.

CO: The cars are all smooched together, right? Piled on top of each other.

MB: Yeah, Trans Am on top, BMW underneath, then it's a Honda, and then Cabriolet and then a chopped and channeled Mercedes.

CO: And how did you choose the kind of cars you're going to put into it?

MB: I knew I wanted a Trans AM. And I hunted for a Trans Am. And got one for a thousand bucks, and it had really nice mags on it. And the guy said that the mags, just themselves, were worth a thousand dollars. But the rest of the cars we went to ABC recycling, and they gave us four cars. I gave them a little maquette sculpture in return. And my wife, Helene Aspinall, and I just proceeded to tear those cars apart and reassemble them back into a column of cars.

CO: What was suitable about putting your Trans Am Totem in that location?

MB: It's very urban. It was just a chance. And it's interesting how much chance has played a role in the development of this piece. You know including the cars we got from ABC. I was with a good, old friend of mine from the Royal College of Art — a fellow named David Mack. He was nominated a few years ago for the Turner Prize. And as we were driving around, past this the spot, David said Marcus; your piece would look good there. David has a good eye. He recognized you know there's a lot of transportation infrastructure around. There are high rises. There were natural elements. There stadiums. It's very urban.

CO: This location that you can see where it is it's really very striking. It’s dramatic, isn't it? You got this little square of grass that it's on, but it's surrounded by tall towers and apartment buildings, freeways, overpasses all swirling around it. Why is that an ideal location for what you're trying to say with this piece?

MB: Well, I think it speaks of our technology and the way we're living now with our technology; that we live in an artless existence, where we're just surrounded by this technology that overwhelms us. And I think the site has got the SkyTrain; it's got the viaduct, it's got the cars underneath, there's very kind of predictable looking steel and glass towers and you know it's sort of like a spectacle.

CO: And why does this old growth cedar that's the base of it why does it fit well with that location?

MB: Well, the location used to be old growth cedars and Douglas firs. This is a mere 150-180 years ago. It was primeval forest.

CO: And so now there’s nothing of that left. You couldn't even imagine when you look at that location that was ever the case.

MB: In a sense, I'm bringing the forest back into the city in this one truncated tree. I'm just hoping to remind people that this is what was. Rick Harry of the Squamish Nation carved his greeting into the base of the tree. He's of the Bear Clan; there's a bear paw at the base of the tree. So the piece kind of reminds people of the history of the site. It was inhabited by Squamish just down at the end of the creek. It's called Kits Point now, but it was called the village of Senakw by the Squamish. So it's reminding people of what was and what is. It's you know we have this fascination with technology and cars. And we place cars and technology above nature.

CO: And now it seems that cars and transportation is going to dis-plant art because your work has to move out because of more development there. So we're back to what are you going to do with it?

MB: We're not entirely sure. There's been some interest from various people, but like I say, there's nothing concrete yet. You know it might go to Calgary, it might go to Seattle, who knows? I don't know.

CO: I hear that you may have to put it in your driveway.

MB: I got a cranky neighbour. I don’t think that'll happen.

CO: It's 10-metres high and many tonnes.

MB: Well, there's no way it's going to go on our driveway. If it had to, I'd take that car off the tree, so it would only be about 14-15 feet high. That ain’t going to happen.

CO: All right. Well, I hope you find a good place. It's a great piece, Marcus.

MB: Oh, thank you.

CO: And it is great to talk to you. Thanks.

MB: Well, thank you very much, Carol.

JD: Markus Bowcott is the artist behind Trans Am Totem, that’s a sculpture that will soon be pulling out of its current location. We reached Mr. Bowcott in Vancouver.

Utah rap

JD: According to a study conducted by Professor Trevor Cox of Salford University, this is the second-most annoying sound in the world.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A baby is crying]

JD: And this is the third-most annoying sound in the world.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Feedback from a PA]

JD: The most annoying sound, according to the study, is the sound of vomiting… You can imagine that yourself, or not. They’re all terrible sounds. But none of them, in spite of that study, is actually the worst. The worst sound was recently made by a group of adults in the state of Utah. Among them, state Representative John Knotwell, who attempted to explain to Utah Public Radio how he became part of the worst sound.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN KNOTWELL: They thought this might be something fun to do, and you know I think we played along. Sometimes other things work better I think than others, but I think that's the reason.

JD: Now, if Representative Knotwell sounds remorseful, that's natural, and it’s right. He and his colleagues in the Utah House of Representatives made an atrocious sound together, and they must all be held accountable. Right now, you're wondering what sound could be worse than retching, feedback, or shrieking babies. Nothing I say can prepare you for what you're about to hear: various Utah House representatives, explaining how a bill becomes law — by "rapping" over the theme to "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". Regrettably, they call it "Fresh Prints of Bill Here". More regrettably, it sounds like this.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: This is awful]

JD: OK, just a quick break so I can confirm that, no, no, obviously, not a single one of them is anywhere near the beat, and yes, they just try to rhyme "there" with "chaym-BARE". Back to the horror.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Whyyyyyyyyyy, Godfather!]

JD: Oh my. OK. Look, we all went through a lot just now, so I hate to mention it, but, in the video, the lyrics are put on onscreen in...Comic Sans. I'm so sorry.

Back To Top »

Part three: Pancreatic cancer study, Hamilton vandalism update

Boushie no appeal

JD: It will likely not come as a surprise. But it will be one more decision that is going to be very, very hard for Colten Boushie's family to live with. Today, Crown prosecutors in Saskatchewan announced that they will not be appealing the Gerald Stanley verdict. Last month, of course, a jury acquitted Mr. Stanley of second-degree murder, after Colten Boushie, a 22-year-old man from Red Pheasant First Nation, was shot dead on Mr. Stanley’s farm. Anthony Gerein is Saskatchewan's Assistant Deputy Attorney-General. At a press conference this afternoon, he explained the decision not to appeal the verdict. Here's part of what he said, for the record.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTHONY GEREIN: I extend every sympathy to the Boushie family as they continue to suffer the loss of their loved one. To the question of an appeal, the Crown can only appeal if the court made an error about the law alone. The Crown cannot appeal a disagreement over the facts, the interpretation of witness evidence, or because a particular perspective leads to the opinion that the verdict was unreasonable. It appears there have been some calls for an appeal simply because of the particular verdict or wishing to send a message about inclusiveness. The Criminal Code does not allow an appeal for such reasons. The question at the trial was whether or not the jury on the evidence as presented in its entirety, and on the judge's instructions was unanimously sure Mr. Stanley was guilty under the law. If there are concerns about the police investigation, those should be directed to the police. Next a few words about the jurors. There is no evidence that anything other than the trial evidence and the judge's instructions guided them to their unanimous verdict. To presume that because a jury chose a particular result, they — all 12 of them — must have acted improperly does them the greatest disservice. As to the differing views on the proper composition of juries and the reasons for those views, the subject can be debated elsewhere. I know there is much sadness over the decision not to appeal. But there can be no appeal because the law does not allow it. If you disagree with the law, debates about how the law ought to be need to happen outside the criminal courts with respectful dialogue. While we all recommit to the duty we share to participate when the justice system calls.

JD: Anthony Gerein is the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General in Saskatchewan. He announced today that Crown prosecutors will not be appealing Gerald Stanley verdict in the death of Colton Boushie.

Pancreatic cancer study

Guests: George Zogopoulos, Richard Beauchamp

JD: Pancreatic cancer is the least curable cancer. People diagnosed with the disease often are only given a few months to live. But the discovery of a gene mutation in French Canadians by doctors at McGill University Health centre offers some new hope in the way they approach treatment. Yesterday, the Terry Fox Research Institute announced new funding for a project that will lead to expanded screening for pancreatic cancer patients in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Dr. George Zogopoulos is the co-principal investigator on the project. We've reached him in Montreal. Richard Beauchamp was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2014, and he is currently one of Dr. Zogopoulos' patients. He is also in Montreal.

CO: Dr. Zogopoulos, I’m going to begin with you. Why is pancreatic cancer so difficult to treat?

GEORGE ZOGOPOULOS: I think for two reasons: one, it is diagnosed late most of the time when the cancer is very advanced, and often spread to other organs without an opportunity to cooperate and offer the patient curative surgery. The other reason is because it's such an aggressive cancer that we have not been able to find chemotherapy that works well for all of pancreatic cancer when we treat pancreatic cancer as a single disease.

CO: Now that you have identified this gene mutation in French Canadians, how does that change the course of treatment? How does that change the way you approach pancreatic cancer in these people?

GZ: Well, for us here at the McGill University Health Centre, every patient that comes in is screened for mutations in these genes. And if we do find the mutation in one of these genes, we consider this and the types of chemotherapy we chose to give patients. So we're moving towards a personalized medicine approach to treating pancreatic cancer.

CO: So being able to identify this gene mutation, being able to have this personalized treatment, what expectations can people have once they're diagnosed with pancreatic cancer?

GZ: Their expectations would be that you know they have an opportunity for a personalized medicine — what we call targeted therapies. And they may have the same clinical outcome as Richard has, which is he went from an inoperable, incurable cancer to something that was operated, and he's alive and cancer-free three-and-a-half years later.

CO: Richard, there you are on the line with us. Hello.

RICHARD BEAUCHAMP: Hello, Carol.

CO: You were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2014, is that right?

RB: Yeah, beginning of 2014, that's right.

CO: What do you remember about the day that you found out?

RB: I remembered the meeting I had with a doctor then. It was in Saint Jerome. They told me that I had some lesions that was the projection for tumours. The only hope at that time was that the tumour was not known as cancer because they had taken a biopsy. But there were great chances that it would be indeed the cancer. You know it made a little shock inside that's for sure, and that didn't last very long. But I put myself let's say in solution mode, what should I do and what should I change? That's what I worked on.

CO: But, initially, they told you that the cancer you had was inoperable, is that right?

RB: Exactly. That was written on the report that I was given that day.

CO: And what was your life expectancy that they told you at that point?

RB: Within a year. I guess more than 90 per cent don't make it through the first year I guess. And that's why I had to find someone that could make this surgery on that. And that's where I met the team of Dr. Zogopoulos.

CO: Dr. Zogopoulos, this is something you could approach with your knowledge. How did you approach Richard Beauchamp’s treatment? What was different that you could do?

GZ: What really helped with Richard is our ability to understand his cancer. We did the DNA sequencing and found that he has this genetic mutation that is passed on in his family. That gave us encouragement that the type of chemotherapy that we picked for Richard would work to control his cancer. And, hopefully, even shrink his cancer and bring him to the point where I could offer him surgery.

CO: And this is because this study you had done that located this gene mutation that is common in French Canadians — people who came to Canada from France hundreds of years ago. This is what you are able to identify as possibly the thing that could help you target this and give the personalized treatment that you eventually were able to do?

GZ: Absolutely. In fact, Richard was part of that study that showed us that approximately 8 per cent of patients with pancreas cancer that are French Canadian will have a mutation in one of these genes. We knew though that these patients that have these mutations could probably benefit from the treatment approaches the chemotherapy choices we've made.

CO: How many how many people could actually benefit from your research and your identification of this mutation?

GZ: You know anywhere between 150 to 200 patients diagnosed with pancreas cancer in Quebec would likely benefit from knowing this genetic information. So although it represents a tenth of all of diagnoses is that we make a year, these patients have very little treatment options, so even though it's only 8 per cent of patients that will benefit from this genetic test, we think these 8 per cent of patients will benefit tremendously. In the context, we're having a very difficult time fighting this cancer with our current approaches.

CO: So Richard, in 2014, when you were told you possibly had at best a year to live — you're still with us, and the secret to your treatment was in your genes — was in the history of being a Beauchamp — of being a French Canadian. What did you make of that when you learned it?

RB: You know when I look back you know I was really not thinking about negative. I've always been positive. Even with the team of Dr. Zogopoulos, I knew I was taking care by good hands. And I was working on my side to you know inside spiritually or positively. I knew that could help too. And you know both approaches made a good result I guess.

CO: And the secret was in your genes?

RB: Yeah, the genes or the treatment because right now you know I feel even better than I was before, you know?

CO: Dr. Zogopoulos, just finally, this idea — this what you call founder effect — how many other populations could you make use of this of this knowledge — of this kind of research?

GZ: So we know that this phenomena all for happens among Ashkenazi Jews, and 10 per cent of Ashkenazi Jews with a pancreas cancer diagnosis carry a mutation in one of these genes as well. So that's another example. And, in fact, the guidelines that most of us follow in the practice of oncology suggest that all Ashkenazi Jews with the pancreas cancer diagnosis be tested for mutation in one of these genes. We're advocating that the same applies for patients with a French Canadian ancestry that are diagnosed with pancreas cancer. So those are two examples. This founder effect happens in other populations as well, but they haven't been studied. What we've learned from this is that we should not just rely on research done elsewhere to adopt into our practice in Quebec and in Canada. It's very important that we do this sort of population-based genetic research in our own backyard, and not just adopt research done elsewhere because there may be specific findings in our own population.

CO: That's very interesting. Dr. Zogopoulos and Richard, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

GZ: Thank you.

RB: Thanks very much.

CO: Bye bye.

RB: Bye.

GZ: Bye now.

JD: Dr. George Zogopoulos, co-directs the Pancreatic Cancer Profiling project at McGill University Health Center. Richard Beauchamp was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2014. He is currently one of Dr. Zogopoulos’s patients. They were both in Montreal.

Derek Fildebrandt

JD: The plan was to speak about proposed MLA pay cuts. And he did. But pretty quickly, Derek Fildebrandt's news conference today shifted towards other topics — mainly, the controversies that have surrounded him recently. Mr. Fildebrant is an Independent MLA in Alberta. But he used to be part of the United Conservative Party there. Last August, he quit the UCP caucus amid a number of scandals. He said he was later told he'd be allowed to return to the party — if he didn't run in his redrawn riding in the next election. But then last month, party leader Jason Kennedy said Mr. Filderbrant would actually not be returning… at all. Here's some of what Derek Fildebrant had to say about some of that, today.

SOUNDCLIP

DEREK FILDEBRANDT: Two or three days before the leadership vote, I was given assurances in no uncertain terms that I'd be welcomed back into the caucus pretty quickly. And that the unfortunate case of the redrawing of that constituency that you know I would be the best fit for it. But, in the end, you know he would still leave it to the members to decide who the candidate would be carrying forward in that constituency. That commitment did not seem to last beyond the leadership vote, and all just speculation beyond that.

REPORTER: How does that make you feel entering the legislative assembly party without the party that you fought for and the leader that you fought for, and now you’re back by yourself?

DF: Politics is [censored]. And you know I was knocking on doors in Strathmore during the election, at the feedlot was particularly ripe in the air that day. And a constituent you know said to me as I was at his door do you smell that? I said yeah, smells like politics. And look, politics is not fair. There's no justice in it. It's not balanced. You know sometimes it’s own creature, and it’s own beast. So it is what it is. And I'm just going to do the best I can for my constituents and conservative values.

REPORTER: Do you believe the hunting charge then actually led to you not being allowed back into caucus?

DF: It's hard to say because that had happened very soon before my meeting with Jason. And in that meeting, I was informed — contrary to his earlier comments to me — that I would not be allowed to seek the nomination in my own constituency if I wish to have his support for returning to the caucus. And I was devastated by that. Ask anyone who was around me, my staff who are here. I pretty much locked myself up in my apartment with scotch for a few weeks. I didn't even pay a parking ticket I had. I didn't speak to almost anyone about anything after that. I was pretty depressed, so most of that conversation was focused on the constituency, not disclosure issues.

JD: Alberta MLA Derek Fildebrandt speaking to reporters today.

Hamilton vandalism update

Guest: Reuben Vanderwaak

JD: "We have zero tears to shed for Locke Street." That's the official response today from one of Hamilton's local anarchist groups, The Tower. The Tower say they weren't responsible for the angry mob that vandalized businesses over the weekend on Locke Street, but that they support the attacks. As we told you earlier this week, more than 30 people in balaclavas stormed the Hamilton street that is lined with these shops, cafes and restaurants on Saturday night. A shop called Donut Monster was the worst-hit of them all. Most of its windows were smashed. And owner Reuben Vanderkwaak has decided to respond in the way he knows best: with donuts. We reached Mr. Vanderkwaak in Hamilton.

CO: Rueben, I hear this weekend's anarchy on Locke Street has inspired a new dawn flavour at your shop. What have you come up with?

REUBEN VANDERWAAK: So we're making a donut that we're calling “Make Lemonade”, which is you know a take off of the horrible events that have happened and we’re you know trying to make the best of it. It's got a lemon flavour glaze, and sort of glass-like shards of lemon-flavored hard candy on top. So you know it might be a little scary to look at because it does look like glass, but it's a fun doughnut.

CO: That's a tribute to your windows at Donut Monster that got smashed. Have you got them fixed yet?

RV: Part of them have been fixed. Everything that was single-pane that was plate glass that could be cut and fixed quickly has already been repaired. And we’ll have to wait a little bit longer on the thermal glass.

CO: Now, the developments are that the Hamilton Police seem to think that this is linked to an event called “The Anarchist Book Fair” that took place in Hamilton on the weekend. And there's a group that supported that event called The Tower, and they say they didn't do it, but they support the idea of those who did it. What do you think of that?

RV: Right. I mean I'm familiar with The Tower, and you know I know people that frequent that space. You know I have friends that have that are in line with you know anarchist viewpoints. And so I mean these people aren't strangers to me. I don't condone this type of action — this type of violence as a way of speaking. And I mean I have to say I don't understand people who do. I always try to understand the viewpoint of someone who thinks differently than me, and I try to you know send in their shoes. But I just I'm having trouble with this one.

CO: Did you know the people at The Tower considered your business — people like you on Locke Street — to be part of “luxury businesses” and “bootlickers”?

RV: You know there's a lot of you know words that are used and phrasing that’s used in groups like that. You know bourgeoisie, like the rich, you know fat cat, stuff like that and I just don't feel like any of those terms apply. I mean I can't speak for the other businesses on the street. But I mean I feel victimized in an unnecessary way.

CO: And, in their statement, they say that this gentrification is what they are targeting. And that besides whatever rhetoric is evolved that, has the neighbourhood gentrified quite a bit? Are some of the poorer people in Hamilton displaced by that development?

RV: Well, I mean I think gentrification is an ongoing issue in every city. In Hamilton, in particular, there are neighbourhoods that are being actively gentrified, where you know the people that are living there and the businesses that are operating there are actively changing. And there are people that are being displaced from that area due to rising rents and you know escalating costs. Locke Street has not really undergone any recent change. It's a neighborhood that's pretty well-established that you know had high rents and high costs for a long time. So it's not anything new. So I don't know why Locke Street became a target? I mean I think there's other areas of the city where this is more apparent and much more applicable. But you know I don't think gentrification is always a negative word. I think it's a reality of society, and I don't think area's changing and evolving over time is something that's ever going to stop. It's just what do we do for the people that are being marginalized? What do we do for you know the groups that are being displaced? And I think there's ways to actively work to help those issues. But throwing rocks through windows is definitely not one of those things. Like with the “Make Lemonade” donut you know we're not just playing off of what happened and trying to capitalize on that because I know that that's what it could look like. We're taking everything we make from that donut, we're taking all the sales, and we're donating it to an organization called Indwell, which is a Hampton-based organization that for years has been working to build affordable housing for marginalized people. It's through organizations like that where we're going to actually see tangible change.

CO: You know one of the things that they said — one of the Vandals, an anonymous person — said that they went after the windows of businesses like yours because they didn't get all the way to Starbucks, which is a few blocks away. Why do you think that they went after small businesses instead of the big ones?

RV: Like donut shops like ours have a reputation for being like the poster child of gentrification. You know in a way that like Starbucks used to have and maybe still does where it's like oh, a Starbucks shows up in a neighborhood. Now you know it's changing. You know some people have this viewpoint of shops that carry that type of products that we do. That doesn't mean that the people that operate those businesses are actively working towards that. But it does make us a target just because of the type of product that we sell.

CO: If you had a chance to sit down with one of those anarchists who marched down your street on Saturday night and maybe have a coffee and a doughnut with them, what would you say to them?

RV: I would let them talk, which I'm sure they would you know if that type of situation ever arose. I mean I would want to be cautious about how that conversation might escalate. I don't want to have a shouting match with somebody. And I mean from reading the blog post that was put out there. I mean it doesn't sound like someone that has flexibility in their viewpoint. And so it might be very difficult to find common ground. But I would let them speak, and I’d want them to hear you know what are the questions? I would ask like what are the issues that you're really concerned about? And let's try to have some focus because one part about that blog post is I just really felt it was all over the map you know arguing one side, and then flipping and arguing the other side as well. Almost like there can't be a solution. And you know that's what I was reading between the lines, and that's what that person might think. When you go into an argument with the idea that there is no solution, then an argument isn't really worth having.

CO: We'll leave it there. Ruben, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

RV: Thank you very much.

JD: Ruben Vanderkwaak is the owner of Donut Monster on Locke Street in Hamilton. And that's where we reached him.

Hampstead smoking ban

JD: In Hampstead, Quebec, the places you can light up a smoke have been restricted — as is severely restricted. The town recently tabled a bylaw banning smoking in all public spaces — meaning, streets, and parks, even sidewalks. It's expected to pass within the month. William Steinberg is the mayor of Hampstead. He spoke with CBC Montreal's Shawn Apel about the reasoning behind the ban.

SOUNDCLIP

WILLIAM STEINBERG: What really motivated us is we were looking into the new marijuana legislation that's coming up, and asking ourselves how does this affect the town? And in many ways it doesn't, but the one that is does that we're concerned about is we don't want kids going around smoking joints in public places, setting a terrible example for younger kids, and also blowing second-hand smoke. But it's not just about pot. It's also about tobacco smoke. How are you going to start legislating when you say well, you can't smoke within 100 metres of somebody, and somebody walks around the corner, and they're within 100 meters of you, let's say? It's just too difficult. It's very simple to simply say not on the sidewalk, not on the street, not in the parks. It's a blanket ban in the public domain. If you see your elders smoking, it's not a good message to send. It may have been appropriate to legalize pot because of all the problems when it's a criminal offense. But nevertheless, it's not a good thing. And if people don't mind the effects, and want to enjoy joint in the privacy of their home, fine. I don't want to see them setting a bad example, especially for the kids by walking around our town smoking joints.

JD: William Steinberg is the mayor of Hampstead, Quebec. He was explaining the town's broad new smoking ban to CBC Montreal’s Shawn Apel.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 7, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This