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 19, 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: True patriot shove. Too many taxes and too few pipelines lead a Calgary academic to conclude that with the price of confederation is too high, and it may be time for Albertans to Albexit.

JD: Shamefaced. Facebook says it only shares data with its users' permission, but a New York Times investigation says the social media giant made personal messages available to some of its corporate clients.

CO: Been there, undone that. Donald Trump's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria leaves one former official wondering why they're leaving Bashar al Assad sitting in his palace.

JD: Under pressure. They were tried for a plot to blow up the legislature in B.C. Now the court of appeals agrees that a couple's terror plot was the product of over-zealous investigators from the RCMP.

CO: Blowing their crust. Controversy erupts at an English pie-eating contest after the organizers replaced the beef in this year's tarts because of what they call...the methane issue.

JD: Mmmmmm. And...inferior decorator. An Ohio man decides to string a little tinsel on some green poking out of an intersection. Now people are gathering around the "Toledo Christmas Weed" for some holiday cheer.

JD: "As It Happens", the Wednesday edition. Radio that reckons that isn't such a cross walk any more.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Albexit, Syria pullout, Christmas weed

Albexit

Guest: Jack Mintz

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Angry honks]

JD: Those honks rang out in the small town of Nisku, Alberta today. More than 150 truckers formed a convoy, as a show of support for the oil and gas industry in the province. Here's what some of the truck drivers told CBC reporter Scott Stephenson.

SOUNDCLIP

SCOTT STEPHENSON: What do you think of the turnout?

DRIVER: Great. It's great. Way bigger than I ever expected it to be.

SS: What do you think this is going to look like going down the highway?

DRIVER: It's going to be great, man. Yeah, I can't wait to see it. Right on.

SS: You’ll just be honking the horn and giving her?

DRIVER: Go got it. You betcha.

DRIVER TWO: Anyone that lives in Alberta is affected by this. So I came out with my little pickup truck to support the movement, which I think it’s awesome that this grassroots movement has gotten so much Support. And it just it warms my heart to see how many people showed up today.

JD: Some of the voices of then participants from a truckers' convoy in Nisku, supporting the oilpatch. This week, the federal government announced a one-point-six billion dollar package for Alberta's energy sector. But Albertans argue what they need is pipelines, not loans. Jack Mintz certainly feels that way. But the University of Calgary economist is taking it one step further. He's suggesting that Alberta might want to borrow a page from Britain's recent playbook. He's calling his plan to separate from Canada... Albexit. We reached Mr. Mintz in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Mintz, you're calling this separation plan Albexit. I mean considering that geopolitical mess the U.K. is in right now with Brexit, do you think that's a wise association with your idea?

JACK MINTZ: I think that Albexit what I was trying to do is really connect an important idea. And that is that if Alberta is put to the wall, and the rest of Canada wants to stop the oil and gas industry altogether, or certainly not allow it to develop resources in the province, then the province I think has to legitimately ask what is it getting out of Confederation? You know I was just in Britain last week, and seeing all the interest in separatism in Alberta lately, I thought it would be kind of interesting to think about how you compare those two different situations.

CO: But I mean you don't just like throw that off as it as an opening salvo. I mean your article that you published today it goes into details about what you think is possible. And you talk about all the ways you describe how you think Alberta could have a Brexit — an Albexit — and stand as its own country. Do you want to describe that for us?

JM: This is something which my main point was that you know the situation is that Alberta can't develop its oil and gas industry in an environmentally-responsible. I think Alberta could end up being an independent country with an ability to develop its own trading relations, its own government as it wishes to have, and would have to negotiate because I think the rest of Canada would want to too. Some sort of relationship with the rest of Canada.

CO: I’m confused as to how this would actually fix your problems? Because you can have your own national anthem, you can you can put up your own flag if you want, but it still puts you next to an ocean. And so you still are going to have to get your oil to tidewater somehow, right? Or get that other parts of the continent. So how does this help you separating?

JM: So yes, Alberta is being landlocked right now in Canada in the current situation. What would independence do? Well, it won’t necessarily help get pipelines to tidewater in Canada, but certainly you know the United States may be quite willing to make deals with Canada for oil.

CO: Really? I mean you just saw what happened with NAFTA. I mean really? You think that you can negotiate a better deal with the United States than Canada can?

JM: Yes, I think they could. Because Alberta has one card that's really important, which is the energy card.

CO: But they have their own. They have their own shale oil. They have their own resources. Why would they need to help Alberta get its oil to market?

JM: Right now, there's a lot of heavy oil that's in demand. And so actually there would be a real desire to have oil from Alberta. And, in fact, right now, the one major competitor is Venezuela, and we know what's happening to that country. There's a lot of refineries that need heavy oil.

CO: So why do you have to leave Canada in order to get that?

JM: Right now, Alberta can do that. And if Keystone Excel goes ahead certainly that would be a major positive thing for Alberta. If you have the kind of regime that comes in with more onerous regulations are imposed on the industry in Canada, Alberta won't be able to attract the kind of investment that is desired. In fact, right now, foreign investment has really dried up. This is diametrically different than several years ago, when Alberta was looked upon as a very good place for investment with a very good political situation.

CO: Okay, but one of the big issues — and you write about this in the article — is the inability to get your oil to market to get it out of your landlocked province. So you have enough trouble getting the provinces to help you. You heard Quebec call your product dirty oil. You know how B.C. feels about this. If you can't get any cooperation when you're part of the Federation, how do you think that's going to be trying to negotiate their help when you're a country?

JM: Well, when you're a country, you have more control over things. And so you can also bargain differently as well. Don't forget British Colombia, for example, has pipelines going from B.C. gas fields through Alberta going to the rest of North America. B.C. might be willing to make a deal.

CO: No, how would being a country let you get that access that you can't get now being part of the Federation?

JM: You know, just think of it. If you're if you're Alberta, and you’re an independent country, there are all sorts of things that could happen on a negotiation. So, for example, B.C. could be hurt if Alberta left because now new circumstances are going to prevail. And I think what would happen is that B.C. would certainly want to negotiate keeping a lot of the ties that are currently in place. So I don't think it's something that is unusual. One of the things that Alberta could then do is say well, let's do that. But we're going to do that in a way where we want you to allow us to be able to export oil. Listen, I'm not saying this is simple, but you have to ask the question if the federal government is going to put obstacles in the way of resource development then Alberta may have to look at Albexit as a nuclear option. When you have an existential threat like that then at that point Alberta is going to have to talk about the nuclear option.

CO: An existential threat. You think Canada doesn't want you to develop your resource. Didn't Canada spend four and a half billion dollars buying a pipeline?

JM: Yes, and they did that because they cornered themselves into the situation.

CO: Yeah, they may have cornered themselves, but they want to get your oil to market. Canadians want to help you do this obviously through the Federal Government's gesture. So how do you say that there's some sort of desire or conspiracy to keep your product in Alberta?

JM: Well, I think you're really missing the boat here. Because I think if you talk to people in the industry and in Alberta itself, they look at tanker ban on the West Coast that killed Northern Gateway. You have Indigenous-led proposal to build another pipeline. You have a new regulatory system being brought in through Bill C-69, which is viewed as very harmful to the development of pipeline construction, etc. I don't think Canada should be moving ahead to the extent that industry is deciding that Alberta is not a place to invest because of the political uncertainties and difficulties right now in Canada. And at the same time, you have a much more welcoming market in the United States, where production in oil and gas has gone up tremendously over the past number of years.

CO: This term Albexit, which I can't decide if it sounds more like a breakfast cereal or something you serve with cheese and capers, you're going to keep with that name?

JM: Well, actually, I and thought about Altaexit as another option.

CO: You Albext rolls off the tongue?

JM Maybe a bit better than Altaexit.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Mr. Mintz, thank you.

JM: Okay, thank you.

CO: Bye.

JM: Bye.

JD: Jack Mintz is the President's Fellow at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy. Today, however, we reached him in Toronto. What are your thoughts on Albexit? Give us a call: 416-205-5687. And for more on this story, check out our website. That is : www.cbc.ca/aih. And we've got a little project for all of you. What would the nation of Alberta's new flag look like? So fire up your Photoshop, send us your ideas, we want to see them. Email us your flags: aih@cbc.ca.

[Music: Indie rock]

Syria pullout

Guest: Aaron David Miller

JD: U.S. President Donald Trump says he's pulling American troops out of Syria immediately. This morning, the president tweeted, quote, "We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency." Unquote. American media outlets are reporting that the 20,000 troops will be withdrawn in the next few weeks. This is over the objections of some of the president's senior advisors. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham issued a statement that read, quote, "If these media reports are true, it would be an Obama-like mistake." Unquote. Aaron David Miller is a former Middle East advisor to both Republican and Democratic administrations. He's now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. We reached Mr. Miller in Washington, D.C.

CO: Mr. Miller, we heard from Republican Senator Graham. He is calling this withdrawal an Obama-like mistake, which is a pretty damning criticism coming from Republicans. Republican Senator Marco Rubio calls it a grave error. What's your take?

AARON DAVID MILLER: Well look, the issue is what really are our objectives in Syria? With two thousand forces deployed on the ground, you really can't achieve the objectives that we have identified. You're not going to have leverage to remove Assad from power. You're not going to be able to check and constrain the Russians. You're not going to be able to push Iran out of Syria. With two thousand forces, however, you can engage on a more narrow counterterrorism mission. And that has been I think the objective of the last administration and this one. So a precipitous withdrawal, without consultation with allies, without thinking through the consequences what impact it's going to have is never a good thing. And certainly not a good thing to announce a major policy shift by the United States in a tweet.

CO: In a tweet, yes. And what are the consequences in your view?

ADM: Well, I think you run the risk… remember it took a heroic effort by the U.S. military and the coalition to dismantle the Islamic State caliphate. Preventing the Islamic State and the other jihadi derivatives of al-Qaida to prevent them from returning is a much more complex matter. And it involves a series of economic and political steps. And the United States is really not committed to a whole well-funded intense stabilization program. And that's been the mission it embarked: to deny the Islamic State and other jihadis access to territory roughly the size of the state of Indiana. If, in fact, we are going to withdraw, we're not going to be able to complete that mission. So I think it does open up the prospects for some sort of resurgent jihadi presence. But it's not quite the same as Iraq. I mean in Iraq you had 10,000 American forces which withdrew. Here you have a number of other forces which are committed to varying degrees. The Russians, the Iranians, and of course, the Assad regime, to ensuring that the Islamic State does not return. In fact, in this case, you may well see in coming months a major offensive on the part of the Syrian government to retake into recaptured territory. So the real question for the U.S. is who is worse an Assad regime which now controls roughly 73 per cent of the country, supported in an erstwhile manner by the Russians and the Iranians with no hint whatsoever of removing him, or the jihadis? Mr. Trump believes that we need to focus, and I do agree here, on the Islamic State. The problem is that his withdrawal of these forces is going to make that so much more difficult.

CO: A lot of people are pointing to this would be a betrayal of the allies on the ground, particularly the Kurds, who have been fighting with the Americans. Who are really in a vulnerable position, aren't they? And so they would be left the U.S. says it will continue its air support, but they're left on the ground and they're in a hostile territory for a number of reasons, aren't they? So is this a sell-out of the Kurds.

ADM: Well, here's the thing. If the Kurds, and they do, focus on the record of their relationship with the Americans, they should have drawn cautionary tales with respect to how reliable the United States is willing or able to be. They fought heroically against the Islamic State. But you have to weigh that against the other calculation, which is to what degree do we have a stake in maintaining a sound a relationship as we can with Mr. Erdogan in Turkey? No coincidence, Mr. Trump had a very recent conversation with Mr. Erdogan. So he clearly wants the relationship with Turkey to endure, and is much less concerned about local Kurdish elements on the ground.

CO: What happens to the Syrian people — People in Syria? Hundreds-of-thousands dead, millions displaced, their cities destroyed, their economy in tatters, health, education, everything is in such a state. What happens to them?

ADM: Well, I think you know the answer. It's going to be a fitful, painful, excruciatingly difficult process of simply surviving. Authority will break down probably to local officials and councils. Those that who want to do business with the Assad regime, particularly the minorities, may well have to figure out a way to make their peace with Assad. You know we are not the Russians ,we're not the Iranians, and we're not the Assad regime. No American president, and this was true of his predecessor, is prepared to be risk ready when it comes to Syria. For some, that's a moral abdication. The worst single refugee flows since the end of the Second World War — anywhere from three hundred thousand five hundred thousand dead, including Syrian regime combatants. A situation in which an entire generation, particularly young people and children, have been traumatized. I mean there's talk about a lost generation that's essentially what you are going to have in Syria. I would remind all of your listeners, and I have to remind myself too, that the U.S. record in the face of mass killing and genocide from the Nazi Holocaust, to Rwanda, to Cambodia, Darfur, to the Rohingya, to Syria, to Congo, with the exception of Kosovo and Bosnia, has been a record of risk of orison. Mr. Trump is simply carrying on the policy of his predecessor, Barack Obama, who was highly risk averse. And I'm not being critical here. This is an extremely difficult notion. The U.S. could somehow intervene to repair the broken and dysfunctional political systems of three or four Middle Eastern countries: Yemen, Libya, Syria, and to some extent Iraq, where some progress is being made. So the gap between our words and our deeds when it comes to the issue of humanitarian intervention is a very large gap. This is not just a Trump or Obama issue. This has characterized American foreign policy over the last seven years.

CO: All right, we will leave it there. Mr. Miller, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

ADM: Always a pleasure.

CO: Bye.

JD: Aaron David Miller is vice-president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Middle East advisor. He was in Washington, D.C.

[Music: Ambient]

Christmas weed

Guest: Alyssa Emrick

JD: When Alyssa Emrick learned that her dad had put some tinsel on a weed in a Toledo, Michigan intersection, she didn't think much would come of it. Ms. Emrick was wrong. To tell us what happened next, we reached her in Lambertville, Michigan.

CO: Alyssa, what did this weed look like before your dad decorated it?

ALYSSA EMRICK: It was very similar to the Charlie Brown Christmas tree. It's just about two feet tall, had some very sparse branches, and it kind of looked dead, but it was standing strong.

CO: Well, these days I have to say in this country, there’s a lot of talk about weed. But we're talking about a garden variety weed here, right?

AE: Yes.

CO: Where was it growing?

AE: There's a corner of a very busy intersection here, and it's growing off of the slab, like towards the street.

CO: It's like great into the almost into the pavement — into a crack in the pavement?

AE: Yes, exactly.

CO: All right so tell us about the day your dad decorated this weed?

AE: My dad has thought about this for a while where he's wanted to decorate something kind of random in public so when people see it they'll smile. And we pass by this weed every day no matter where we're going. And it wass on the way home from church that he saw it, and he was like that’s the one. It reminds me of the Charlie Brown Christmas tree, it’s in a great location, and he figured if he decorated it, it would make someone smile. So he pulled over, got some tinsel garland, and he just wrapped two strands of it around the little weed.

CO: Were you with your dad when he did this?

AE: No, he actually told me all about it a couple hours later because I was studying for exams.

CO: And did you think that was it? That maybe a few people would smile when they see that, but you'd hear nothing or know nothing more about that story?

AE: Oh yeah. We had absolutely no idea that it was going to turn into like this entire thing where it was on the news and everything like that. Like that was crazy. We didn't even believe it at first when we started seeing pictures on Facebook. We didn't even believe it was like the weed when we saw it. We're like this is not the same weed. And then we looked at the address, and we’re like oh my gosh! it's completely unrecognizable.

CO: What do you mean unrecognizable? What happened to the weed?

AE: There was a tree skirt. There was LED lights put on it, ornaments, a star, people had put trains around it, and wrapped Christmas presents and put them under. And now, I mean there's so many teddy bears in front of any room on the concrete slab. People have started putting donations of socks, clothes, teddy bears, toys, and now there’s big boxes on the sidewalk across from it for canned goods.

CO: Oh my gosh! And what does your dad think about this?

AE: My dad at first was like this is crazy. He was like I can't believe it. He was really happy to see that it was bringing the community together because a lot of people when they put their contributions you know it really spread the word, and a lot of people were having fun with it. And that was like his main goal was to have people smile. But he was really happy that people were having fun with it. But when he found out about the donations, he was ecstatic. He was so excited he was that they went from making people smile to taking that and making it about giving back to others as well.

CO: There were a few spoilers, weren't there? A few people who decided to do something to the tree. Tell us what they did?

AE: Well, it was last Saturday, there was a video of someone who basically they tried to take the weed. But this weed is so strong they had to basically cut it off. So they cut off a top of it, so there's still a couple inches of it remaining, but that didn't stop anyone. I think it was only a couple hours later someone put a potted plant — a dead potted plant — out in its place. And people started decorating around that like it never disappeared. Because the thing is was never about the weed. It was always about people coming together and adding their contributions.

CO: And this is on a busy intersection, right? So people would start to gather I understand.

AE: Oh yeah, when we went today just to like check up on it like there was so many people. There was no room where the weed was located. We had a stand on the parallel sidewalk. It's getting a lot of attention. And now, actually this Friday, they’re going to have Christmas Carol and crazy enough they're going to have a flamethrower performing. I don't know where that's going to happen. But yeah, it's become a whole thing.

CO: Just think, will they sing O Christmas weed, O Christmas weed?

AE: Yes, there are a few people who are singing O Christmas weed.

CO: The Toledo Christmas Weed has its own Facebook page — 10,000 likes, five-star rating. What’s going on in Toledo that you think might be inspiring this?

AE: I think it all comes down to people are looking for the positivity in the world. And people are looking for the good. And that when they find it, they really want to hold on to that. And around Christmas time especially I think that's when people you know say it’s the most wonderful time of the year. That’s when people give back the most. So I think this little weed just kind of made it easier for people to give back, and to kind of feel that Christmas spirit.

CO: Your dad really started something, eh?

AE: Yeah, he did.

CO: How is he going to top this? What will he do for next year for Christmas if he can't find another weed?

AE: I'm not sure. I don't know if he'll ever be able to top this, but I know he'll try.

CO: Alyssa, it's great to talk to you. Thank you so much for this story. It's going to mean a lot to a lot of people.

AE: Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

AE: Bye.

JD: That was Alyssa Emrick speaking about the Toledo Christmas weed. We reached her Lambertville, Michigan, which is near Toledo. If you'd like to see some photographs of what it has been like at this intersection in Toledo, visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Elevator music]

Pie-eating contest

JD: This week, after a dramatic final, Martin Appleton-Clare was crowned the winner of the World Pie Eating Championship. And he did so under a cloud of controversy. Although, admittedly, under no other kind of cloud. At the eleventh hour, Harry's Bar in Wigan, England — where the Championship has been held for 24 years — suddenly changed the stakes by changing the steak part. Athletes had been training for months by eating pies with red meat and potatoes in them. Only to learn that, this year would be chicken pies only. The owner of Harry's Bar gave two reasons for the abrupt change of rules. Tony Callaghan said, quote, "We're steering things away from red meat content this year for health considerations, and also to avoid the methane issue." And then he broke down "the methane issue". Quote, "The warnings about greenhouse gases from cattle, and the controversy involving farting at major darts tournaments." Unquote. Now, last month, there was a flatulence controversy during an elite darts tournament: both players smelt it, and each accused the other of dealing it. But red-meat pies weren't implicated. Furthermore, 1992 world pie-eating champ Dave Smyth feared the change would punish expert pie-eaters — and favour pie-amateurs. He says, quote, "Chicken is less demanding and requires a completely different and less-challenging technique from meat and potato." Unquote. Well, Martin Appleton-Clare was no rank amateur. So congratulations to him, and to the contest, for its attempt to be more environmentally friendly. After all, when you're trying to reduce emissions, you do have to go after gas guzzlers.

[Music: Ambient]

Part two: Facebook privacy, B.C. terror case

Facebook privacy

Guest: Marc Rotenberg

JD: It seemed that things couldn't get much worse for Facebook. But now they have. The New York Times revealed that the company shared personal user data with selected business partners like Netflix, Amazon, and the Royal Bank of Canada. And the report says that the sharing went way beyond revealing the bands you like, or a cafe you visit. Facebook reportedly gave some of those companies the ability to read our personal messages. In a response to the CBC, Facebook said it always asked for permission to share user data with the companies — and did it to improve the experience of users. For its part, Royal Bank says it never had access to personal messages. Marc Rotenberg is Head of Electronic Privacy Information Center — which filed a complaint in 2011 to try to stop Facebook from sharing similar data. We reached Mr. Rotenberg in Washington, DC.

CO: Mr. Rotenberg, given all the pressure Facebook has been under over user privacy, just how bad is today's news for that company?

MARK ROTENBERG: Well, I think it's obviously more bad news. The New York Times investigation revealed that Facebook disclosed a lot of user data without user consent to Facebook’s various business partners. Most likely in violation of a 2011 consent order with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

CO: Well, we were already faced with seeing a movement delete Facebook for what we already knew about what Facebook was doing with our personal data. How much more invasive or intrusive has Facebook been given what we've learned from the news today?

MR: Well, it's always been invasive and intrusive in the sense that the company is built on collecting the personal details of its users and trying to find commercial value for that personal information in its business relations with the business partners. That's been well-known from the start. I think the reason that there's greater concern today is the sense that there really is very little regulatory oversight. We just have not experienced a similar situation in the modern economy where such a large firm is able to act without any regard for legal accountability.

CO: Has Facebook been honest about its use of data? We've seen them before various commissions and courts, and they keep saying that it’s limited what they've been doing with the data, they are protecting it. How open how have they been about what they're doing with our data?

MR: Well, certainly our view is that the company has not been forthcoming about its business practices, or even when it gets caught, about the true scope of the problems that are uncovered. There is a dynamic where Facebook only admits to what others are able to prove. my organization — the Electronic Privacy Information Center, EPIC, here in Washington — 10 years ago, had bought a substantial complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. We documented the problems with Facebook. We thought we made a good case. And we thought we had a good agreement, but we're disappointed to see that the FTC did not act — even after repeated instances of violation.

CO: But Facebook’s director of privacy and public policy has said that none of the partnerships they had with the different players violated privacy, or that Federal Trade Commission agreement. And he said that contracts require the companies to abide by Facebook policies.

MR: Yeah, I don't believe that statement is true. I also think the representative mischaracterized the purpose of the consent order, which was to prevent the company from disclosing user data to third parties without the meaningful consent of the user. Simply the fact that Facebook disclosed the user data to a business partner without the user's consent, that is of-in-of-itself the violation.

CO: But Facebook says it asked users permission to use their data. Is it their fault that we just push I agree on those long documents?

MR: No, it’s not our fault because we purposefully use the expression meaningful consent. Because we knew prior to 2011 that Facebook — and other companies as well by the way — had engaged in deceptive tactics to try to obtain consent so they could disclose data to other. Facebook can't today say well look really closely here, we obtained consent. That doesn't satisfy the legal judgment.

CO: There's one partner that's been reported on that was the Royal Bank of Canada, one of the partners of Facebook, and they reportedly had this special access to the data. The bank says that it never had the ability to view user’s private messages, which was a key part of this report today. And much less that it could send or delete them. And that the partnership arrangement ended in 2015. So should we take the bank at its word?

MR: Well, the bank statement may well be true, but that actually would not answer the question as to whether Facebook itself had violated the consent order by disclosing user data to the Royal Bank. And you see it's not sufficient to say well we didn't look at email. I mean that's actually not a significant service on Facebook. Facebook is using the interests of its users, the places where they go on the Internet to build a profile and create marketing opportunities for the companies with which it engages in various deals. And most likely did have such an arrangement with the Royal Bank. And the responsibility would have been on Facebook, in fact, to ensure that whatever business deal it struck with the Royal Bank was consistent with a consent order. But I don't believe it was.

CO: We did the story yesterday of the Senate Intelligence Committee reports that were about the degree to which Facebook and others were involved in spreading information during the presidential election. How do you hold Facebook to account? How do you make them fess up, and say exactly what it is they're doing with our data?

MR: Well, I think you have to establish meaningful oversight mechanisms, whether that's before the parliament in Canada or Congress in the United States. You need to have agencies with expertise, competence, and authority to conduct investigations. You need to create legal frameworks in which companies are accountable for their business practices. I think there's real urgency. We've got a you know a leaking boat here, and the leak is getting worse.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr. Rotenberg, thank you.

MR: Very nice speaking with you.

CO: You too. Bye-bye.

JD: Marc Rotenberg is Head of Electronic Privacy Information Center. We reached him in Washington, DC.

[Music: Ambient]

St Michael’s College School

JD: There has been another arrest at St. Michael's College School. Police announced today that a seventh student at the private all-boys Caholic school had been charged. Last month, of course, a graphic video of an alleged sexual assault veiled as hazing. It sent shockwaves through the school. The accused are members of the school's football team, which has been scrapped for next year. This is what the head of the Toronto force's sex crimes unit, Inspector Dominic Sinopoli, had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

DOMINIC SINOPOLILI: From start to finish, we have investigated eight different occurrences. Of the eight occurrences, we are proceeding on criminal charges in relation to three of them. You already know about the one where on Monday, November 19th of this year, six young persons from the school were arrested and charged with assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and gang sexual assault. On today's date, five young persons turned themselves into police, and have been charged with assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and gang sexual assault. This is in relation to an incident that occurred on October 17th of this year. Four of these young persons that were arrested today were also implicated in the original arrest of November 19th. Two of these five young persons from today's arrests are also charged with assault and assault with a weapon in relation to an incident that occurred on September 18th of this year. I can tell you that we are still actively investigating the fact that the original sexual assault was both videotaped and subsequently distributed. I can further advise you that despite the various warnings, we have credible evidence to suggest that people are still in possession of this video, and/or have made attempts to upload it on social media. As I have stated, the video and its distribution is a constant reminder to victims of the trauma they have endured. In many ways this could be far more detrimental than the assault itself. We will be relentless in this regard.

JD: That was Inspector Dominic Sinopoli of Toronto Police, speaking about the arrest of seven students at St. Michael's College School in Toronto.

[Music: Guitar]

B.C. terror case

Guest: Marilyn Sandford

JD: Amanda Korody and John Nuttall will remain free. The RCMP had charged the Surrey couple with trying blow up the British Columbia legislature in 2013. A judge stayed proceedings after finding that if, it hadn't been for pressure from RCMP investigators, the pair never would have hatched the bomb plot in the first place. The Crown appealed that 2013 decision. And this morning, the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the lower court's decision. Marilyn Sandford is John Nuttall's lawyer. We reached Ms. Sandford in Vancouver.

CO: Ms. Sandford, Your client is effectively he is freed by this decision. What was his reaction to the news?

MARILYN SANDFORD: Overwhelming relief, and reaction shared by his counsel as well. It's been a long road. And he’s tremendously pleased that this is now, hopefully, all behind him.

CO: And what exactly did the court uphold in this case?

MS: The court upheld the trial judge's decision that our clients were induced to commit this crime. In other words, that it was a police-manufactured crime. And that as a result, for the convictions to be entered would be an abuse of process. So the court agreed it was essentially entrapment.

CO: Now, the couple was convicted for planting bombs at the legislature. How did the RCMP entrap them into doing that?

MS: The RCMP took these two vulnerable people who were socially isolated with substance abuse problems and created an imaginary world. And became their friends, and isolated them from the few social contacts they had, and then used a variety of means to propel them into committing these acts. The Court of Appeal found that the police pushed and pushed, and pushed them to use their words. And they found that the police themselves — the RCMP — were, in fact, the primary actors in the commission of the offence.

CO: And why did they choose this couple?

MS: There's a lot of evidence as to how they ended up on their radar. And the Court of Appeal has found that it was not unreasonable for the police to have been taking a look at them and investigating them. But it's what happened after that that the courts found right at the very, very high test for entrapment. Because it's not a common result in our in our system. It's very difficult to meet the high legal test for entrapment. But it was met here, and it was in the words of the court a travesty of justice.

CO: The couple had a fascination with ISIS, didn't they? They have pictures of them with ISIS flags and whatnot. So was it concluded that they had at any time presented a threat to public security?

MS: The ISIS flag that you're talking about, Carol, was one purchased by the RCMP, who staged a video with that flag behind our client. So that was at the end product of this entrapment. So it's very careful to to keep in mind the enormous factual basis here that that culminated in what happened. Our clients were recent converts to Islam. They had confused ideas about the faith. And the police introduced themselves into their lives, and then manipulated them as I've described, and as the courts accept it happened.

CO: Did they ever present a threat to public security?

MS: Well, the court's findings are that it was the acts of the police that that created the threat effectively.

CO: Now, the Mounties what came out in the original in the Supreme Court decision that the Mounties had their doubts about this case, didn't they? So what pushed the police to keep on with this sting, even when they wondered about the law about the personalities, the characters, the intelligence of the couple they were dealing with?

MS: You know, the RCMP team, and it was a very large team of investigators, Carol. They had differing views as time went by about the targets as they call them of the investigation. And there were some officers who had strong views as time went by that what the police were doing was entrapment. And that they were crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed. And what effectively happened was that those officers were marginalised from the decision making. And, furthermore, the investigators at Ottawa, at the headquarters, were not being told what was actually happening. They were not being told by the investigators on the ground that, for example, that these were heroin addicts they were dealing with. I mean basic facts where we're being left out of the narrative.

CO: The B.C. Supreme Court justice who heard the case is Catherine Bruce. She had described the couple as not very intelligent, gullible, quite naïve, and childlike. To say they were unsophisticated is generous. What happens to them now? This has been years they have been involved in this. They were struggling to begin with. How are they going to cope?

MS: Well, I worry about that. I worry about that a lot. They've done very well since the release from custody. It's been two and a half years, and they have tried to return to quiet lives, and have been largely successful. But the impact on them has been earth-shattering. They were vulnerable to begin with. They have significant difficulties in coping. And now, this has been done to them. And it's also, of course, had an enormous psychological effect because the imaginary world, which I don't think any of us can quite imagine. You discover the entire world you're living in is a fiction. That is bound to have an effect on anyone — let alone these individuals.

CO: Just finally, what does this decision mean for cases dealing with terrorism-related charges in the future? The judgment has something to say about that, doesn't it?

MS: Yes, I think that the case has drawn a line here that's an important one. South of the border, in the United States, entrapment has been significantly weakened over the years as a defence, as a thing in court. And now, this type of operation identical to this one happens fairly regularly in American courts, and the judges don't have the ability to stay the proceedings that are judge here did because their legal test is a very different one now for entrapment. So what this case tells us is that we are not going down the American line and going down that road and taking away a defense of entrapment from citizens who get caught up in this type of operation. So this was a test case in a sense if I can call it that. And now, the courts have firmly rejected it. And I think that's the end of this type of operation in this country for the foreseeable future. And that's a good thing.

CO: Ms. Sandford, I appreciate you coming on the program. Thank you.

MS: You're very welcome, Carol. Thank you. Bye-bye.

JD: Marilyn Sandford is John Nuttall's lawyer. We reached Ms. Sandford in Vancouver.

[Music: Ambient]

Octogenarian PhD

JD: Ollive Bryanton is about to do something no one her age has ever done. At 81 years old, she's about to become the oldest person to get a PhD from the University of Prince Edward Island. Ms. Bryanton has just finished defending her thesis. She'll be receiving her doctorate degree in Education in May. Now, in fact, this be her second PhD. Back in 2000, she received an honourary degree from UPEI. Olive Bryanton spoke to Matt Rainnie on CBC Radio's "Island Morning" today. Here's part of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

OLLIVE BRYANTON: I finished my master's in 2009, and so it took me from 2009 to 2013 to kind of decide. So I applied, and I remember someone saying to me so how do you feel if you don't get accepted? I said probably a sigh of relief.

MATT RAINNIE: I know you're an advocate not only for seniors but for lifelong learning. But how intimidating was it to take on this big new challenge of a PhD?

OB: It was a little bit scary, but I thought I could do it. At least I wanted to try.

MR: And what can you tell us about the research you were doing? What did you set out to do with this?

OB: Well, my overall goal was to, of course, do something around older adults. And I had a million ideas. I ended up doing research with women 85 and older living in rural P.E.I. To me, it was amazing because we don't hear about these women who are out there doing their own thing, thank you very much. They're not a drain on society. They're not a burden on society. In fact, they contribute. It's amazing the amount of work that these women are doing in their communities and outside of their communities as well. And they're not just members of an organization. They have leadership roles — many of them. I would be exhausted just watching what they were doing.

MR: Well, you set the bar pretty high here, Ollive. You do OK. It's so interesting how people can age differently. And again, you're an example of that. But it sounds like the people you interviewed were too. So what is the lesson I guess we can share here and perspective on aging — on getting older?

OB: Well, I think the lesson to us is that we have to get rid of this ageist attitude that's around. We only hear about illnesses, frailty, vulnerability. We didn't have a huge group of people who lived 85 and older. And now we have a lot who are. So they're kind of forging their way through. And like all pioneers, they need a little boost every once in a while. But we have to recognize what they're doing as well. So I think we really have proof that older adults are not a burden just society.

JD: 81-year-old Olive Bryanton has just defended her thesis. And you just heard her speaking to CBC's Matt Rainnie on PEI.

[Music: Jazzy guitar]

Part three: Hungary arrest, Encore: “Halfbreed” author Marie Campbell

FOA: Music Festival

JD: Last year, “As It Happens” brought you the story of Statement Festival — an event billed as a world-first. It was a music festival for female, non-binary and transgender music fans ... only. We spoke to the Swedish festival's founder, Emma Knyckare. Ms. Knyckare wanted to create a safe environment for non-male festival goers after a high number of sexual assualts were reported at Sweden's biggest musical festival, Bravalla, that summer. Here's what Ms. Knyckare said to Carol in October, 2017.

SOUNDCLIP

EK: We can't know that. We can't look in people’s pants and say ‘you can't come and you can't.’ So I think it's up to everyone to be honest, because here in Sweden many guys are like, “Yes this is a really good project and we want our girlfriend, our sisters and friends to come to the festival and have a really nice time and to be safe.”

CO: Can you describe how you think the festival will look and be like?

EK: I don't know yet because we have just started to work with it. I think it's going to be revealing for many people who are going to be there. Just to be in a place and know that nobody's going to hurt you or you don't have to look over your shoulder all the time. And then we also have a problem in Sweden that we have a lot of male artists in the festival. It's like really strange bookings, a lot of men, not many women. So we are going to try to book a lot of woman artists, and that's also like a big difference to the festivals.

CO: Will you have male artists?

EK: Not male artists. But if they want men in their band then we don't say ‘no that's not ok.’

CO: I know you have had some arguments put back to you, that you are discriminating against men, that all men are rapists, that they also understand what it is to be vulnerable and oppressed, homosexual men, non-white men are saying that to you. So what do you say to them?

EK: I can say to them yeah, I know that not all men are rapists, but I can't know who is a rapist. So if we exclude men from one festival, two days in one year, it's just two days. It's the best thing to do, I think right now to be safe, and this is just a reaction, it's not a solution of the problem.

JD: That was Emma Knyckare talking to Carol in 2017. Ms. Knyckare did achieve her goal: the first Statement Festival was held in Gothenburg last August. But a complaint had already been made to Sweden's Discrimination Ombudsman. And that office has now found the festival guilty of gender discrimination. The ombuds said that even though organisers didn't enforce the no-men rule, the publicity, quote, "discouraged a certain group from attending the event." End quote. The ombuds did add, however, that nobody was hurt, so no penalty would be imposed.

[Music: Ambient]

Hungary arrest

Guest: Adrien Beauduin

JD: Thousands of people have been on the streets of Budapest, protesting against new legislation that they say amounts to "slave law." And many of those protesters have been charged. It began last week when the Hungarian government tabled new laws for overtime work. By Sunday, as many 15,000 people were rallying against Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government. And then, some opposition MPs occupied Hungary's state-run TV headquarters. One of the protesters is Adrien Beauduin, a Canadian student at the Central European University. Last week, Mr. Beauduin was arrested at a rally and charged. He was released after two nights in jail. And now, is awaiting trial. We reached Adrien Beauduin in Budapest.

CO: Adrien, what have you been charged with?

ADRIEN BEAUDUIN: So I've been charged with collective violence against a police officer.

CO: That sounds pretty serious.

AB: Yes, it’s very serious. Here in Hungary, it might lead to from two to eight years in jail.

CO: And what are they accusing you of doing?

AB: So what they are saying is that so I was at the demonstration on last Wednesday against the new law on working conditions. And things got more intense around 9:00-10:00 p.m., and there was a lot of anti-riot police, some clashes, some pepper spray, and only later when things were more calm I was still there around 11:30-midnight. Out of the blue, the police charged, and I was caught in that charge. And I was arrested.

CO: And they say that you assaulted a police officer. Did you?

AB: No, I did not. I did not assault any police officer. I have to say that also there were four other people who were arrested more or less at the same time — people I don't know. And from what they told me in the cell, they have exactly the same description of the alleged crime. And they all are accused of having hit with their left arm, and having kicked in the direction of the police. So it's really peculiar. It's really weird that the five of us are somehow accused of exactly the same gestures.

CO: Do you have legal representation?

AB: Yes, I was really happy to have the help of the Hungarian Union of Civil Liberties. And I have I have a lawyer that has represented many activists here in Hungary in the past.

CO: And Global Affairs Canada says they are aware that a Canadian citizen has been released from detention in Hungary. What are the Canadian officials doing to help you?

AB: I was really happy to see them. They were alerted immediately. And I was really happy to see them in jail on the second day. And I mean lucky enough to have good legal representation. Now they mostly helped me to have a better interpreter because if the charges are not dropped, and we do go to trial, it's very important for me that my words will be understood correctly.

CO: You are a student with the Central European University, right?

AB: Yes.

CO: And that's something that well a strong Canadian connection there. We had Michael Ignatieff, who was running that school. And we had protests recently because the school has had to move out of Hungary. But that's not what you were protesting in this round. This is about new laws for workers. Can you tell us about that?

AB: Yes, indeed. I've been quite active in the student movement around the question of academic freedom in Hungary because it's not only about Central European University, but there has been cases, for example, gender studies where the government withdrew the accreditation for gender studies because it's against their state ideology. There were big cuts in funds for universities. And they want to privatize one of the main universities. So first, I mobilized around that. We were a big group of students from universities — Hungarians and non-Hungarians. And we also decided to show solidarity with the workers because we were appalled by this new law that basically forces workers to work 400 hours of extra time every year.

CO: And they're calling these “slave laws”. Could you tell us why they call it such?

AB: Because it actually forces those workers to accept this overtime. So it means that that's like 10 extra weeks of work every year that some workers might have to accept if they don't want to be fired. This even foresees that they will only get paid up to three years after having done this work. So yeah, it does sound like slavery.

CO: There have been these protests. You were part of them. Huge numbers of people in the streets. But still, Viktor Orban seems quite popular, doesn't he? I mean has a strong majority in parliament. He has seems to have strong support among Hungarians. So what can you really do about that.

AB: I mean yes, we do we do see that. I think there is a big problem with media. For example, as soon as the protests happened, the propaganda says that we're paid by George Soros. And obviously my case was highlighted as the alleged proof of that. So I've had a lot of slur articles against me and against other people. And, unfortunately, I think there are many people who still believe that. But I also think that they're less and less people that do believe that. And we've seen it that more and more citizens start to be critical. There are no migrants. And George Soros cannot explain why they have such low salaries. You’re speaking about the Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros. And Victor Orban’s government has really blamed George Soros for just about everything that's wrong, including that he believes that these protests and anybody who's resisting are part of this foreign funding that George Soros represents. That he is trying to undermine the government. Do you have any concerns as being a foreigner, being a Canadian, and disassociation that perhaps your own legal case is more troubling because you are you from outside of Hungary.

AB: Yes, it is. I mean we already see how it's being manipulated for political gain. So, of course, that does worry me. I mean I'm lucky enough that I am a Belgian citizen, a Canadian citizen, so I'm a bit more lucky than maybe some other foreigners from my group who could have been arrested.

CO: But you're free to go right now. You're out, but you've been returning to the protests since you were arrested. Is that so prudent to do?

AB: I mean I asked the prosecutors my civil liberties were still protected. So yes, I mean for me it's important that I will not let fear take over. I mean, of course, I am afraid. But also, I do really strongly believe that it's important to show solidarity with the Hungarian workers, with the Hungarian people who would like to live in a country with the rule of law and democratic standards. So I feel like it's also my duty to them to continue the mobilization.

CO: Adrien, we will leave it there. We'll be following the developments in your case. I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

AB: Thank you very much. Have a nice evening.

CO: Bye-bye

JD: Adrien Beauduin is a Canadian who was arrested and charged after he attended a protest in Hungary last week. We reached him in Budapest.

[Music: Horns]

Trudeau year end

JD: As 2018 winds down, the news has not. And today, Parliament Hill reporters got a chance to pepper prime minister with questions during his year-end news conference. Many of those questions focused on his government's response to the Canadians who have been detained by China. Here's HuffPost's Ottawa Bureau Chief Althia Raj.

SOUNDCLIP

ALTHIA RAJ: You've obviously talked about it, been told to de-escalate the situation with China. For the folks at home, can you explain to them why de-escalateing the situation won't help get these two Canadians back home? Because we thought that the case Kevin Garrett lasted years and years, and years. Why is the de-escalation the right approach?

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: As I've said, over the past three years, we have understood that engaging in a range of different ways on different consular cases is a better way than trying to apply a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach. And in many cases, escalation or you know very strong political statements can actually end up being counterproductive to the goal, which is to get Canadians freed, to get Canadians back home to safety. I think Canadians understand that even though political posturing might be satisfactory in the short-term to make yourself feel like you're stomping on the table and doing something significant. It may not directly contribute to the outcome we all want, which is for these Canadians to come home safely. And sometimes escalation is not the right political path, or right to a substantive path to getting Canadians out of difficult situations that they find themselves in. As I said, our approach on this is always predicated on what is the path likeliest to provide the best outcome. The best outcome being safe Canadians and Canadians who return home.

JD: The PM was also asked about the sometimes heated difference of opinion on the subject of oil and gas and pipelines in Alberta and Quebec. CP reporter Kristy Kirkup is asking this one.

KRISTY KIRKUP: You have Francois Legault coming out and talking about dirty energy. And meantime, in Calgary at a pro-pipeline rally, politicians were booed for speaking French and talking about products from Quebec. What is the seed of national unity amidst the pipeline debate? Is there anything at stake here?

JT: I had the opportunity to talk with a lot of Canadians right across the country, and I can tell you there are not many Canadians out there who wish ill on other Canadians — regardless of which part of the country they're from. Canadians know that being there for each other, supporting each other in difficult times, and working towards a better future all together is one of the most successful ways for this country to continue to be the extraordinary, free, and fair country that we are. Unfortunately, we are at a time where there are politics of division, of difference that get highlighted. But my commitment to Canadians is always to strive to bring people together, to bridge differences, to make sure that all Canadians know that from coast to coast, to coast there are people there who have their back, who are ready to support them through difficult times. That is the pledge that I continue to make to Canadians when I see them across the country when I stand before them as prime minister. And I will continue to stay committed to that.

JD: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, responding to the media at his year end news conference in Ottawa today.

[Music: #AIH50 theme]

Encore: Marie Campbell

JD: The whole story will soon be in print. A few months ago, we told you about Maria Campbell's 1973 memoir "Halfbreed." A pair of researchers had unearthed a passage that had been cut from the Metis writer's book. It describes her alleged sexual assault by an RCMP officer when she was just 14. Now the book is slated to be republished — with the missing pages restored. The new edition — which will also include an afterword by Maria Campbell — will come out in November 2019. Back in June, Simon Fraser University professor Deanna Reder told us about how she and her colleague tracked down the missing tract. Here she is speaking to Carol.

CO: Professor Reder, did you have any idea that this passage existed someplace, or might exist?

DEANNA REDER: Well, in fact, there have been rumours about this. I remember in the early’ 90s, a colleague and historian had said oh, there were a lot that was edited out. And, in fact, Maria Campbell, in 1991, had an interview wand said explicitly so. But that had really been lost in my memory — just the sense that it had been a heavily edited text, even though it continues to be a real classic of Canadian Indigenous literature.

CO: How did you react when you actually found this in the archives?

DR: I knew that the McClelland and Stewart archive would be the place to look for any material. And I had the chance to meet Maria Campbell at a conference with my Ph.D. student an archive ninja, Alix Shields. And so we asked if we had her permission to look for more. She did not believe there was anything more because she had asked for this particular passage back and had been told it had been destroyed.

CO: Tell us the story that this excised passage tells?

DR: So what's important to understand is that the Campbell family as half breeds or Metis didn't have land or the right to hunt — essentially making Danny Campbell a poacher.

CO: This is the father of Maria?

DR: That's right. He hunted to support his family. And so the family were out growing the meat in the bush and processing the meat when Maria returned home. And she arrived at the same time as three RCMP officers who were looking for her father's cache of hidden meat. And at that point, the passage details how the two officers went to two different parts of the house, but a third stayed with her, dragging her to her grandmother's bed and sexually assaulting her.

CO: You discovered this in the archive with a big, red X through it. What's the story behind that?

DR: Alix took a day to go to this particular archive — The McClelland and Stewart archive — and look at the typescript. And she's flipping not really seeing anything. And then when she gets to around Chapter 12, she sees this big, red X. She immediately left the archives, where we are not allowed to make phone calls. And went down to the library basement whispering to me because she recognized — as I think everyone who reads this passage recognizes — how vitally important it was to reunite this into the story.

CO: The book “Halfbreed” was and absolutely astonishing book when it came out in the 1970s. McClelland and Stewart… do you know why they didn't publish it? Because you found in the archives various letters with Jack McClelland writing them discussing why they were not going to include this passage. What did they say?

DR: Essentially, all went around the topic of libel — whether or not the RCMP would put an embargo on the book. And so they felt that it wasn't worth the risk. And Jack McClelland himself said I do believe her, but it will be a messy business to deal with.

CO: He was concerned, according to the letters that you have put in your article, Jack McClelland was concerned about an injunction that the RCMP would stop its publication, and it would never come out at all the book. And that he also said he didn't think that she would be believed, which is interesting. A chilling echo to what she actually writes in this passage about her 14-year-old self back in the 1950s. What is it that her grandmother tells her about reporting this?

DR: I mean her grandmother said no one ever believed halfbreeds in court. And they would say that I had been fooling around with some boys, and tried to blame the Mounties instead. It echoes this very familiar trope of girls and women who've been sexually assaulted and the chance that they're very often not believed. But in this case, as an Indigenous woman with very few legal protections, you know even more so.

CO: This book was coming out in the 1970s, Jack McClelland would know that the chances of any woman being able to successfully bring a rape case against Mounties or to accuse Mounties of rape — would go probably nowhere, but even more so for a Metis woman.

DR: Except that in the correspondence, she states that she's consulted a lawyer, and that she has been told that she is it would be able to proceed. So this is a case where you know the editor is thinking and deciding on behalf of the author of the book. You know and that's an example of silencing an Indigenous woman's voice. And not just any Indigenous woman, I mean this classic went on to inspire generations of Indigenous writers in Canada. And yet, we haven't heard this key part of the story. And why? Because the editor decided it wasn't worth the risk.

CO: You have told Maria Campbell that you found this passage. What did she say when you informed her that?

DR: We did email her, and made sure that the publication was with her full consent. And her words was wow! Wow! I didn't think that it existed. And so that in itself is tremendously gratifying. Archival work isn't usually, so we were really happy at least to be able to return a passage to her.

CO: The book was such an extraordinary read at the time. It still is, but this key passage as you point out explains so much of Maria Campbell as she was growing up — because this happened when she was 14. Did she tell you whether she would like to see this restored to future editions of “Halfbreed”?

DR: She does say in the 1991 interview if she were to reissue the book, the only thing she would like to do is reinsert this last passage. But we haven't talked about it at this point. She is 78 years old. She has great grandchildren that she's very involved in, as well as being a very busy activist. I can certainly say that she was in support of the publication of this essay. Yes. And of this passage — I can't speak to the future of a new edition of the book.

CO: We will leave it there. It's a fascinating story, Professor Reder. Thank you.

DR: Thank you very much.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

December 19, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This