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 December 10, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: The wrong arm of the law. An unprecedented inquiry into race and policing in Toronto concludes that black people are "grossly overrepresented" in violent police interactions.

JD: Recall into question. Just four months into his sentence, an Australian archbishop's conviction of concealing child sex abuse is overturned — because a judge doubts a victim's memory.

CO: It's put off because they are. To the dismay of MPs, British Prime Minister Theresa May delays the Brexit vote she was bound to lose — and a European court says the UK could just decide to stay, if all this is too Brexcruciating.

JD: He's just a cellist guy. Every subway busker plays a version of "Hallelujah" — but in the Montreal subway, people listened anyway, because the busker was Yo-Yo Ma.

CO: Ironically, they didn't handle her with kid gloves. A Toronto woman claims the snowboarding company Burton stole her design for children's mittens — and she'll tell us how this program prompted her to address the matter at hands.

JD: And...worst suitcase scenario. An encore presentation of our interview with a man who was banned from a Victoria hotel after his room was destroyed by seagulls who found the pepperoni in his luggage.

JD: "As It Happens", the Monday edition. Radio that found him quite perceptive — for a guy who was once so gull-able.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Racial profiling report, Brexit vote delay, Burton mittens

Racial profiling report

Guest: Renu Mandhane

JD: A black person in Toronto is almost 20 times more likely than a white person to be involved in a fatal shooting with the Toronto Police Service. That's according to data obtained by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which today released an interim report on racial profiling and discrimination by the police. It's the biggest and most extensive study ever released in Ontario about race and policing, and it was put together using seven years of internal police data. Renu Mandhane is the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Ms. Mandhane, as we said in the introduction, the most striking number in this report is that black people in Toronto are almost 20 times more likely to be involved in a fatal police shooting. What did you think when you saw that number?

RENU MANDHANE: You know I was of two minds I guess. First of all, the number itself is just extremely striking, and it can't easily be explained away I think. But secondly, it was very consistent with what we had been hearing from the community over many years. So you know I think the extent of the disparity was striking and surprising. But I think the disparity itself was something that we expected.

CO: Do you have any idea what that is in actual numbers of fatalities on the part of the police?

RM: Yeah. So in the time period 2013 to 2017, I believe that represents seven fatalities by shooting.

CO: There were about 10 then fatal shootings of people in Toronto during that period of time?

RM: Yes, I believe so.

CO: Seventy per cent of police shootings — or seven out of 10 — were black people. And another statistic is that 61 per cent of police use of force cases that resulted in deaths were black people. What can you tell us about that number?

RM: So police shootings are just a subset of the types of force that can result in death. And I think what it shows you is that black people are more highly overrepresented the more serious and violent the use of force culminating in police shootings. What we know is in 2016 black people made up eight-point-eight per cent of Toronto's population. But from 2013 to 2017, they made up about 25 per cent of all SIU investigations — sixty-one-point-five per cent of police use of force cases that resulted in death — and 70 per cent of police shootings that resulted in death. Interestingly, black men — which represent around four-point-one per cent of the population — also made up roughly 25 per cent of sexual assault complaints against the Toronto Police Service.

CO: You said in the beginning of our interview that you weren't surprised by the findings of this inquiry — that that you've seen many of these findings before. So what's important about this report?

RM: What is unique about this report is that it puts numbers to these experiences. So in the past what we've seen is qualitative data, so the perception of the black community about their interactions with police obviously after the death of Andrew Loku, and the serious incident involving Dafonte Miller. But we have never had, until this report, the data that confirms that those are not a few bad apples that this is a systemic sort of data set that paints a much more complete picture.

CO: You mentioned Dafonte Miller. he case of this black man who was beaten with a steel pipe by off duty police. This is two years ago. His name comes up a lot in the conversations that this report did with people in the black community about what scares them about dealing with the police. What is it about that case that that makes such an impression?

RM: One thing that really stood out is how people really told us how these high-profile incidents have an impact on the entire community. And especially that incident because it was very egregious, it was hidden for such a long time, and it really only came to light after the lawyer for Mr. Miller brought forward the case to the SIU. And one person described the impact on the community and said basically when we hear cases like Dafonte Miller it brings back the cases of other family members and community members we know. And it becomes a collective experience and a collective impact. And what we heard from the black community is that consistently there is an overwhelming sense of fear, trauma, even expectations of negative treatment. Young people you know in high school and in their 20s telling us you know I feel that I'm always fit the description of a criminal, I'm if I'm seen as a thug. And I think what that leads to is a distrust of the police. And that stands in the way of the very goals we all have which are safer communities where everyone feels that they have a stake in law enforcement and that they are allies with the police.

CO: We heard response from Toronto police and the Toronto Police Services Board. They gave a joint response to the report saying that no organization is, quote, “immune from overt and implicit bias.” But they say they are actively working to address those issues. We heard that 10 years ago from then chief Bill Blair, didn't we? So how much faith do you have in the force to make changes?

RM: You know, first of all, I think it's interesting that the board and the Service released a joint statement. The board is really meant to act in the public interest and to hold the service accountable to meet their human rights obligations. I think they take some comfort in their statement that they accept our in term recommendations. And I think we need to see what exactly that means. You know I think it's quite clear and the community has released its own statements. The City of Toronto's Anti-Black Racism Advisory Committee released a statement essentially saying no more studies, no more hand-wringing, no more empty gestures, this must stop. So there is an immediacy to our expectations. And you know so I think maybe cautiously optimistic is sort of where I'm at thinking that this data lends a new seriousness to the conversation and I hope it spurs them to act in a more serious way.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Mandhane, thank you.

RM: Thank you.

JD: Renu Mandhane is the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music: Ambient]

Brexit delay

Guest: Ross Greer

JD: It was a humiliating day for British Prime Minister Theresa May, and an uncertain one for the country. In Parliament, Ms. May called off a planned vote on her plan to leave the European Union after it became clear that she would not have enough support to push it through. And here she is trying to explain this move to her fellow MPs.

SOUNDCLIP

THERESA MAY: I listened very carefully to what is being said in this chamber and out of it.

[Sound: Laughter]

TM: To what has been said in this chamber and out of it by members from all sides. From listening to those views it is clear that while there is broad support for many of the key aspects of the deal, on one issue — the Northern Ireland backstop — there remains widespread and deep concern. As a result, if we went ahead and held the votes tomorrow, the deal would be rejected by a significant margin. We will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow. And not proceed to divide the House at this time.

JD: As Ms. May tries to salvage her Brexit deal, the European Court of Justice has weighed in. It says the UK could stop all this Brexit process entirely if it chooses — and just stay in the EU. Ross Greer is a member of the Scottish parliament who helped bring that case to the European Court. We reached Mr. Greer in Glasgow.

CO: Mr. Greer, before we get to this court challenge — what's happened in the European Court of Justice, which is quite astonishing — I want to, first of all, ask you to respond to what we heard from Theresa May today with all that derisive laughter going on in the background. Just how big a defeat is this for her version of Brexit at this point?

ROSS GREER: This isn't just a defeat for the Prime Minister — it's a monumental humiliation. The government has spent weeks now trying to build support for this deal. And in the process all they've done is lose members of their own party. Not only do they have the opposition of every other party in the House of Commons there are now over 100 Conservative MPs who have pledged to vote against it. So they got to this point where on the eve of the vote on their own deal having to pull it. They had government ministers out this morning right up until the minutes before the Prime Minister decided to pull it who were sent out to TV studios to visit people across the country to maintain not only the deal should be approved, but that the deal would actually be voted on. It's a sign of a dying government that they can't even bring something that they've spent two and a half years negotiating to the table for the House of Commons to vote on.

CO: And I guess it as if it can't be more explosive the situation today as this major development that the European Court of Justice is saying that well it's quite possible to stop this whole process in its tracks — that you don't have to get the permission of the members of the European Union — that this whole thing could just come to an end just by a vote in the House of Commons. so what's the significance? It’s been called a dynamite ruling. How would you describe it?

RG: I was one of the six Scottish politicians who took this case to the European Court of Justice because we believed it was really important for members of the UK Parliament to have absolute clarity on the options available to them because they ultimately make the decisions in this process. The ruling today is an incredibly powerful one. It's a historic one because it says that any country, and in this case it’s the UK, can unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 notice, and simply end the process of leaving the European Union. And we can do that and maintain the specific terms of membership we currently have. So what we've got now is a situation where the highest court in Europe — the one that governs the article 50 process — has said if the UK democratically decides to revoke Article 50 before the 29^th of March, 2019 — the date that we leave the European Union — then the process simply stops. And that in practice means that members of the UK parliament when they are forced eventually to vote on this deal or whatever version of this deal with the prime minister brings back to the Commons — because she has to bring something back — they will know that voting this deal down does not automatically result in the UK leaving the European Union with no deal in place, which would be a truly disastrous situation.

CO: And that doesn’t seem to be what's in the works according to Theresa May. I mean there has been legal opinion that this whole case that you brought before the Court of Justice is just hypothetical because the prime minister has no intention of revoking Article 50, and that there was a referendum where a majority voted in the UK to leave. So isn't this all just rather hypothetical?

RG: So the courts at every level, the Scottish Court, the Court of Session — which is our court, the UK Supreme Court, and then the European Court of Justice all rejected this argument that it's hypothetical. It's clearly not hypothetical because this is now playing out before our eyes. MPs will vote on the outcome of this process. It's already been agreed there will be what's called a meaningful vote. MPs will either have to approve the deal that is negotiated. Approve a no-deal Brexit, which would be genuinely disastrous. That's the situation where we deliberately collapse our own customs borders and start running out of foods, medicines, fuel, etc. that are not produced in the UK that we import from the rest of Europe. Or we can now know that we can simply end the process and stop leaving the European Union. It's playing out not just before our eyes but across the world, people are looking at the UK having this political meltdown. And we have now found what is potentially the most viable way out of the situation.

CO: But you say potentially. What could be done between now and March 29th — the deadline? I mean is there a possible vote that would have that democratic decision to revoke the decision to leave? I mean can you see the really strong possibility that this could happen?

RG: We’re in quite an usual situation at the moment where every potential outcome of this process can be seen as unlikely for a variety of reasons. You can cite a number of reasons why the deal being agreed is unlikely. Clearly, it's going to be defeated. You can cite a number of reasons why leaving under a no-deal scenario is highly unlikely. There's an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons to stop that from happening. And you could cite any number of reasons why stopping the process is unlikely. But one of these has to happen. They're all unlikely, but one of them has to be the outcome. What we could now see is a situation where members of the UK Parliament cannot accept the deal. There is absolutely no majority for this deal. That's why the prime minister has stopped having a vote on it. They're clearly not going to agree to a no-deal situation if MPs themselves don't want to end the process, and it would be quite understandable why they might feel that this process started with a referendum and it shouldn't end with MPs taking unilateral action. Then the solution is to send it back out to the people. The Leave campaign slogan was “take back control”. Well, we believe, the Greens believe, a number of other parties now, and a growing movement of people across the United Kingdom believe the public should take back control of the Brexit process, and should have the final say. Momentum behind this is massive. The largest single demonstration held in the United Kingdom since the demonstrations against the Iraq War in 2003 was the one held last month for a people's vote, so there’s clearly a momentum behind giving this back to the public.

CO: All right. An extraordinary week in the UK, and we'll be watching very closely. Mr. Greer, I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

RG: Thank you.

JD: Ross Greer is a member of the Scottish parliament. We reached him in Glasgow. This afternoon, European Council President Donald Tusk tweeted that the EU would not be open to renegotiating Brexit, but is, quote, "ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification." Unquote.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Burton mittens

Guest: Anna-Maria Mountfort

JD: For many parents out there, keeping winter accessories on the legs, heads, and hands of their children can feel like Sisyphus pushing that rock up a hill — futile. And that struggle led one Toronto designer to devise a type of kids' mittens that stays on, no matter how much your toddler flails. But Anna-Maria Mountfort's design didn't just catch the eye of fed-up parents and fashion magazines. It also caught the eye of winter sports company, Burton Snowboards. Ms. Mountfort claims that Burton, inspired by her idea, sold its own versions of the mittens — and did not acknowledge nor compensate her. She says an interview she heard on this program made the company's actions more galling. We reached Anna-Maria Mountfort in Toronto.

CO: Ms. Mountfort, what was the interview on “As It Happens” that made such an impression on you during the ongoing dispute over your mittens?

ANNA-MARIA MOUNTFORT: Well, it's funny because I hadn't thought about it for a while. And then you know after Donald Trump was elected president there was the organized Women's March on Washington. And I heard the CEO of Burton, Donna Carpenter, being interviewed about her outstanding generosity and leadership truly for paying for her staff to participate in the Women's March.

CO: And so what was it that incensed you about that?

AMM: I was disappointed deeply to hear the language because it was so contrary to what I had experienced in my interactions with Burton's lawyers.

CO: Well, let's hear that clip — part of the interview that you heard about with Donna Carpenter on “As It Happens”. This is early 2017, and here's a little of what she had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

DONNA CARPENTER: When women make progress, I see it in my own company, when we started to take women's issues seriously, whether it's child care, or post maternity, paternity leave, all those things. When we started to take women's issues seriously, we became a better company. As a country, we're only as good as are our women, right? And how empowered our women feel. And how entrepreneurial they feel. And it just feels like a natural extension of the work that we've been doing around gender equality.

CO: All right. So Donna Carpenter talking about women entrepreneurs and how much faith she has in them, how much she believes in them, and so what was your experience with Burton that got you angry with the company?

AMM: My experience was that I'm a designer, and what I design are children's accessories. And I'll be honest with you I was a huge fan of Burton's for a really long time. So one day I got an order on my online shop from an employee at Burton who I looked up on LinkedIn and is a designer there. And she ordered a pair of my mittens directly to Burton headquarters in Burlington, Vermont. I asked you know hey, what's up? Why are you ordering these given that Burton already makes mittens for kids? And she followed up with saying she just thinks that they're great. And she already has a pair. And she's getting these for her niece. So I was you know disappointed to see how Burton was, in fact, inspired by my mittens because they came up with a long patterned sleeve version the next year.

CO: You think they took your idea?

AMM: I think they were definitely influenced by my idea. It's a mitten with a long sleeve on the end so that it stays on — a double band welt at the top, so they stay on even better. But that having been said, there are two other companies in the United States that make a long-sleeved mitten also. And all of us happen to have patents on our designs. But I think that mine are a little bit special because I knit patterns in them, and Burton knit patterns into theirs.

CO: And you have a patent on your mitts when Burton, as you say, borrowed your design?

AMM: No, no, I was in patent pending at that point. I was applying in Canada and in the United States. And their lawyer mocked me for not having the patent yet, saying I didn't actually have any protection. And given that it was an appeal, she was rather sure I was never gonna get it.

CO: What have they said to your charges that they took your idea?

AMM: You know here's the thing. I've been very clear in my language that I feel like we collaborated, but that I didn't benefit. You know, Carol, the thing is they’re not really saying very much. They're just saying we disagree and we don't want to do anything about it.

CO: There is a statement to the CBC from Donna Carpenter, she says Burton has done nothing wrong as far as patents go. And multiple brands make gloves and mitts with extended cuffs. So what do you say to that?

AMM: That's the thing. She wants to stick to the patent conversation, which is interesting given that they have no intellectual property rights — that would be Burton. But there are three companies that do. What I'm requiring of her… or not really requiring. But man, I would really like it if she was just the person that she said she was on the radio. Like that clip you played, like I don't need you to be a patent expert, I need you to be like a regular people expert and tell me that this passes the smell test because I don't think it does. I just don't think it does. I just want her to be decent.

CO: You think it was hypocrisy for her to say that?

AMM: Of the highest. Of the highest order, and it's heartbreaking because I come from skateboarding and snowboarding. I worked in a skate shop for years. I'm shaken by it. Like I'm really devastated to think that that you know this company that was small at one point to is this is where they are and I just don't know what to say.

CO: In a letter Donna Carpenter sent you, she said you sound like the definition of a Burton girl.

AMM: I know.

CO: I'm truly sorry our actions upset you. I was very touched by what you said about your daughters, and the snow suits, and would love to restore your faith in us. So if there's anything I can do for you or your daughters, please let us know.

AMM: I know. What a burn, hey? Like she got really personal with me, you know? And I was personal with her because I believed everything she said. I mean I feel like a fool in so many ways, you know? Some kind of recognition would have been I think appropriate. And yet, when I asked for it, Donna Carpenter went out of her way to try and make me feel embarrassed for standing up for myself.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. Ms. Mountfort, I appreciate speaking with you. And thanks for listening to the show.

AMM: Hey, my pleasure.

CO: All right. Bye bye.

JD: That was Anna-Maria Mountfort, the designer of Mimi Tens. We reached Ms. Mountfort in Toronto.

[Music: Ambient]

Utah “Reply All’

JD: The day dawned cold and grey in Utah. Just another Friday in the state whose motto is, simply, "Industry." But as they booted up their computers and chatted about plans for the weekend, state workers would soon be engulfed in a crisis that would pit co-worker against co-worker, in a battle that would threaten their very patience.

[Sound: typing]

JD: At approximately 9:30 a.m. Mountain Standard Time, one unnamed employee of the Utah Department of Corrections sent out a standard seasonal email about a potluck and a fun "white elephant gift exchange." Time, date, five-dollar spending limit: the usu. Except that, when that employee hit "Send," that innocuous email intended for a few colleagues went out to every single state employee in Utah — 25-thousand people. In and of itself, a harmless error. And indeed, historians will not blame that innocent initial emailer. They will blame what happened next on those who could not tolerate getting that email erroneously — and then hit "Reply All".

[Sound: more typing]

JD: Within minutes, dozens were sharing their anger at being included on an email from a total stranger by emailing 25-thousand total strangers to say so. Around 10 a.m., government spokesperson Joe Dougherty had tweeted, "It's Reply All-gate 2018," with a screenshot of email after email from people writing, "I think you got the wrong email"; "Please stop 'replying all', it's overwhelming"; "STOP REPLYING TO ALL"; "Take me off this list please! This is a farce!"; "STOP THE MADNESS"; and "I...want to die," among many, many other things. By mid-afternoon, Utah's lieutenant-governor was tweeting, "This is real and it's an emergency... I fear this will never end." It did, of course, at last. But tomorrow, it could happen to you. So heed the warning of this wretched tale because those who cannot learn from history are doomed to "reply all" to it.

[Music: Elevator music]

Part two: Australian bishop, Encore: seagull hotel

Australian bishop

Guest: Peter Gogarty

JD: In August this year, a landmark decision was handed down that many said would spell a new era of accountability in the Catholic Church, worldwide. Philip Wilson, a former archbishop from Adelaide, Australia, was convicted of concealing child sex abuse — making him the highest-ranking Catholic in the world to be found guilty of that crime. Last week, However, Mr. Wilson was acquitted, after successfully appealing to a higher court. Peter Gogarty is a survivor of the pedophile priest whom Philip Wilson was charged with covering up for. We reached Mr. Gogarty in Newcastle, Australia.

CO: Peter, what was the reaction outside the courthouse on Thursday when Philip Wilson’s conviction was overturned?

PETER GOGARTY: I think almost universal shock and disbelief that this judge had come to such a completely different conclusion to the magistrate who heard the matter in the first case. The magistrate found a number of witnesses to be very reliable, and found that Bishop Wilson was dissembling, evasive, and that his evidence was contrived. But the judge found exactly the opposite of that. He found Wilson to be reliable and honest — and most of the other witnesses either to be mistaken or to have created false memories. So it was just stunning disbelief I think.

CO: Can you just first tell us what Bishop Wilson had been convicted of doing? What crime had the magistrate found he'd committed?

PG: Yeah, well in New South Wales law there is a crime called concealing a serious indictable offence. So it was alleged that back in the early 2000s, that Archbishop Wilson knew that a priest, James Patrick Fletcher, had abused a boy back in the 1970s. And effectively, the law in New South Wales says that if you know that somebody has committed a serious indictable offence. And you know that that information would be of use to the police. and you don't give that information to the police then you have yourself committed an offence.

Co: And this was the case of this fellow Peter Cray, who had been abused by a paedophile priest. And that Peter Cray said and told the court that in 1976, when he was 15 years old, he told Father Wilson; he was just the priest then, not an Archbishop. He told them on two occasions that he had been abused by Father Fletcher, is that right?

PG: Yes, that's right. And there was also evidence given in the trial from another boy who had said around about the same time as Peter Cray had told Archbishop Wilson — of then Father Wilson — about Fletcher abusing him. And then a number of other families also came forward and said that in more recent times they'd told Archbishop Wilson about the offending of James Patrick Fletcher. But he chose to do nothing about it.

CO: We just had to be clear though that Philip Wilson himself was not accused or convicted of participating in any abuse of children.

PG: That's right. Philip Wilson it's never been suggested that he was involved in abusing anybody.

CO: Did you know Archbishop Wilson at a time when you were being abused?

PG: Yes, I did. And I knew Archbishop Wilson from an age of about 15, when he was first ordained as a Catholic priest. He came to the parish where my grandparents lived. And then for a short period a little bit later on, he also lived with James Patrick Fletcher — the same man who also sexually abused me. Nine or 10 years ago, I tried to contact Archbishop Wilson. And because the Catholic Church had been protesting that they knew nothing about any of these paedophile priests, I contacted him quite innocently to see if he had known anything about what Fletcher had been up to. And despite having known me for most of my life, the archbishop refused to meet with me or talk to me on the basis that he'd had legal advice not to. So I started to wonder why that would be the case.

CO: And Peter Cray, who was abused by this priest Father Fletcher, Father Fletcher also was the one who abused you?

PG: That's correct.

CO: And what's become a Father Fletcher?

PG: Well, Father Fletcher died in jail quite a few years ago now. He was convicted of sexually abusing another boy. Subsequently, the police have probably identified up to 12 victims of Fletcher. Sadly, he offended from 1971 right up until his arrest in 2002. And I have absolutely no doubt that not just Archbishop Wilson but that other people in the Catholic Church had known about his offending from very, very early on. And the Church knew about it and chose to protect itself rather than vulnerable children.

CO: And that's the larger issue around the world, isn't it? That there as we see these convictions of priests for pedophilia, the question as to who knew what when — who could have protected these children. So what message does this send to the rest of the world where there are efforts to try and bring those who would have known and should have known to some kind of justice?

PG: Well, I think it has a very chilling effect on all of those efforts. And I think it will be very, very unsettling to every child abuse survivor. For example, here in Australia, we had a royal commission that cost billions of dollars. It ran over five years. Investigated I think well over 300 institutions — many of which were within the Catholic system. It found that thousands of people within those hundreds of institutions knew exactly what was going on and chose not to do anything to stop those pedophiles. And we're now faced with the prospect that certainly in this country there has not been a single person now who has been brought to legal account for their knowledge of those abuses. But worse than that, in Australia, we're faced with the prospect that 12 months after our royal commission finished, not one of those institutions has suffered any serious repercussion or consequence for their failure. We still have institutions in Australia who are completely tax exempt. They have charitable status. They receive billions of dollars in government funding. So I think this is a deep setback. And the ramifications I think are yet to fully play out. And I think people will be thinking about this deeply for a long time.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. Peter, I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

PG: Great. Thanks for the opportunity.

JD: Peter Gogarty is a survivor of child sex abuse within the Catholic Church in Australia, and an acquaintance of the former Archbishop Philip Wilson. We reached Mr. Gogarty in Newcastle, Australia.

[Music: Sombre]

SOD: Yo-Yo Ma subway performance

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A musical performance]

JD: He's one of the most beloved cellists in the world. And this weekend, fans in Montreal had a chance to watch him play outside of the city's usual symphony halls. And inside a place they're usually in a hurry to leave. They were gathered at a subway station — where they listened to the virtuoso Yo-Yo Ma perform, accompanied by the ambient sounds of trains and echoing footsteps. Yo-Yo Ma offers these free concerts as part of his "Bach Project," which he says is about connecting people and cultures to help imagine a better future. Here's more of our Sound of the Day: Yo-Yo Ma performing at the Place-des-Arts metro station in Montreal.

[Sound: More music]

JD: Yo-Yo Ma, performing at the Place-des-Arts metro station in Montreal Saturday afternoon. That is our Sound of the Day.

Encore: Seagull hotel

JD: In a way, any story that's on "As It Happens" is an "As It Happens" story. That said — of all the "As It Happens" stories we aired on "As It Happens" in 2018, this perhaps may be the "As It Happens"-est. 17 years ago, Nick Burchill left a suitcase full of pepperoni near an open window in his hotel room at the Fairmont Empress in Victoria and he went for a walk. He returned to find his hotel room in total chaos, overrun by seagulls who had been unable to resist the cured meat buffet. That messy incident got him banned from the hotel. But earlier this year, Mr. Burchill decided to make amends, and try to have the ban lifted. Well, as the year winds down, we're revisiting some of 2018's most memorable interviews. And in this case, this is one you demanded: after his story went public, so many of you wrote in demanding we give him a call that...we did. So from April, this is Carol's conversation with Nick Burchill.

CO: Nick, your story has gone around the world and back but you wouldn't do interviews. Why now? Why are you willing to talk to us?

CO: Oh, does she listen to the show? She might find out.

NB: Oh, she will.

CO: All right let's go to the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C. 17 years ago, and a story about what happened to you when you went back to your hotel room where you had left a whole bunch of Brothers pepperoni by an open window. What did you find when you got back?

NB: Not what I expected. I put the pepperoni out just to keep it cool. It was in the fridge of my room and I was gone for number of hours, like probably four or five hours. I opened the door, I was tired, I wasn't really paying too much attention, I just kind of walked into the room and shut the door behind me. It was just sort of an explosion of everything in the room. There were a lot of gulls. They'd come through a very small opening in the window.

CO: How many seagulls are in your room at that point?

NB: My guess would be somewhere between 20 and 40.

CO: And what were they doing?

NB: They'd been eating Brothers TNT pepperoni — I’m specific with the TNT because it's hot — they'd been eating that for about five hours and you can imagine what the room looked like.

CO: No I can't imagine, what did the room look like?

NB: They were carrying on their life processes in there for about five hours. So there were feathers, there was guano, there was everything. The shocking thing for me was the saliva. I didn't know that seagulls drooled. This slime was covering everything and they were whipping it up into the air and they were flying around. It was like a tornado. They were knocking things down — the curtains, the lamps, everything in the room was covered with feathers or one form of excretion or another. It was not pretty and the smell was pretty overwhelming.

CO: Why did you decide you should take this on? Why didn't you immediately call for hotel security or something to deal with it?

NB: To tell you the truth I thought that I could handle it. I opened the remainder of the windows and most of them left immediately. I had problems with a couple.

CO: A few of them were left, and so tell us how you managed to lose your shoe?

NB: Well, first I lost my temper and then I lost my shoe. I threw a shoe at one that was kind of bouncing around the windowsill — both the seagull and the shoe went out the window. What I didn't know they have this great thing in the afternoon called high tea at the Empress, and a lot of people line up to get in there and they pay a lot of money to go to this thing. Apparently there was a line of tourists directly below my front-facing window. Apparently I struck one of them with the shoe.

CO: A cleaning person arrived. How did she respond when she came to the room?

NB: It was just kind of a look of shock really. She was really underprepared for what she saw. I didn't even know what to tell her. And when I came back The Empress had moved me to a different, much smaller room, and I didn't get to go back to that room to see how well she made out.

CO: And you didn't get to go back to the hotel for 17 years because you were banished. You were banned from the hotel all the years.

NB: That's right. We were hosting the event that was taking place at the hotel and I had a bunch of customers there. So I think that's probably why I didn't get turfed immediately. When the event was over my employer did receive a letter requesting that I not stay at the empress ever again.

CO: And your request to return to that hotel, you drafted a letter, you were in your hotel across the street. You sent them a letter. Tell us what you asked the hotel?

NB: I just explained to them I would like to either have a pardon or at least have my 17 years considered as time served. Two days later I was at dinner and I got a phone call, and it was Ryan, the manager that I'd been speaking with at The Empress, and he was laughing and he said that they had reviewed my request and that I was no longer banned from me from The Empress. My ban had been lifted.

CO: So you can now return. Maybe they should give you — maybe that room doesn't even exist anymore. Maybe they had to shut it down Alfred Hitchcock style forever. But would you want to go back and relive any of this experience?

NB: I don't know what reliving it. I'm still kind of dealing with the scars from that first incident. But I was actually just at a restaurant up the street from The Empress when I got the call so I immediately went down and I gave them a peace offering of a pound of Brothers TNT pepperoni.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: All right Nick, it's great to have this story from the horse's mouth as it travels around the world.

NB: Thank you, Carol. Nice talking to you.

CO: You too. Bye-bye.

JD: Nick Burchill’s seagulls and pepperoni incident got him banned from Victoria's Fairmont Empress for 17 years. Last spring, he apologized, and the ban was lifted. That interview originally aired in April.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Senate name

JD: Friends, the Canadian Senate needs your help. Parliament Hill is about to become one big bazillion-dollar reno job. While work is under way, the residents of the Red Chamber are being moved to temporary digs down the street. The new location is a former train station that's now called the Government Conference Centre. That name seems to have the upper chamberites feeling low. They've passed a motion expressing their, quote, "desire" to rename it The Senate of Canada Building. Well, so far, the government hasn't officially agreed. And we here at "As It Happens" are wondering whether or not the delay might be due to the fact that even the new name is, well, it’s a bit boring, isn’t it? So on the Senate's behalf we're asking a favour of our listeners: will you name the new Senate building, please. If you had your way, what would you call the home-away-from-home of Canada's appointment-only defenders of democracy? We'll take suggestions on Twitter and on Facebook: both those accounts @cbcasithappens. Or you can e-mail them to: aih@cbc.ca.

[Music: Ambient]

Part three: Thunder Bay death, Huawei fallout, Lyudmila Alexeyeva obit

Thunder Bay death

Guest: Cornelius Wabasse

JD: Last week, 17-year-old Braiden Jacob went missing in Thunder Bay. For four days, family and volunteers searched the city for him. And then, yesterday, police issued a news release that said they were investigating a "sudden death" in a local park. Members of his community identified the body: it was Braiden Jacob. The teenager's family lives on the Webequie First Nation, an Oji-Cree community almost six hundred kilometers away. They'd travelled to Thunder Bay for support they couldn't get in their own community. And now, once again, there are calls for better support to be made available closer to home. Cornelius Wabasse is the chief of Webequie First Nation. We reached him though in Thunder Bay.

CO: Chief Wabasse, first of all, my condolences to your community for your loss.

CORNELIUS WABASSE: Thank you.

CO: Have you spoken with Braiden's family?

CW: Yes, I have — yesterday.

CO: How are they doing?

CW: Yesterday, they were in shock. And they were having a hard time. Right now, they're okay. We have a lot of supports with them now.

CO: Braiden was 17 years old. What was he doing in Thunder Bay?

CW: He was here with his family doing family counselling.

CO: And he'd come from your community. So why couldn't he get that counselling in Webequie?

CW: Webequie is a remote community, hey? And we don't have the services over there or qualified services that the residential school survivors require.

CO: How important was getting that counselling for him?

CW: For Braiden’s family, it was a need because they've had previous losses to their family. So it was very important that they talk to somebody from outside. That's one of the other issues is that sometimes the family needs to talk to somebody from the outside rather than in the community.

CO: Of course. And so he was in Thunder Bay with part of his family. And how long had he been in Thunder Bay before he went missing, do you know?

CW: Oh yes, they came out on Monday of last week. And they've been there for four days.

CO: And what happened?

CW: Well, the family called and said on December 6^th, that evening, Braiden had went out to the lobby of the hotel just to hang around. And I guess he never came back to his room that night.

CO: He was last seen about 9:00 p.m. and then disappeared after that. Is there is there foul play suspected? Are they saying anything about that?

CW: No, they haven't. I mean when he disappeared you know that evening, there was no concern — but after being away for an overnight with no contact and that's when the family got concerned of him being away.

CO: I understand that the mom lost a daughter just three years ago as well?

CW: Yes, that's correct.

CO: How did the daughter die, do you know?

CW: Yeah. Apparently, she committed suicide.

CO: Can you tell us anything about Braiden Jacob? What was he like?

CW: He was a bright kid, Braiden. You know, just a young kid, energetic like sports, hockey, and going about with his friends. And just being in the community doing you know hunting, and fishing, and going out to the land with the hunters. Just being out there and having fun in the community.

CO: And was he struggling?

CW: He was because of the losses that he had in his family with the loss of a sister. Also, he had lost his dad previously.

CO: So difficult.

CW: Yeah.

CO: And again, to the counselling that he was getting in Thunder Bay. Would be helpful if he was able to if he was able to get that in Webequie First Nation? If he able to get that closer to home?

CW: It would have helped, yeah. But one of the biggest problems that we have in our community is it's a remote community, and we don't have the infrastructure and also the services that are required to have a you know good counselling service in the community.

CO: The legacy of the deaths of Indigenous youth in Thunder Bay is quite extraordinary, isn't it? And kids who come from different places because they don't have the schools — the high schools — to go to, they don't have the services they need like Braiden Jacob. They go to Thunder Bay because those basic things don't exist where they're from. And yet, so many kids have died while being in Thunder Bay. What difference would it make to your communities if kids didn't have to go away to Thunder Bay in order to get the services and the education they need?

CW: It would alleviate some of the problems that we have when we send our kids to an urban centre. Some of the kids that we send out to urban centres they get into trouble. They have culture shock or some other problems that are in those places where they're not used to.

CO: It certainly seems to be the case. And again, Chief Wabasse, I'm so sorry for the loss for your community and for that family — if you can pass on our condolences. And thank you for speaking with us.

CW: Oh yes, I will. Thank you very much.

CO: Bye bye.

CW: Bye.

JD: That was Chief Cornelius Wabasse of Webequie First Nation. We reached him in Thunder Bay.

[Music: Sombre]

Elon Musk

JD: "I use my tweets to express myself. Some people use their hair, I use Twitter." The words of Elon Musk — whose hair was, in fact, not too expressive during his "60 Minutes" interview last night. Although, he might be better off if he let his coif do the talking. Mr. Musk has been known to create controversy with his tweets. As you may have heard on the show earlier this year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused him of securities fraud, after he sent out a tweet saying he had the, quote, "funding secured" to take Tesla private. Mr. Musk, and Tesla, ended up settling with the SEC, quote, "without admitting or denying wrongdoing." That settlement required that he step down as chairman — and that there would be oversight of his communications related to the company. Here's part of Elon Musk's conversation with Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes".

SOUNDCLIP

LESLEY STAHL: Have you had any of your tweets censored since the settlement?

ELON MUSK: No.

LS: None? Does someone have to read them before they go out?

EM: No.

LS: So your tweets are not supervised?

EM: The only tweets that would have to be say reviewed would be if a tweet had a probability of causing a movement in the stock.

LS: And that's it?

EM: Yeah. I mean Otherwise, hello, First Amendment. Freedom of speech is fundamental.

LS: But how do they know if it's going to move the market if they're not reading all of them before you send them?

EM: I guess we might make some mistakes. Who knows?

LS: Are you serious?

EM: Nobody’s perfect.

LS: Look at you.

EM: I want to be clear I do not respect the FCC. I do not respect them.

LS: But you're abiding by the settlement, aren't you?

EM: Because I respect the justice system.

JD: That was part of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's interview on "60 Minutes" last night on CBS.

[Music: Jazz]

Huawei fallout

Guest: Guy Saint-Jacques

JD: China warned Canada that there would be "grave consequences", for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the telecom giant Huawei. So far, the most visible of those consequences have been on the diplomatic front. First came the harsh words. And then Canada's Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister canceled a Beijing trip. And now, the BC government has decided the time just doesn’t seem right to lead a trade delegation to China. Guy St-Jacques is warning Canadians without diplomatic standing to steer clear of the crossfire. Mr. Saint-Jacques was Canada's ambassador to Beijing until 2016. We reached him earlier today in Saint-Lambert, Quebec.

CO: Mr. Saint-Jacques, we are hearing China warning of grave consequences since Canada arrested this Chinese executive. How grave can those consequences be?

GUY SAINT-JACQUES: It could be difficult for us because, in fact, we have no choice but to abide by the terms of the extradition treaty. And so at this stage what we see happening is that the Chinese government is trying to put as much political pressure as possible on the Canadian government. And they are seeking what I would call a Chinese solution, whereby if something like this were to happen in China, a leader would call the judge and say let this person go, and don't ask why. Of course, we cannot do this in Canada. And I assume that Mrs. Meng will want to use all the legal recourses that she has to try to delay her extradition to the U.S. as much as possible — which means, unfortunately, that this will extend the time where we will be subject to pressure.

CO: Right. But China knows that the extradition treaty works this way. They've seen it in the past, haven't they? Where Canada arrested another businessman, and then he sent him to the United States for trial, and he's in prison now. So they know this is how it works. Do you think that they're making noise to save face, to make a statement, or do you think that they really would act on this? I guess I'm asking is their bite as bad as their bark?

GSJ: Well, I think there may be a part of that. And also, of course, in China, if you are a Chinese citizen, you don't have many chances to express your frustration or your views. But it goes also beyond that because I think the leadership sees this as a direct attempt to go after one of the flagship Chinese company model that they would like other companies to emulate as the government is trying to move the economy to one that is more aligned with high technology. On top of that, add the fact that the founder of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, who is the father of Mrs. Meng, is very well-connected with the Chinese leadership. And therefore, you understand why this has taken so much prominence. And it's difficult for China to go directly after the U.S. I don't expect they will do much more after having called in the American ambassador. But they will continue to put pressure on us, unfortunately.

CO: That's interesting, isn't it, because we're seeing very little about the United States. We’re seeing about Canada, this state-controlled news media in China is using extraordinary language about this bringing terrorism to state and business competition, saying that the arrest of Ms. Meng is a kidnapping — a hostage taking, and yet, criticism of United States is very muted Aat the same time — even though this arrest is something the United States is seeking. So do you think that they're walking on eggshells with the United States, and needing to save face by going after Canada?

GSJ: I think so. And it's clear that they want to use the 90 day truce that was agreed at the G 20 summit in Buenos Aires between the two presidents who tried to resolve their commercial problems. The Chinese economy is already suffering from the tariffs that have been applied. And they want to try to get out of this mess. But for us, unfortunately, again you know we are left with a problem that we would like to avoid. And now I'm sure that Ambassador McCallum, when he was called in Saturday, explained that we have no choice but to let the legal process unfold. And eventually, it will go to the Minister of Justice. I assume that the proof that has been put together by the FBI is very solid and convincing. And so what could be the next step? We'll have to see. But I would not be surprised that the Chinese government shows its displeasure by canceling ministerial visits. And if this does not work, and depending on how much popular pressure there will be in China, they may want to resort to other measures by limiting some of our exports or by canceling contracts.

CO: Where does it put people… not just the Canadian government, but Canadians working in China. And I'm thinking of what happened when you were the ambassador in China, when after this this Chinese businessman was arrested, Su Bin, and this reprisal — this retaliation that these these two Canadians running a coffee shop, Kevin and Julia Garrett, were arrested and held… well, he was held for a year and a half. And it was a horrible situation. So what concerns should Canadians who are working in China have right now?

GSJ: Well, let's hope that the Chinese government will remain reasonable. But the case of the Garrett is a very instructive one because clearly, there the attempt was to do an exchange between Mr. Su Bin, who'd been arrested in Vancouver for espionage. In the Garrett case, the espionage charge was flimsy. He like to take picture. And he happened one day to take picture of boats with military people on the river. And at the time, we tried to explain to them that there would be no quid pro quo — that the extradition treaty would proceed on its own. They wouldn't listen. They wouldn't believe us. They always thought in Chinese terms that if the prime minister wanted to resolve this, he could have organized this exchange. So I hope that we don't get to the stage where we have a problem like this.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. Mr. Saint-Jacques, thank you very much for speaking with us.

GSJ: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye bye.

GSJ: Goodbye.

JD: Guy Saint-Jacques is a former Canadian Ambassador to China. We reached him earlier today in Saint-Lambert, Quebec.

[Music: Sombre]

Mace-grabber

JD: His official title is the honourable Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown. But in the UK Parliament today, he earned a new one: 'mace-grabber.' During a frustrating debate in which Prime Minister Theresa May refused to put her Brexit plan up for a vote, Mr. Russell-Moyle registered his displeasure by grabbing the Common's ceremonial mace, and trying to walk out with it. That's a big no-no, as the mace symbolizes royal authority — and the chamber is unable to conduct business without it. So here is what that scene sounded like.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: this is a mess]

JD: Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, grabbing the House of Common's ceremonial mace at the UK Parliament today. As you heard, he was intercepted by a House staffer, who managed to retrieve the mace and restore it to its place of honour — and Mr. Russell-Moyle was expelled for the rest of the day.

[Music: Indie rock]

Canadian astronaut

JD: Last week, David Saint-Jacques became the ninth astronaut from the Canadian Space Agency to fly to space. And he is now up on the International Space Station, where he will live, work, and conduct research for the next six months. But earlier today, Mr. Saint-Jacques answered questions from the media during a livestreamed video link from NASA. And he took some time to reflect on the amazing new perspective that this journey has already given him.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID SAINT-JACQUES: So yes, I have had the chance to look at the Earth several times. I've had the chance to take photos of my hometown, and start to dabble with Earth photography. The crew members that were here before me are very, very good at it, Alex and Serena, so they're showing us all their tricks. It is just a never ending sense of awe looking at our blue planet. The thin blue line of atmosphere, that colour, that flash of blue is just unbelievable. And also, the beauty of sunrises and sunsets. And the sense of the size of the planet — to be able to see the whole of the earth, and get a feeling for the size of it. It's very touching and it's very humbling, and it makes you want to go back to earth and help make it better.

JD: Canadian astronaut David Saint-Jacques speaking from the International Space Station earlier today. Mr. Saint-Jacques is scheduled to live and work on the ISS for the next six months.

[Music: Guitar]

Lyudmila Alexeyeva obit

Guest: Tanya Lokshina

JD: When, for very good reason, so many others were too afraid to speak up, Lyudmila Alexeyeva made sure her voice was heard. She was known as the "grandmother" of Russia's human rights movement. And she was one of the last surviving Soviet-era dissidents, who continued her activism well into Vladimir Putin's presidency. Lyudmila Alexeyeva died Saturday. She was 91 years old. CBC Radio's "The Current" interviewed Ms. Alexeyeva in 2010. At the time, she told host Anna-Maria Tremonti through an interpreter that she was questioned by the KGB so many times, she started playing mindgames on the agents themselves.

SOUNDCLIP

LYUDMILA ALEXEYEVA: [Speaking: Russian]

TRANSLATOR: Because I wanted to have fun. You know, I wasn't scared already. After the first interrogation, I realized that the questions they're asking of me are not that professional. I realized what I have to answer in order not to damage the other people. So I wasn't scared anymore, and I allowed myself to play a bit. I would go into an expensive food place on the way there. And I would go and buy myself a nice ham sandwich, a nice cake, or an orange, and would take this all in a little pack with me. And as we were talking, first, the sandwich which would come out, and I would eat it in their presence. I would take the cake out and eat it. And then the orange would come. And you know they got especially nervous when I was taking the orange out because when you peel the orange, it gives this specific smell. And I could see they were getting nervous.

JD: That was Lyudmila Alexeyeva, speaking to Anna-Maria Tremonti on "The Current" in 2010 through an interpreter. Tanya Lokshina knew Ms. Alexeyeva well. Ms. Lokshina is Russia's program director for Human Rights Watch. We reached her in Moscow.

CO: Tanya, first of all, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.

TANYA LOKSHINA: Thank you. Lyudmila Alexeyeva was a very special person. She was indeed the giant of Russia's human rights movement. It feels like she's been around forever, and she would be around forever. She really felt like someone who death could not touch. So I still find it's very hard to wrap my brain around the fact that they’re going to lay her body to rest tomorrow.

CO: We just heard in that clip of her in translation how she could obviously annoy KGB agents that would strike fear in the hearts of most people in Russia in the 50s and 60s — or anytime. How did she handle that? How did she use that kind of humour and teasing in order to survive?

TL: That was Lyudmila for you. She was always an optimistic person who would make the best out of every situation. She could not get out of those interrogations, and she knew that things were pretty grim for her. But meanwhile, she was just trying to have some fun. And she was offered a choice between going to jail and going to exile. And she chose exile over jail.

CO: And Soviet authorities did send her into exile, didn't they? Because she had launched the Moscow Helsinki Group, and that was to track the Government's record on human rights. What did she accomplish with the Helsinki Group? What was her goal?

TL: She was one of the crew funders, as I said, and original members of the Moscow Helsinki Group — the eldest of human rights organizations currently operating in Russia. Once she returned from exile to Russia back from the United States, soon enough, she became the leader of the revived Moscow Helsinki Group. And in that capacity, she did an absolute best. She helped Russian civil society develop. And she also did her absolute best to help victims of abuses to reach out to specific victims to meet with people and listen to people from across this huge country. Moreover, she had this amazingly impressive skill finding the right language and the right voice to address very different audiences — including high-level officials. They could not possibly ignore that Russia would have a very different state if these high-level officials had actually listened to all of her asks and recommendations. But by engaging with them against all odds, she actually saved lives.

CO: There's an extraordinary photo… you say she could speak to anybody in their language. She could speak to Vladimir Putin. Not many human rights activists get anywhere with him. On her ninetieth birthday, he is visiting her; brought her a gift in fact. And seems to be wanting to be her friend. What do you make of that photo and that encounter?

TL: President Putin used Lyudmila Alexeyeva to a certain extent in his attempts to split Russian civil society into good rights activists and bad rights activists. The good ones, who are patriotic, who do not accept foreign funding — and the bad ones. And as part of that campaign, he was very demonstrative about honouring Lyudmila Alexeyeva, and showing his respect to someone who's already become an icon of Russia's civil society, Russia's human rights movement. The gift that he gave her was, in fact, a painting over a small town in Crimea where Lyudmila had been born back in 1927. At that particular moment, the president was also using her image to legitimize Russia's occupation of Crimea.

CO: Just finally for you, what's missing for you now because I know she was quite a mentor for you?

TL: She was a constant source of optimism. And often times, her younger colleagues felt desperate in the face of the increasing human rights crackdown in Russia. She just smiled and went like you know what? It's bad, but it's not the end of the world. I remember that harsh totalitarian state over which we won in the end, even though our cause seemed to be hopeless. if you could do that we are going to win now as well. You just have to have some patience. She says loud and clear that in the present circumstances the most important thing for civil society activists to do is not to give up. Not to lose hope in the face of growing authoritarianism and political populism. But rather continue talking to the authorities about the rights abuses and even most importantly to be reaching out to the public about human rights values. And I think that this particular message resonates not only with the Russian human rights defenders, but it resonates globally.

CO: Tanya, I really appreciate you telling us about her today. Thank you.

TL: Thank you very much. Cheers.

CO: Bye.

JD: Tanya Lokshina is Russia's program director for Human Rights Watch in Moscow. For more on Lyudmila Alexeyeva's legacy, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

December 10 episode transcript

More Stories Like This