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 October 18, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

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: Into the void. Days before Afghanistan's election an assassin kills the country's most powerful security official — a man our guest says was so essential to his Western allies that they ignored the dark secrets behind his power.

JD: Admiral restraint. With Vice Admiral Mark Norman set to be tried for allegedly leaking Cabinet secrets, the Conservatives say the Trudeau government is stonewalling and they want to see the pertinent documents.

CO: Hell to not pay. Canadian CEOs usually compete against each other, but today more than a hundred teamed up to oppose the Ontario government's scrapping of the province's basic income project.

JD: An accent waiting to happen. In the British House of Commons today, one MP found himself unable to decipher the words of his Glaswegian colleague who wouldn't stop going for brogue.

CO: A blessing in disguise. Our guest showed up in a Toronto park to celebrate the legalization of pot wearing a costume familiar to fans of the children's show Polka Dot Door — as a character he calls Tokaroo.

JD: And…One-stop chopping. A Brooklyn woman snaps a photograph of the full-sized guillotine sitting on the roof of the building across from her office and puts her neck on the line to find out why it's there. As It Happens: The Thursday Edition. Radio that guesses her approach was shoot first, axe questions later.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Afghanistan Attack, Basic Income, Tokaroo/Polkaroo

Afghanistan Attack

Guest: Matthieu Aikins

JD: Things are changing quickly in Afghanistan tonight. A Taliban assassin has gunned down the entire leadership of the country's linchpin southern province as they met with the commander of U.S. forces. Among the dead is Abdul Raziq, the Kandahar police general had been the target of repeated Taliban attacks. As a powerbroker General Raziq was considered essential by his allies — including the United States and at one point Canada. But there were also reports that the general's power had some very dark roots. Matthieu Aikins is a journalist who covered the rise of Abdul Raziq. We reached Matthieu Aikins in New York.

CO: Matthieu, as you know there have been so many failed attempts to assassinate General Abdul Raziq. How come this one was successful? How did the assassination take place?

MATTHIEU AIKINS: Well, the details are still a little unclear but it appears to be something that's happened in many other high-profile assassinations where there was an infiltrator. The initial information is saying one of the governor's bodyguards actually carried out the attack.

CO: And he was shot and heading to a helicopter, he was with members of the U.S. military?

MA: Exactly. This is a high level meeting with the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, General Austin Scott Miller. He was apparently unharmed but Abdul Raziq, the police chief, was killed, as was the spy chief of the province, Abdul Momin. And it's unclear what's happened with the governor Zalmai Wessa, but he appears to at least been injured if not killed as well.

CO: And so if Zalmai Wessa is also dead, and some are saying he is but he we haven't had that confirmed. Abdul Raziq, this is the leadership of Kandahar who wiped out in one fell swoop.

MA: Yes, it's a devastating blow for the Afghan government and it's sure to make the already dire security situation in the south considerably worse.

CO: But the Taliban have said they've claimed responsibility and they say their target was General Abdul Raziq, why is that? Why was he their target?

MA: General Abdul Raziq has probably been the number one target of the Taliban for many years. He is the most powerful, or was the most powerful security commander in southern Afghanistan. He's notorious for his brutality and effectiveness against the Taliban. There's a kind of bitter personal quality to it because members of Raziq’s family have been killed by the Taliban or by rivals. You know, a lot of these things are mixed up in tribal vendettas as well. And Raziq was extremely brutal with Taliban. There’s longstanding evidence that he was practicing torture and extrajudicial executions. So the Taliban have long held him at the top of their list.

CO: And it wasn't just the Taliban, was it? I mean, there was a UN report just last year that called for his prosecution for allegations of torture, disappearances, that there were methods of torture of suffocation, crushing genitals, pumping water into stomachs, people disappeared there were secret detention centres that either he was participating in that or he was certainly in charge of those operations. So he must have had a lot of enemies?

MA: Yes. Raziq was definitely one of the most notorious and well documented figures involved with this and he was at the front forefront of the war. That's why he was beloved by many in the Afghan government, many ordinary people in Kandahar credited with bringing stability and security to a certain degree of the province. And certainly by the Americans, who I believe that Miller put out a statement calling up the Raziq a great friend and they certainly stood behind Abdul Raziq even after these allegations of torture were widely publicized.

CO: At the same time you have documented his activities as a warlord, as a drug lord, as someone involved in all kinds of organized criminal activities. How does a man like that rise to the top? Why is he so important to the U.S. and, we'll get to in a moment, to the Canadian military?

MA: Well, in short I would say it's because of, not despite, those activities. Talking about drug trafficking, Afghanistan produces nearly 90 per cent of the world's illicit opium. The south Kandahar and Helmand account for more than half of that. So we're talking billions and billions of dollars. It's been well established that opium moves with the connivance of both Taliban and government officials. Someone like Abdul Raziq, who is in the position that he was, someone like that is kind of at the top of the pyramid of an illicit economy that is deeply entrenched in the way that power politics work in southern Afghanistan that hasn't been reformed despite the international involvement. So that's actually his power base. Now, the Americans, and to an extent their allies — the Canadians included, were willing to turn a blind eye to these kinds of characters for a variety of reasons. In the beginning when there was a light footprint and there was a shortage, as they said, of international troops it was ‘Well, we didn't have enough troops,’ because we need to rely on allies even if that are dubious. And then later on when the surge came that it was ‘Well, we have too many troops.’ I mean, we're getting in 100,000 troops at the peak of the surge. And so we have to get people in and out, we have brigades to feed and supply fuel and Raziq is in charge of this key border crossing. They decided that they had to work of Raziq, that they were going to try to reform him. Of course Raziq just kept getting promoted. He was promoted to general. He was made police chief of the entire province. And he was backed by the Americans.

CO: This was a course at Kandahar in the Panjwayi district. This is a place where many Canadians lost their lives and where we spent hundreds-of-millions of dollars in our efforts in Afghanistan and Abdul Raziq very, very close to the Canadian leadership as well. You have reported how they turned a blind eye to some of the stuff that he was doing.

MA: Yeah and Raziq was close and sort of a protegé in the beginning of the Asadullah Khalid, who was the governor of Kandahar who is very controversially involved in these allegations of torture that the Canadian government ended up having a whole investigation of. In Afghanistan there was this nexus, between after the civil war and decades of fighting there was this nexus between criminality and warlords and politics. And that just never got broken over the years. It sort of just got entrenched in the post 2001 state, which is, of course, contrary to the hopes of many people foremost among them Afghans, that they would have no state that worked on the rule of law, where human rights were respected, where torture was no longer systemic in prisons — and those kind of got left by the wayside in this tragic struggle to keep the country from collapsing back in the war.

CO: And just finally without him, as tyrannical as it was, it was security for many people, not all. What happens now in the south? What happens now in Kandahar?

MA: Very difficult question to answer. People said the same thing about President Karzai’s controversial brother Ahmed Wali Karzai — ‘If we cut him loose or if he was pushed out the South would fall.’ He was assassinated in 2011. And obviously that didn't happen. partly because Raziq stepped in to fill a void. So it's very difficult to make predictions but it's going to be much harder for the government to hang on to Kandahar now.

CO: We will leave it there. Matthieu, thank you.

MA: My pleasure.

JD: Matthieu Aikins is a freelance investigative journalist. We reached him in New York.

[Music: Ambient Bass]

Basic Income

Guest: Floyd Marinescu

JD: When the Ontario Progressive Conservative government ended the basic income pilot project in July it was controversial. And today, three months later, another group voiced its disapproval with the decision — Chief Executive Officers. And not just a few CEOs, more than 100 signed an open letter to Premier Doug Ford and the Minister of Children Community and Social Services Lisa MacLeod. Their businesses represent nearly two billion dollars in combined yearly revenue. Most are based in Ontario. In the letter they urged the government to continue with basic income. The last payment is set to go out in March of next year. Floyd Marinescu organized the campaign CEOs For Basic Income. He is the CEO and co-founder of software company C4media. We reached Mr. Marinescu in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Marinescu, what motivated you to organize this open letter to the Ontario government?

FLOYD MARINESCU: Well, when Doug Ford canceled the experiment I was very upset because I thought finally we have an experiment that's more current, running in 2013 with 4,000 participants and we could learn from this data. We could finally put to rest some of the arguments either for or against basic income and see what's really going on.

CO: So just tell us what you understand the basic income program was doing?

FM: So a basic income is unconditional cash payments paid to every individual without any conditions, no lines to wait in — it's almost like a passive income. A 100 books business books have been written about the benefits of building a passive income, imagine if all of us could build a passive income from the collective wealth that our economy is generating — just enough to get us all out of poverty. All of us can make use that money, including the middle class. So this basic income experiment in Ontario was trying to test what would happen. Would people stop working? Would they work more? And, in fact, what most people don't know is that two thirds of the recipients of this trial were already working. Why? Because the economy was able to generate enough good jobs for them, so this money was actually keeping them above board.

CO: We'll just give prices, the amounts here. It was $17,000 a year for individuals $24,000 a year for couples — and this was regardless of whether they were working they would have that guarantee as their income. This is how it had been recommended. And the trial involved about 4,000 people from three different regions of Ontario, is that right?

FM: That's right. Although the way it worked is if you're working the net for every dollar you earned from earned income you would only get 50 cents of your basic income. So if you're unable to work you would have the full 17,000 and then as you work you would keep some of that money but not all of it, you keep about half of it until eventually or taper off.

CO: Your pitch in this letter if, I understand it, this isn't a kind of philanthropic pitch. You describe it as ‘enlightened self-interest.’ So maybe explain more what's in it for business because we know the anti-poverty activists are arguing for it. But what's in it for you?

FM: Well, we all want to grow the economy and the economy consists of people. If people, increasingly because of these trends affecting the world and affecting Canada especially, if this ends up becoming a society where there's more low-income jobs than, not we're all kind of in trouble. Economic growth is already slowing. So what's in it for us? I mean, what could be more pro-business than preserving and expanding your customer base. I mean, it's kind of a cross way of looking at it. But at the end of day you can’t have innovation, you can't have new businesses if people can afford to buy your stuff. And none of existing policies that the governments bat around are good enough to combat ongoing automation and globalization. I think government policies in those regards have mostly failed to prevent this reduction in fortunes for most of society.

CO: You write in your letter that the issue that you see is that there is this hugely growing sector of our workforce who are in low-income jobs, that they described five times as many people since 1997 having minimum-wage jobs. But here's the question, if your belief is that if people have more disposable income all boats will float higher, I mean, this would be good for business, why don't businesses invest? Why aren’t they supporting an increase in minimum wage? Why aren't you paying your workers more the way we know that the old Ford Motors theory, was that if you pay people higher wage they'll buy your product? So why should the government do it, why don't you do it?

FM: Well, a lot of us are. In fact, on the panel today that question came up and some of the CEOs that spoke today at the Queen’s Park were for increasing minimum wage. I'm one of them. Some of them thought that basic income would be better. But let's look at the advantages of a basic income over a minimum wage. Not saying that we should not increase minimum wage, I think we should. But a basic income would be more universal. So caregivers, entrepreneurs, people doing community service work, people doing gig economy work would all benefit from that, versus minimum wage, which only applies to a narrow sector of employment. So what's going on with the economy is that it's not that robots will come to take your job. It's not like what happened to my dad and uncle who lost their jobs in Ontario’s manufacturing sector. Today what's happening is that a lot of people just aren't being hired from the beginning, which means there's not enough local demand, there's not enough local high paying work. And all the experts I mentioned looking at the future of automation are saying that it’s going to get a lot worse. So I think we need to look at basic income as an economic issue not a social assistance issue. It's a way to grow the economy, create jobs, make loping work actually work for everyone so they can compete on a global level and they can actually find work that best suits them.

CO: This is kind of personal for you, isn't it? Your own family is thinking of when you write this letter?

FM: Yeah, I mean, I have quite a few stories that intersect of me. I mean, I grew up in a household that had had domestic violence. I wish my mom had the means to leave, and I think if she had a basic income maybe she would. We actually see that in the 70s the basic income in the U.S. almost passed under Richard Nixon. It passed in the House and Nixon was going to sign it into law except some of the experiments running at the time in the U.S. and in Canada, showed an insignificant increase in the divorce rate among married couples who had basic income because women were able to leave abusive households. And frankly I think that's a good thing. We've also seen that happen in the trials in Africa, in Kenya right now a report of a greater marital harmony. We've seen trials in India, for instance, women in the villages kicking off their head pieces, dressing more liberally and telling the researchers that the elders in the village can't control them anymore. So I think basic income is deeply emancipating for women, but for everyone. Imagine if you as a listener knew that you would never starve. You have this this money coming in and there’s no shame around the money, everyone gets it. If it's universal the way roads and police protection and hospitals are universal, there's no shame in using that money to stop, take a breather, think of your life and think of what you want to do next. Imagine the confidence, the self-reliance, the ambition we can we can unlock, the entrepreneurship we can release if everyone can take a long term perspective on their lives.

CO: All right, we'll be watching to see if the Ontario government responds to your letter Mr. Marinescu, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

FM: Thank you very much.

CO: Floyd Marinescu organized the campaign CEOs For Basic Income. We reached him in Toronto. And we received a statement from Ontario's Ministry of Children community and Social Services. It reads in part quote “The government for the people has committed to a 100-day review of social assistance and poverty reduction strategies in Ontario to best assist the 1 in 7 people in the province who are living in poverty. The plan is expected on November 8^th, 2018” unquote.

[Music: Guitar & Drums]

Andrew Scheer/Michael Enright interview

JD: With about a year to go before the next federal election the Conservatives are on a push to introduce, or reintroduce I guess, their leader to Canadians. And that means that you are going to be seeing and hearing a lot more of Andrew Scheer. This weekend the Sunday edition will be airing a wide-ranging discussion between Mr. Scheer and Michael Enright. The interview covers a lot of ground. Here's a patch of it in which Michael asks the Conservative leader about the disappearance and apparent murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: The most concerning international issue at the moment facing Canada, and it would face you as Prime Minister of course, is the murder, the butchery of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. If you were Prime Minister how would you respond to that? Would you cancel any arms deals we have with Saudi Arabia?

ANDREW SCHEER: Well, you know, I have to be cognizant of the fact that I don't have the same levels of briefings that the Liberals have and that the Prime Minister has, he's aware of much more to the story than I am through security intelligence briefings and things like that. I believe though that this incident should be a wake-up call about the government in Saudi Arabia and about the role it's playing in the world. I've been reading a lot of this recently and it is very disturbing. When you look at what the Saudi government has done in this case, the cover up that followed it, this is alarming. Everyone should be concerned about this. The idea that it happened in another country not in Canada, not to a Canadian — the Saudi government plays a very significant role in geopolitics. There are a lot of concerns about the sanctioning of terrorist groups and where the money flows. A lot of that has come through entities within that country. And I think that we all need to get together is as Western democracies, liberal democracies — I shouldn’t and say Western because it effects democracies all around the world —freedom loving nations should all come together and say we've got a big problem here. We cannot allow a government to act with impunity in this fashion — gruesome, horrific, doesn't begin to describe what happened.

JD: That is an excerpt of conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s conversation with Michael Enright, which will be on the Sunday edition this weekend. You can hear the full interview on Sunday.

[Music: Electronic]

Tokaroo/Polkaroo

Guest: Mark Scott

JD: In the festivities in a Toronto park yesterday there was one character who stood out. A tall, furry creature that bore a striking resemblance to Polkaroo, the beloved character from the long running TVO children's program Polka Dot Door. But it was 4:20 on legalization day in Canada. So the creature was not Polkaroo at all — it was Tokaroo, the creation of Mark Scott who used to play Polkaroo at special promotional events. We reached Mr. Scott in Toronto.

CO: Mark, for those who didn't get a chance to see him what does Tokaroo look like?

MARK SCOTT: Well, Tokaroo would be a play on the iconic Polkaroo, which I have created a parody of and is a character who will talk about responsible drug use. Now that Canada has legalized cannabis for recreational use there can be more discussion about responsible altered states.

CO: And so, again, the description, Tokaroo looks like Polkaroo. For people who have not seen Polkaroo or don't kids, what does Polkaroo look like?

MS: Well, Polkaroo is a polka dotted kangaroo from a show called Polka Dot Door.

CO: Very popular, everyone who has kids knows about Polka Dot Door and knows about Polkaroo. They didn't know about Tokaroo though. So this you you were Polkaroo and you are Tokaroo.

MS: Yes, I was the whole Polkaroo out of Rooland for TVO and their affiliated agencies. I got to meet the Queen as Polkaroo, Colin Powell came to bring a program called America's Promise, with a little red wagon as their symbol, and Elwy Yost when he had his 25th anniversary Saturday Night At The Movies, I got to be part of that.

CO: I remember all of that. Now we never got to hear your voice, which is really odd hearing it now.

MS: Well yes, because Polkaroo — and most of the time until 1996 when he came out of Rooland talking — was sort of an insinuation. When I was told the talk was given the instruction to be kind of like Julia Childs and Kermit the Frog. So it was mmm, mmmm, mmmm. And yes, mostly insinuated like the Smurfs did in their day.

CO: Now, of course, we didn't imagine Polkaroo smoking a giant spliff.

MS: No. And that would be the evolution of the next generation where Tokaroo and Rainbowroo Signaroo, who is deaf and does signing and Readyroo who is a special needs character. So this is a project that I have evolved the character from into an Internet program for 8 to 30-year-olds.

CO: How did people react? You were at the 420 yesterday, this big rally and you were there as Tokaroo, as I just mentioned you are smoking a giant novelty spliff. And how did people react to you?

MS: Well, the giant spliff, as it were, is probably the symbol that lets people know that it's Tokaroo and because it is a parody on Polakroo I often would get people saying Polkaroo and I'd have to point to that joint and say ‘No, it is Tokaroo.’ But because yesterday was a historic day people wanted to take pictures with iconic characters. Bongman was also there and I think for the most part if it wasn't taking a picture of somebody smoking some actual substance that it was the next best thing.

CO: Now did people know that this is not just somebody making fun of Polkaroo, you are Polkaroo?

MS: Well, my children didn't know when I was doing it for TVO because that was part of the mystique. When they were small — they're in their 30s now. But when they were small I would take a friend to a mall or wherever the meet and greet was and I would disappear and then they would go and meet Polkaroo and then I would show up later. So it was part of the fun of doing that too.

CO: But wait a second that's just like the show. I mean, so you had your own private show with the kids?

MS: Yes.

CO: And was there a Tokaroo while you were playing Polkaroo?

MS: No, I don't think so. I think that would have been illegal.

CO: I was just going to ask you. Or was there a secret Tokaroo inside Polkaroo struggling to get out?

MS: Well, probably because I actually have an aversion to alcohol and I have an alcoholic history. And I suppose I have to admit that I want an altered state of mind sometimes too. I use the analogy that we all go to the playground to play and some go on the swings, some go on the merry-go-round, some go on the slide. As adults we may want an altered state of mind and Tokaroo is there to talk about having that responsibly because excess makes a mess.

CO: What does TVO, TVOntario think of Tokaroo?

MS: I went to marketing when I was first developing these characters and they showed less than enthusiastic interest in it and I have made sure that my parody of Polkaroo, Tokaroo, Rainbowroo, Signaroo and Readyroo — and any of the others that I make after — have their own image that is not similar to Polkaroo.

CO: Now just as you have a special sound when you’re Polkaroo, is there a signature vocabulary for Tokaroo? Can you let us know how Tokaroo sounds?

MS: I haven't put a voice to it specifically. Yesterday, I was speaking as myself because I was advocating for the responsible use of cannabis.

CO: And will be people there be people who can see you and people who can't?

MS: Oh you mean like Polkaroo?

CO: Yeah.

MS: Remember the theme of the show would be Polka dot door, polka dot door, let’s go through the polka dot door. Songs and stories and so much more, let’s go through the polka dot door. This is the time we always say, get ready, get set, it's Imagination Day. And that would be the day that Polkaroo would show up. He only came on Imagination Day.

CO: I didn't notice that.

MS: So Tokaroo is probably going to show up where there’s party.

Co: All right Mark, enjoy and thanks for speaking with us.

MS: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

MS: Bye.

JD: We reached Mark Scott in Toronto. And for some pictures of Tokaroo go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Mark Norman Case, Guillotine Mystery

Mark Norman Case

Guest: Erin O'Toole

JD: The Conservatives are accusing Justin Trudeau of a cover up. They want the Prime Minister to turn over confidential Cabinet documents so that Mark Norman can use them in his criminal defence. Vice Admiral Norman is due to be tried for breach of trust over the leak of secret information about a shipbuilding contract. His lawyers say the case is politically motivated and that they need the cabinet documents to prove it. That has had the Conservatives are on their feet in Question Period for the past two days asking the PM why he just doesn't hand over the paperwork — unless he's got something to hide. So far Mr. Trudeau and his team haven't had much to say. That has certainly peaked Erin O'Toole's interest. We reached t Conservative MP outside the House of Commons.

CO: Mr. O’Toole, when you talk about a cover up, what is it that you think the government is trying to hide?

ERIN OTOOLE: Well, the only way for Admiral Norman to really defend himself and have due process is to have access to all the documents discussing the ship building contract. There are documents that he won't get access to because the Liberal government won't provide that access. They're likely going to rely on CAP cabinet confidence, but if that's the case and they can't bring a proper case against Mr. Norman, why are they forcing him into court? So he has a right to defend himself under the Charter. And right now the government is standing in the way of him receiving those rights.

CO: So Vice Admiral Norman, who is at the centre of this, he's the one who's charged — his defence is that he says that Scott Bryson, the Treasury Board President, had a close relationship with the Irving shipyards and that he was trying to scuttle the rival bid which was with the Davie Yard in Quebec. Is that what you think?

EO: I won't know until we get to see what discussions were had. In fact, there were several moves around the cabinet committees with respect to defence procurement in the early months of the Trudeau government. This is what is being driven at. Look Carol, I was in the previous cabinet of the Conservative government. I would be happy for people to see what was discussed in the Cabinet minutes related to decisions for the Navy. Why aren't the Liberals prepared to have the same discussions they had revealed? Particularly when someone faces up to five years in prison for what they're claiming is a breach of trust. So this is about fairness. The Liberals are in control the Minister has the ability to waive privilege. Paul Martin did it with respect to the Gomery Inquiry, in fact, he talked about how unprecedented they were in disclosing cabinet minutes. Why the lack of disclosure?

CO: You gave the Trudeau government quite a hammering today in the House in Question Period and your colleagues were quite openly saying that they thought the Treasury Board President Scott Brison was lobbying Irving shipyard's bid and posing those questions so are you willing to go that far?

EO: Well, look I think there's three great shipyards in Canada that are all involved in one way or another building the next generation ship for the Navy and the Coast Guard. Decisions with respect to trying to cancel or change one of those ships, which the Trudeau government did do and that's quite public, that deserves a fair and open, transparent release of documents because a charge is brought against a very fine Canadian, Mr. Norman — the second highest ranking officer in the military has been charged in relation to it, so he deserves that transcript. I don't know what's in it. I was not at the cabinet table for the Liberal cabinet. I was in the Conservative. I think all of it should be released and Canadians can see what was discussed on all counts.

CO: And what the RCMP has charged Vice Admiral Norman with is criminal breach of trust for allegedly seeking to keep the Davie contract on course. Your colleagues have suggested these charges are scurrilous based on what?

EO: I have learned through the media that there were investigations into leaks of Cabinet secrets surrounding the new Trudeau cabinet and their decisions, and that apparently some cabinet documents were leaked but charges were not brought for breach of trust against some other civil servants. It appears that there was a targeted campaign against Admiral Norman. He is the one facing trial no one else is even though the investigation revealed there were several leaks around Liberal decisions on shipbuilding, he deserves as any Canadian would do full answer and defence rights both under Section 7 and 11 of the Charter. The Trudeau government talks a lot about sunny ways and transparency. They have the ability to ensure that all documents are released. We don't care what's in them, that will be determined by a court so that he gets a fair hearing.

CO: And we know this story was originally published by CBC News, the journalist at that time was James Cudmore who went to work for Minister Harjit Sajjan just weeks after that story was published. Is that what you're referring to?

EO: That's part of the intrigue with this story, Carol. Mr. Cudmore, who reported on a lot of defence issues and had served briefly in the Canadian Armed Forces, I believe, was aware of some of these discussions then went and worked internally. I know he wouldn't have been at the cabinet meetings. What we're driving at is, were there any discussions involving Mr. Brison, Mr. Trudeau, other members of that cabinet with respect to this contract? Were they advancing concerns that they'd heard from interested parties? All of this deserves transparency. I think when someone's reputation, and literally their liberty is on the line, we should ere in favour of making sure his Charter rights are respected.

CO: Vice Admiral Norman is represented by Marie Henein, a very, very good defence lawyer with a reputation for success. Is it possible that this political interference story is just a product of a defence lawyer trying to create doubt in the Crown's case against her client?

EO: There's no question he has very capable counsel and in fact Mr. Goodale said today in the house that our system works when things are left in the hands of defence counsel. The trouble is the Liberal governments are tying the hands of defence counsel by not providing documents that are central to the case. If the trust that was breached in this case is the trust and confidence around decisions of Cabinet. sorry you have to release those documents to see if indeed trust or minutes or Cabinet memos were leaked. The government can't have it both ways. They basically ran a very respected senior officer out of the military on a rail. I respect the fact he's standing up for his reputation. He wants to return to duty. If the Liberals aren’t prepared to release these documents they should ensure that the charges are dropped because it's a farce.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. We will be following this story. Mr. O'Toole, thank you.

EO: Thank you very much.

JD: Erin O'Toole is a Conservative MP. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Sampled Hip-Hip]

British House of Commons

JD: This morning in the British House of Commons one Tory MP probably wished that somebody would just go ahead and invent real-time subtitle goggles already. The New Zealand born Sir Paul Beresford, representing me charmingly named Mole Valley, had a little trouble following the heavily accented words of his colleague David Linden, who represents Glasgow East in Scotland.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID LINDEN: Mr. Speaker, I know from speaking to the parliamentary colleagues that there are certain aspects of the estate, including the northern estate, that are not great for people with disabilities. Can I ask the honourable gentlemen what work is being done to make sure this place is more accessible, particularly for some of our colleagues who have a disability?

SIR PAUL BERESFORD: I'm sorry, it must be something to do with my antipodean background. Could he please repeat the question because I didn’t follow it?

[LAUGHTER]

DL: Well, very popular today. I've seen a number of parliamentary colleagues who have disabilities do find it quite difficult getting around certain parts of the state cabinet. When doing this refurbishment work, what can be done to make sure that those with a disability are able to move around more freely and the place is accessible?

PB: I'm really sorry. Please could you do it very slowly.

DL: I think the answer might be it helped if you can reply in writing when you've read.

CHRIS ELMORE: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker I'll try on the first go. Because I'm Welsh, God help him.

JD: You just heard Welsh MP Chris Elmore at the end there. The New Zealand-born and raised Sir Paul Beresford and Scottish MP David Linden — all trying to reach some kind of understanding in the British House of Commons.

[Music: Jazzy Hip-Hop]

Guillotine Mystery

Guest: Hannah Champagne

JD: Hannah Champagne of Brooklyn, New York tweeted out a photograph yesterday with the following demand. Quote “I need to know why a guillotine has been erected on the roof across from my office.” So did we. So we reached Hannah Champagne in Brooklyn.

CO: Hannah, when did you first see this guillotine?

HANNA CHAMPAGNE: Well, I actually first noticed it on Monday evening. I was actually leaving my office to have a bit of a tough talk with a colleague and I saw it out the window and thought ‘That’s very ominous.’

CO: Just describe what you saw? Where is it located and what does it look like?

HC: Well, my office has two very large windows and my desk kind of faces these windows. I can see this other roof from there but I can't directly see where the guillotine was so I kind of stood up and was at a very particular angle. So yeah, it just was there and I kind of got really close and peek out the window like, ‘Is that real?’ It looks very real, it didn't look flimsy or anything like that. And my co-workers all came in and we all took a look and we just thought it was very. There was nothing else around it, it's just standing there itself.

CO: And it's a guillotine?

HC: It is, yeah, it is a guillotine. I mean, I haven't seen it used but everything about it, as you can kind of see in the photo, is pretty realistic looking.

CO: And okay so on the flat roof there it is. Is it big? Is it a large guillotine?

HC: I mean, yeah it looks like it could work. This morning when I came back I was like ‘Has the blade been lowered a little bit?’ Yeah, it looks like a rope connected to a metal blade. I mean, it's tall, it’s even very well situated on the roof platform, it’s got kind of a gradually sloping thing where I suppose the heads roll from. Yeah, I mean, I don't think I've actually seen a guillotine in person before but looking at it from across the little road we're on, it looks real to me.

CO: Now is there a bucket or anything to catch the heads?

HC: No. Well it’s kind of by the lip of the roof so I can't see over there but it doesn't look like there's anything below it or around it. There's no other props around it from what I can see.

CO: So if heads roll they'll just roll off the side of the building?

HC: There's a bit of a lip so they would just kind of roll and collect on the roof, I suppose. I mean, there could be heads there and I'm just not able to see them right now. We don’t know.

CO: But no know people? You've not seen any people dead or alive on this roof?

HC: I saw some people yesterday on the roof but I didn't see them interacting with the guillotine so I was very confused and I wanted to run outside and yell out to them. But it was a very windy day they were very far towards the back of the roof and I knew they wouldn't hear me and this was sort of after I did sort of a follow up that tweet thing that I had kind of gone around the neighbourhood asking people and I'm like I've already gone around asking strangers if they know about the guillotine. So if I'm out on the street yelling up to the sky what is with this guillotine. It just didn't feel like the right time.

CO: So when you asked people in your neighbourhood if they knew about the guillotine how did they respond to you?

HC: Well, the first person that I asked it was — there’s a little chocolate shop that’s sort of directly below where they give you a position. And I wasn't really sure why they would know about it but I thought ‘Well, I can go in there and ask them.’ And so there was a younger woman working at the counter, and I walked in I was like ‘I have a very strange question? So there is a guillotine on the roof,’ and she's like ‘A what?’ So I kind of had to explain to her I'm like ‘You know, the French Revolution and the blade that chops people's heads off,’ I felt absolutely ridiculous trying to explain it. And with this thing on the roof of the building and she was like ‘What?’ So we went outside and looked at it and she's like ‘Oh, wow, yeah that’s a guillotine. I don't know why it’s there, I’ll ask my manager.’ I was like ‘Okay, well carry on.’ And then I saw someone going into more of a residential door and I'm like ‘Oh, maybe they know.’ And they were just a delivery person so they didn't know and they pointed me to someone on the street and it was just a woman walking by with a baby. So I wasn't getting any leads.

CO: You do live in Brooklyn, right so, I mean, maybe this is like this happens all the time?

HC: Yeah, just too jaded to care about medieval torturing, killing device on the roof.

CO: Now no one's running around saying ‘Off with their heads?’

HC: No, no I have not seen — I mean, you can't even really see it from the street. I've had some people like ‘Is it a Halloween display or like some kind of prank?’ Nobody can see it really — you can if you were specifically looking up you'd be able to see the top of it, you could see the blade but otherwise yeah it's certainly not there for public consumption.

CO: Well, if there were to be a revolution do you have your list of people that you’d escort to the guillotine? You don’t need to tell us. I mean. We’ll keep it a secret.

HC: I certainly have a list of public figures and maybe a few personal acquaintances as well.

CO: Well, now you know what you can do.

[LAUGHTER]

HC: That’s really why I’ve got to find out about this.

CO: Will you let us know if you find out why there's a guillotine on the roof across from your office?

HC: I absolutely will. I'll let the whole internet know.

CO: Thanks, Hannah.

HC: Thank you. Have a great day.

CO: Be careful.

HC: I will yeah. It could be for me.

JD: Head up. We reached Hannah Champagne in Brooklyn and you can see a photograph of the guillotine and read more about this mystery on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Trance Bass]

Artificial Moon

JD: The B52’s with There's a Moon In the Sky Called The Moon. And they’re right — there is. According to the most widely accepted hypothesis, about four-and-a-half billion years ago some giant space rock the size of Mars smashed into the Earth, several chunks came off, some of those chunks fused together and voilà — Moon. Now, that is the old fashioned way to make a moon, kind of a slow cooker method, if you will. But what if there's a big gathering, say 10 million plus people and you need to whip up a moon real quick. Well, a private space contractor in China claims to have that recipe. And in 2020 it is just going to launch a second artificial moon to cast a quote “dusk light glow over the southwestern city of Chengdu. You see the regular old school Moon is great for stuff like controlling the tides, inspiring poetry and letting you know it's night — but that antiquated old thing it's just not so hot at illumination. And that is where Moon 2.0 comes in. This ‘power moon,’ as it's known, will supposedly be eight times brighter than that aging lackluster hunk a rock. It's going to light up an area 80 square kilometres in diameter, about 50 miles, which according to the chairman of Chengdu Aerospace Science and Technology Microelectronics Systems Research Institute Company Limited, will allow the city to shut down its street lights, which will save money and be more energy efficient. And somehow it will just illuminate Chengdu because somehow it will stay in place over that city alone. Also, we are assured that this higher quality Moon won't replace the quaint old-timey one, it's quote “designed to complement it.” I may sound skeptical but until it makes light above Chengdu I'm going to keep making light of it.

MLB Playoffs

JD: Troy Caldwell is a fan of the Houston Astros. Troy Caldwell always hopes they'll win. But last night Troy Caldwell really, really, really hoped they would win — really. The Boston Red Sox were in Houston to play the Astros, Game 4 of the American League Championship Series, winner of the series takes the Pennant, goes to the World Series. Bottom of the first, Red Sox are already up two runs, Jose Altuve is up to bat for the Astros with a man on base and he hits one deep to right field. Here's the call by TBS announcers Brian Anderson and Ron Darling.

SOUNDCLIP

BRIAN ANDERSON: Altuve, right field, back there. Betts at the track, he leaps and it is out. It’s off a fan. No, they’re saying off of Betts, it is in play. They may be calling it interference. I’m trying to get aread on the right field umpire here.

JD: So Red Sox outfielder goes to the wall, jumps, misses the catch somehow, ball bounces back into the field and then the confusion begins. Did it clear the wall? Is it a homerun? Is the game tied? What just happened? Here's Ron Darling watching the replay.

SOUNDCLIP

RON DARLING: Mookie with the jump. He had it measured, it looked like he was going to catch it. And he gets stopped from catching it by the hand of the fan. The fan closed his glove — closed Mookie Betts’ glove prematurely because it pushed up against the leather.

JD: Here's the thing, that fan, the one Mr. Darling thought closed Mookie Betts’ glove, possibly interfering with the play — Troy Caldwell, who may possibly have robbed his team, the Astros of a two-run homer to tie the game. For several tense minutes everyone waited for Major League Baseball officials in New York to conduct a major video review. Then this.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNOUNCER: So the rule states if a spectator reaches out to the playing field side of a fence to prevent a fielder from catching a ball, batsmen should be called out. And out is the call.

[CROWN BOOING]

JD: Oh boy, oh boy. So Troy Caldwell had to bite his nails for a full eight more innings hoping his team would come back. They did not. Oh boy. The Red Sox won by two runs. Oh boy. One more win and they go to the World Series. Now a lot of people think that was the wrong call, especially Troy Caldwell. He insists he did not touch Mookie Betts’ glove so it should have been a homerun, would have been a homerun, could have been a homerun. He told The Boston Globe quote “That's about the worst call I've ever seen,” unquote. Well, let's hope Astros fans agree with Troy Caldwell because otherwise Astros fans will find Troy Caldwell's phone number. And Troy Caldwell will get the worst calls he has ever heard.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Brexit Preppers, Lebanon Trash, NB Tie MLA

Lebanon Trash

Guest: Gilbert Doumit

JD: Garbage in, garbage out. For a while, Lebanon was hiding its trash problem pretty well. But now, millions of pounds of waste have taken over the country's beaches. And our guest says the government is too dirty to clean it up.

CO: Mr. Doumit, where is all this garbage now?

GILBERT DOUMIT: So, you know, the problem of garbage has been for the last almost 20 years. In 2015 the waste was stuck on the streets. Three years after, it hasn't been solved yet. So now all our garbage is being dumped in the sea unfortunately.

CO: All of your garbage is being dumped in the sea?

GD: Absolutely. All our garbage is dumped in the sea now, particularly we're talking about the capital Beirut, which is almost 60 per cent of the population.

CO: How much garbage are we talking about here?

GD: We're talking approximately 850 million tonnes.

CO: And it's going into your sea. Is it coming back on your beaches?

GD: Absolutely. So last year a few reports from different labs show that we have a highly polluted sea.

CO: But, I mean, before you started dumping in the sea you filled your landfills, people were just having no place to take their garbage. It was filling the streets and after rains it was streaming in rivers down your streets. How awful is this garbage situation, especially in Beirut?

GD: You know, in 2015 when the deal with the company that was supposed to be collecting and managing our waste was done and because of free governance and because of corruption, also mismanagement, it has filled the streets for almost a year. And then after this, as a transitional solution because there is no solution yet, the government contracted with another company to collect the garbage but then throw it in the sea because it’s not being processed. It is detrimental. So one of the indicators is that Lebanon is between the top 10 countries in the world with cancer for people below 40 years old. The smell of the garbage in the evening fills all of the city. It is a very bad situation and unfortunately government is not taking any serious measures to solve it.

CO: Are the people putting pressure on the government to do something about it?

GD: The last month at least the protests were on the streets calling for a solution. Two weeks ago they passed a law. Unfortunately it is about law. It's the law that allows incinerators. So now what they're promising us to do is to put incinerators as a solution rather than having a full, sustainable environmentally friendly solution for our waste. It's unfortunate even the solution that’s on the table now is not a good one.

CO: But why is it not a good one? Because incinerators in European cities this is very common now they're using it to make energy at the same time as getting rid of their trash. There are systems they now have which are not bad. So why wouldn't incinerators work for your city?

GD: There are three problems of incinerators. First, in Europe and in Canada for example, there is a lot of separation at the source. And then the second separation and treatment of all recyclables and organic. And then what remains goes to incinerators. While in Lebanon the only solutions in place effectively is just having incinerators. Second problem with government is that what type and what standards and which generation of incinerators we're putting in place. Our government so far is not capable of managing most sectors. So it requires continuous filters, it requires a lot of maintenance. Our government is not credible and there is no trust. And the third problem is that we know and we've studied many solutions where we do not need incinerators. So first step is to reduce waste. So we're not doing anything to reduce waste, we're just putting an incinerator and burning everything and the residues of it, where are they're going to go?

CO: But when you talk about the waste management plan that you're proposing is that it requires a big responsibility on the part of people who are making the waste, they have to separate it, they have to get involved in the programs for reducing waste and then separating out recyclables — a whole program. And we know from our own country it's difficult to get people to buy into that. So what efforts are being made to encourage people to take some responsibility for the garbage?

GD: It is difficult, but not impossible. And I can tell you that Lebanese citizens today are already ahead of government. Many neighbourhoods have already started separating the waste from the source. And I'll give you a clear example, many of them have already contracted companies that are in Lebanon to recycle. Through organization that I am part of we’ve been working with neighbourhoods doing this on their own expense because of the level of consciousness of the situation and the need for a healthier and more environmentally friendly life. And if there are incentives and there is trust that government is capable of sorting and treating the waste, many people are ready to buy into it. We're all conscious of the danger of this situation.

CO: Isn't it though the Lebanese way, that you solve your own problems are that relying on your government?

GD: We might be a post-modern state so we know how to live without the state in all different sectors, but this is not sustainable. We need a government that is capable of providing basics for its citizens.

CO: Well, given what we're seeing in your photos of your beaches and of your city streets I hope you get it right Mr. Doumit, thank you for speaking with us.

GD: I hope so too. Within all of this Beirut is still a charming and highly hospitable city. Like many problems we went through, there will always be a solution. I think we citizens are ready to fight for the basics. And I think there is a civil movement that is very well united and working hard at different levels with all the different crises we're going through. So unfortunately, our political elite is not united around finding solutions for our own citizens.

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

GD: Thank you, Carol. And thank you for talking to me.

CO: Good night.

GD: Good night.

NB Tie MLA

Guest: Kevin Arseneau

JD: One of New Brunswick's newest MLAs is to be sworn in tomorrow — but there's a problem: you have to wear a tie in the Legislative Assembly and Kevin Arseneau doesn't own one, know how to tie one, nor think it makes sense for him to wear one.

CO: Mr. Arseneau, what's your problem with ties?

KEVIN ARSENEAU: I'm not tie-wearer. I'm used to wearing work boots and coveralls and I haven't worn much ties in my life. And I just find that they're very kind of conformist and corporate and not very close to the people that I represent.

CO: But you have to wear one in the ‘leg right, in New Brunswick?

KA: Yeah, it is mandatory. So I do have to wear one.

CO: What is the dress code to sit in the chamber?

KA: Well, for men you have to have a there and neck tie, a bow tie — one MLA a few years back used to wear a kind of cowboy lace. And then you have to have a jacket and pants and you have to have closed shoes. So I'll still be wearing my work boots all tidied up there.

CO: Do you have a jacket? You have pants, I'm sure, but do you have a jacket?

KA: I actually just came back from the store and bought my first suit.

CO: A suit? A full suit and not just the blazer?

KA: No, no.

CO: Oh, you went all out.

KA: Yeah.

CO: But now did you buy any ties?

KA: No, absolutely not. I didn't buy a tie. And so tomorrow during swearing in I'm going to wear one of the ties that Zachary Richard, a singer-songwriter from Louisiana that sent me some ties. I'm going to wear one of his tomorrow then hopefully ties will start coming in and I’ll have enough to change here and there during the legislator activities.

CO: But tell me about the pitch you made for people who send you neckties?

KA: You know, I kind of sent out a joke. This is not a make-or-break thing for me. I wouldn't have refused wearing ties. But it it's definitely something that came to my mind. I was wondering is there any way I could get out of this. So I don't like ties and I don't see any point in wearing them. So I'm not wearing them for me but it is mandatory for me to wear one to represent the people that have elected me. So it came to me as a flash that I should be wearing the ties of the people that I'm representing. Everyone has a tie lying around in the house and some have meaningful things and some used to belong to someone that's not here anymore. Some still do belong to someone and every tie has a story. So I thought wear ties that have a story and a meaning for someone else.

CO: And it's true everybody has a story about their tie. If you say ‘Oh, I like your tie,’ he will immediately tell you the story of where the time came from.

KA: Exactly. I even sent out the invitation to the women knowing that maybe they have their father's tie, or their grandfather's tie. So I kind of pitched that out there and said well ‘If you would like me to wear your tie in the Legislative Assembly send it along.’ And then I gave my address and gave a bit of a story that comes with the tie so that I know about the tie that I'm wearing and then hopefully I'll have the chance to share some of those stories either in the Legislative Assembly or on social media now.

CO: Do you have someone who can help you tie it? Because I presume if you — I understand you didn't even wear one to your own wedding?

KA: No, no I did not wear a tie at my wedding. My wife was A1 with that. And so I was very well dressed. I was dressed with a plaid shirt and some nice pants and I had my suspenders on ND a nice hat. But I didn't have a tie. I do own two ties actually. I wore one while I was a groomsmen in a wedding. The other one I don't really know how I got it. I think my father might have gave it to me when I was younger. The knot is already in it so I've never done a knot in my life. So that's my next challenge.

CO: Maybe when you're asking people to send you ties you can ask for clip-ons?

KA: Yeah. Or I'm just going to turn my father or David Coon, the leader of the Green Party here in Brunswick or maybe even YouTube to learn how to do those knots. It shouldn't be too hard.

CO: Now do you think that maybe you know that you could start a new trend though and see if you can get people to not wear ties? Because I'm just thinking there was a report on CBC recently that when men wear neckties it decreases their blood flow to their brain by 7.5 per cent.

KA: Yeah, well I was kind of happy to hear about that. I'm definitely going to use that in my argumentation. And like I said it's not, it's not a make-or-break. There's a lot of bigger problems that we're attacking. The reason I went into politics is not to stop MLAs from wearing ties. But it is something that bothers me and definitely something I will put forth in a committee and that’s maybe a good way through. I was actually joking a while ago with someone about that saying that maybe I should get a doctor's note saying that I can't wear a tie. Maybe that would get me out of it.

CO: Well, maybe if there's another 7.5 per cent of brainpower per male member of the legislature you could get some of those problems solved?

KA: Definitely.

CO: There's your argument. I’ve given it to you. That’s for free.

KA: It would help.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: Mr. Arseneau, best of luck to you. You know, it's funny that other politicians have ties with their constituents and you have ties from them.

[LAUGHTER]

KA: Exactly.

CO: Well done. Tace care, bye-bye.

KA: Have a great day.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Oct. 18, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This