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 2019

The AIH Transcript for January 31, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening, I'm Karen Gordon, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is “As It Happens”.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

KG: Tonight:

CO: If you are broke, still fix it. The Supreme Court rules that, if an oil company goes bankrupt, its first duty is to clean up its environmental mess — before it cleans up the financial one.

KG: Submission accomplished. Former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker says the framework peace deal struck between Washington and the Taliban isn't a victory — it's a surrender.

CO: The long harm of the law. Five years ago, French police officers raped a Canadian woman inside their Paris headquarters. Today, they were found guilty.

KG: Counting their very few lucky stars. Scientists are alarmed to find sunflower sea stars have all but disappeared from the West Coast of Canada and the U.S. — and our guest sees nothing less than an apocalypse.

CO: Portrait of the artist as a young woman. For years, they've insisted they have the only professional painting of Jane Austen. Now, the owners have found a note they hope will make that a truth universally acknowledged.

KG: And...up against the squall. We asked you to share your stories of winter-related tension between you and your neighbours — and we received a flurry of calls.

KG: "As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that's never had it snow good.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Supreme Court of Canada: Redwater cleanup, France rape trial, sea star apocalypse

Supreme Court of Canada: Redwater cleanup

Guest: Daryl Bennett

KG: The company that builds the well also has to clean it up — even if it's gone bankrupt. That was the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada today. It stems from the case of Alberta's Redwater Energy, which became insolvent in 2015. The company wanted to pay back its creditors, before cleaning up its non-working wells. Daryl Bennett is a farmer and part of a group that represents Alberta land owners. His group argued at the Supreme Court against the energy company. We reached him in Taber, Alberta.

CO: Daryl, what are your reactions to this win at the Supreme Court today?

DARYL BENNETT: We were pleasantly surprised at how firm they were in entrenching the polluter pay model. So I think all the landowners are happy.

CO: What does that mean? What did you win?

DB: Well, the court of appeal it stated that when a company goes bankrupt that they can walk away from their environmental liability. So the Supreme Court did state that before these companies go bankrupt, if there's any assets left, it has to go to rendering these wells safe and cleaning up the mess that they've created.

CO: And this is around this one particular company, Redwater Energy, is that right?

DB: Well, Redwater was a small company. They only had about 120 wells. This was much more than that. Since that Redwater decision, there are lots of companies that have gone bankrupt — some of them with two or three thousand wells. And so it was much more about just Redwater. And it was much more than just oil and gas. This applies to uranium mines, asbestos mines, nuclear power plants, any situation where a private enterprise has a business that creates pollution. They are not responsible to pay for that.

CO: And what do they have to do? What do these companies have to do? If they are bankrupt, how are they able to pay for the cleanup?

DB: Well, see, in Redwater’s case, they had 20 wells; 20 of them were good, 100 were bad. And the receiver wanted to walk away from the 100 bad ones, and they wanted to take the ten good ones and sell them off and use that money to pay the banks. And the Supreme Court has said no, that's not allowed. So you're right, in many cases, when they are bankrupt, they don't have much assets left. But you know most of these companies would still have a couple of good wells that could be sold to help pay to clean up their reclamation responsibilities.

CO: So the point is that they're their first obligation. The priority has to be to clean up the wells to the polluter pays. And that after that comes responsibilities to creditors and everybody else, right?

DB: Yes.

CO: Can you just tell us what it means to have these wells… now we're talking about conventional oil extraction, aren’t we? This is not the oil sands. So what does it mean, what is it like to have these orphaned or abandoned wells on your property?

DB: So I have a number of neighbours that grow specialty crops, and they no longer can grow those crops around these leases that are now abandoned — there's nothing there but the soil that’s contaminated. And their food safety regulations prohibit them from growing these crops anywhere near this contamination because you don't want your potatoes contaminated with toxins, sweet corn, pumpkins, that type of stuff. So number one is food safety. Number two would be employee safety. A lot of times these are just well heads out in the middle of your field. They're overgrown with weeds. If you're operating at night or in bad weather conditions can you actually see the well? Are you going to run into it with expensive carbines and swathers and damage your land? Some landowners have gone to get mortgages on their land and they no longer can because the banks won't lend them money because the land is contaminated. A lot of landowners have been faced with a situation where there's builders liens placed on their land by industries contractors for unpaid utility bills, unpaid construction bills. and some landowners have actually had to pay off some of these liens so there's a lot of problems that come with these sites with the contamination that's left, and the uncertainty of who do you call? Who's responsible? And is the landowner liable if he doesn't take extra action to make sure the pollution doesn't spread off the lease?

CO: How did the landowners come to have these oil wells on their property?

DB: In lot of cases they have signed a lease. But that's under the circumstance where oil and gas operators can force their way onto your land. You don't have the right to say no. They will use the Surface Rights Act. They will expropriate the land. So, in a sense, you cannot say no. And that's where the social contract comes from that if we can't keep you off our land, and you're coming on in the public interest to exploit the resource, the social contract requires you to clean it up before you leave. And that's where a lot of these companies were taking action to shuttle off these assets to companies that were then allowed to go bankrupt, and then nobody was there to clean up the mess. And it was just being dumped onto the taxpayer.

CO: There is something called the Orphan Well Association that's industry-run. That is supposed to be their job or their responsibility if no one else does it. They're supposed to clean up the wells. What do they actually do?

DB: They do that, but they don't have the resources. The provincial government let them 235 million dollars last year. But there's 128 companies that can't even afford to pay their orphan well levy. And there are companies going bankrupt that would overwhelm the entire two hundred thirty five million dollars. Some of these wells can cost one or two million dollars individually to clean up.

CO: So if the Supreme Court had not ruled in your favour, then the plan was that these oil wells would've been turned over to this Orphan Well Association. Is it any more likely that the company will clean up the mess that the Orphan Wells Association?

DB: The fact of the matter is by the time these companies are ready to go bankrupt, they don't have much resources at hand. It's like expecting your kid's piggy bank to pay for your mortgage and your car loan and your student loan. The money simply isn't there. But what the regulator was saying was if there's any money left at all before you give it to the bank, at least go out and cap those wells and make sure that it wasn't going to blow up and cause problems to the landowner.

CO: This is a Supreme Court decision that you say goes beyond just the with the situation in Alberta with the oil wells — this is all about mining. So how much of a precedent is this?

DB: It's not necessarily a precedent. The polluter pay model has been in law for quite a while. But that the bankruptcy Insolvency Act, the Court of Appeals said it trumped the provincial legislation, and it allowed companies to walk away from environmental liabilities. And the Supreme Court said no, that was not the intent of the legislation. And so the Supreme Court more firmly entrenched this polluter pay model. And that was a surprise. They went further than they needed to.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there, Daryl. Thanks for expanding all this to us.

DB: Okay, thank you.

CO: Bye-bye.

DB: Bye.

KG: We reached Daryl Bennett in Taber, Alberta.

[Music: Ambient]

France rape trial

Guest: Mario Stasi

KG: It's the biggest news headline in Paris tonight. And for one Canadian woman, it's the first step towards justice. Two French police officers were found guilty in a Paris courtroom — sentenced to seven years each in prison, for the gang-rape of Ontario woman Emily Spanton. In the spring of 2014, Ms. Spanton was in Paris as a tourist, when she met the officers at an Irish pub. They gave her a tour of police headquarters. Then they raped her in a private office. The case was an uphill battle for Ms. Spanton — who was put through extensive psychological assessments of her character and personal history, leading up to the trial — which that lasted three weeks. Mario Stasi acted as one of her lawyers in Paris. That's where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Stasi, what does today's guilty verdict against these two French police officers… what does it mean for your client?

MARIO STASI: It means that at the end of the day, she is now recognized as a victim. She is not only a plaintiff, she is officially a victim of rape.

CO: This case goes back five years, doesn't it? I mean to April 2014, when Emily SPanton was visiting Paris, and found herself having drinks in a pub with French police officers who said they would give her a tour of police headquarters. That's where this gang rape happened, is that right?

MS: It's totally right. And Emily was expecting from a police station very lively as it is in Toronto. And it was a desserted place. She was introduced to the two little offices with at least three men, and being raped for the most of one hour.

CO: And these were in empty offices — these men took her into places where nobody was. And how was she able to report this assault?

MS: I mean as soon as the assault has been finished, she didn't want to leave the police station because she knew that she had left the police station it was impossible to sue the policemen. She had to stay inside. And she asked for a lady. And when a lady came, she very explicitly explained what happened — how she has been assaulted.

CO: And so she has since then been trying to build this case. She has said, and you her lawyers have said that it's almost as though she has been on trial since then, is that right?

MS: Exactly, I mean during that trial, policemen who were the accused tried to explain to the court that she was lying. That she was really not a victim, but a liar. And they to tried to find her private, intimate, and past sexual life elements in order to explain to the judge that she is not reliable. But, in fact, everything she explained has been confirmed by objective elements — DNA, sperm, video, photography, and so on. And even the psychological psychiatric expertise concluded that Emily was not a liar. She was not a maniac. She was totally reliable. And that the court decided to condemn the two policemen not because of thanks to the speech of Emily, but thanks to the elements of evidence which confirmed everything Emily has told since the beginning of that inquiry.

CO: She was subjected to a psychological assessment. She had to provide a sexual history of her previous relationships.

MS: Exactly, which is as far as I know a scandal because what is important is what happened in that night — not what had happened in private life weeks and years before the facts. And all the facts shows that she never agreed to have sexual relations with two men. She never gave her consent.

CO: The police found that the French police officers had concealed crucial evidence. Can you tell us a bit about that?

MS: Exactly, analysis of the phone shows that they make disappeared two videos, photos, phone calls with policemen in order to explain what happened, and SMS.

CO: Text messages, yeah.

MS: Explaining what they were doing with our client. And thanks to the inquiry, this evidence appeared again. But they tried to make it disappear — totally disappear. That's why I don't understand why they continue to deny their responsibility.

CO: But when you're describing all of this — that Emily Spanton and was herself questioned as she was, that there was attempt to hide the evidence, that it's so difficult to even get a rape case to trial in France. How much of an accomplishment is this that these men have actually been convicted?

MS: It's very important. I mean when the courts render its judgment, it's not only an oral decision, it's a written decision. And the written decision shows the amount of objective evidence is that everything Emily said to the policewoman, to the judge, to the court had been confirmed by this evidence.

CO: I understand this was a very big case in France because the police officers were part of a special unit.

MS: Exactly, they are the ones that are in the terrorist situation and so on.

CO: They responded to the Bataclan attacks in 2015.

MS: Exactly, and you can imagine the pressure put on Emily during that trial. The court was plenty of policemen. It was very difficult for Emily. But I mean I'm very proud of Emily. She’s a strong woman.

CO: We understand sometimes when she would appear in Paris, she had to disguise herself because these men she was accusing are considered heroes. She now suffers from PTSD. We weren't able to speak with her today. But if you can tell us how she's doing through all of this?

MS: She is exhausted. She is released. And she now trusts the justice of France, and deeply moved.

CO: I know she is the daughter of a police officer here in Canada. She believes in police, but what gave her strength? What do you think motivated her through all of these years?

MS: To be recognized as a victim of a terrible offense — terrible crime. And it was a harsh battle and a terrible fight, but she never doubted. And she was right.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Stasi, thank you so much for speaking with us today.

MS: You're welcome. Merci, madam.

CO: Bye-bye.

MS: Au revoir, bye-bye.

KG: Mario Stasi was one of the lawyers representing a Canadian woman who was the victim of a gang-rape by two French police officers. They were found guilty today. We reached Mr. Stasi in Paris.

[Music: Ambient]

Sea star apocalypse

Guest: Joe Gaydos

KG: They're majestic creatures: some of the largest starfish in the world, many a metre wide. But sunflower sea stars on the West Coast of Canada and the US are in deep trouble. As we told you back in 2013, researchers noticed their limbs were mysteriously falling off, and they were dying in huge numbers. And now a team of scientists has discovered something that is contributing to the problem, and making it worse. Joe Gaydos calls it a "zombie apocalypse". He is the Science Director for the SeaDoc Society at the University of California, Davis. We reached him in Orcas Island, Washington.

CO: Mr. Gaydos, your image of this being a zombie apocalypse is alarming. Why do you call this sunflower sea star die-off a zombie apocalypse?

JOE GAYDOS: Well, I think when you when you see these images or movies of zombie apocalypse, people are walking around, their arms or falling off, their faces are melting, and that's the exact same thing that you see when you're scuba diving. You see these animals that have the disease, and these sunflower stars are huge; they can be a metre across. They can have 24 arms. And they're walking around and arms are falling off of them. And then ones that are in a greater progression of the disease, they're just kind of melting into piles, and just kind of looks like a zombie melting away there.

CO: When did you first notice this wasting disease?

JG: We first noticed it here a little bit later than they noticed it north of here in Vancouver. But it was it was about 2013 when we first started seeing signs of that. And up until then, the sunflower stars that we studied in this bay were super abundant, super common. And if you were to ask me then you know what these ever be rare? I would say no way, how could that ever happen?

CO: And what did you see? In 2013, when you first saw this phenomenon, what did it look like to you?

JG: Well, initially, we just started seeing you know some animals would just have some little white lesions or areas on the surface of their body. And then as the disease started to progressed over time, and it usually happened pretty quickly. You’d go back to the dive site again. Then you'd see these animals walking around with their arms off. You'd be swimming by an area, and just see some arms there random. And then places where there were these sea stars on rocks, you would just see piles of almost goo — you know what was once sea stars there. And then you know several weeks later after that was kind of cleaned up, you'd go back and what was really glaring and was just a complete absence of these sunflower stars.

CO: And what's causing the disease?

JG: Well, that’s a good question scientists are still debating it, but it seems to be that it's a very small agent; you know maybe virus-sized. And initially people have proposed this denzovirus, which is a RNA virus like parvovirus. People are still debating that right now, but it does seem to be an infectious agent. You can transfer it from one animal to the next. And this one that we were studying in this paper that came out yesterday probably one of the most susceptible starfish or sea stars to the infection.

CO: But these aren't like the ones we see as you walk along the beach here or any place — these are out in the ocean far deeper, is that right?

JG: Yeah, these ones you won't see them when at low tide because they're really fast-moving. And so the only people that really see these sunflower stars — and they are these big, beautiful animals. But you really have to be snorkeling or scuba diving or in a in a submarine to see them.

CO: Vancouver Aquarium has put out a video just in sort of fast motion of what this looks like. And to see it happen is extremely alarming. Is just a disturbing thing to see. Even if you can isolate what it is and what is causing it, is there anything you can do to reverse it?

JG: Yes, that's a great question. That video is phenomenal from the Vancouver Aquarium. I really love that they did that. One of the things that we showed in this paper is that the disease is worse than when you have increasing ocean temperatures. And so we're able to tie the progression of the disease to these abnormally high ocean temperatures in different places along the West Coast. So you know dealing with climate change is a huge thing. The other thing that I think we need to start thinking about now is what can we do to save these sunflower stars. You know we kind of have a mandate to take care of animals and to not let them go extinct on our watch. And we really are not certain of what can be done at this point. One of the things people are talking about can we have a captive breeding program? Can we breed animals that are naturally resistant to the to the infection, and then repopulate areas? The other question is what can we do for the environment in the meantime? When all of these sunflower stars started disappearing well, they eat urchins, and urchins eat kelp. And so with the sunflower stars gone in a lot of places, the urchin population exploded. And then they’ve just gobbled up the kelp forest. It's kind of like clear-cutting a Forest on land. And in some places right now like in California they're actually attempting to harvest urchins from a lot of these areas to try and allow the kelp to grow back to see if they can make kind of a nursery area where you know more kelp can come from. So I think there's a lot of work that's still to be done on this.

CO: Climate change, of course, if reversing that is one of the key elements in stopping this disease. That's a tough one, isn't it?

JG: It's a hard one because it's worldwide, right? And it seems to be so huge I think a lot of us feel that we're not empowered to do anything. But I think you know we can all make differences in everything we do with our life. You know we can push our government to make differences. We can take the bus more. You know we can use less fossil fuels, ride our bike. I mean there's a lot of things that we can do, and if we all start doing those things you know we're going to be able to have some impact. But we can't just throw our hands up.

CO: But if people are resisting the changes even as they watch human habitat get destroyed, what's the likelihood that they care about these Sea stars?

JG: Yeah, it's a hard question because I mean these are even sea stars people don't see commonly or know about. But I think when you realize that the domino effect of this you know maybe I've never seen this sea star or maybe it's not important to me, but losing an important species like this that can then affect kelp forests that can affect things like abalone that's a fishery in some places. You know then you start to see the ramifications are not just about losing a species, but they're about changing the entire ecosystem and then affecting our economy, our way of life, things like that. Hopefully, that will inspire people to take more action.

CO: All right. Well, I hope you're right. And we'll have to leave it there. Mr. Gaydos, thank you.

JG: Thanks for having me, Carol.

CO: Bye.

JG: Cheers.

KG: Joe Gaydos is the Science Director for the SeaDoc Society at the University of California, Davis. We reached him in Orcas Island, Washington. If you want to see that timelapse video of the starfish from the Vancouver Aquarium, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Snow rage

KG: Despite the frigid temperatures, cooler heads didn't prevail in Guelph, Ontario earlier this month. Last night, we spoke to police inspector Cate Welsh about an incident that occurred between two women shovelling snow off their vehicles. A physical altercation broke out — and one of the women involved has been charged with assault. So, as Canadians battle this polar vortex, Inspector Welsh suggested we all practice a little more patience — and quote, "make forts, not fights". Unquote. After that interview, you shared your own snow-related stories.

CO: Jeannette Mallay in Sudbury emailed us to say, "I have a neighbour who displayed the most atrocious behavior last year. It came to a point where she told me I could not park my vehicle in my own driveway because it acted like a snow fence, causing the white stuff to blow back into her yard. I came up with a term for this phenomenon — I call it 'Snow Rage'."

KG: Jim May in Vancouver provided some warmth among the frosty emails. He wrote: "Your report tonight on the snow-shovelling fight in Guelph reminded me of an interesting conflict I encountered one recent winter. I was out walking the dog after a snowfall. I observed a man shovelling out a parking space. He explained to me that there was a long-standing conflict between him and his neighbour that necessitated him getting out early to frustrate his neighbour's efforts to outsmart him. "Several years earlier, in a similarly heavy snowfall, the shoveler woke up one morning prepared to get up and do his civic duty clearing the snow. But he was surprised to see that the neighbour had been up before our shoveler had left the warmth of his home. The neighbour had shoveled his own space, and then — in the incident that began the conflict — proceeded to completely remove the snow on, in, and around the shoveler's car, parking space, and sidewalk. "That day began a feud, wherein the neighbour and the shoveler remain vigilant — neither willing that the other would have opportunity to shovel his and his neighbour's snow. As he finished his tale and renewed his efforts, I said my goodbye and walked away smiling, warmed by this neighbourly rivalry — seeking to outdo each other in doing good."

CO: All right. Thanks, Jim. That has warmed our hearts — and likely Heather Orpana's in "chilly Ottawa" -- who wrote to say: "Hi folks, I love AIH. I wonder if it would be even better to ask listeners to call in not about their snow related gripes, but about good news stories about helping each other out and cooperating in the midst of lots of the white fluffy stuff!"

KG: Thank you to everyone who wrote. To share your tales of neighbourly conflict or cooperation, find us on Twitter and Facebook, both: @cbcasithappens. Our email is: aih@cbc.ca. And we always love to hear your voice — so give us a call at: 416-205-5687.

Part two: Afghanistan: Ryan Crocker, Jane Austen painting

Afghanistan: Ryan Crocker

Guest: Ryan Crocker

KG: The United States wants out of Afghanistan. And from the look of the framework peace deal outlined this week by American negotiators, they have one main condition — that the Taliban prevent terrorists from using the country as a safe haven. A lot of people have a problem with that plan. As we told you earlier this week, the broadstrokes pact hammered out between Washington and the Taliban — without the involvement of the Afghan government — has women, in particular, worried. They fear their hard-won rights will be traded away in the bargain. Ryan Crocker is a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. He calls the deal a surrender. We reached him in Spokane, Washington.

CO: Mr. Crocker, why do you say that this framework agreement between the Taliban and the United States is a surrender?

RYAN CROCKER: So here's the thing. For years now, the Taliban have been saying that they are happy to negotiate with us. They will not do so with the Afghan government presence because they consider it a puppet government installed by the American occupiers. We have consistently rejected that. This time we caved. That is why this is such a pivotal moment. We are delegitimizing the Afghan government that we are in Afghanistan to support. We are weakening them and strengthening the Taliban.

CO: But there are those who say that President Ghani and his government is fragmented. They have competing interests of warlords and regional interests, and that they don't negotiate from a position of strength. So is it possible to move this along — is it possible to find any cooperation with the Taliban if the Ghani government is involved in it?

RC: Well, the only reason to take that approach that well the government is too divided to come to the table, which I don't believe is true, is if we are in fact surrendering. If the only thing we're talking about is that we leave, then it doesn't matter who's in the room. And that's why I think this is so dangerous. Yeah, the government of Afghanistan has factions and a feud. You can say exactly the same thing about the United States government. That doesn't mean that we are no longer legitimate.

CO: Okay, so I'll play devil's advocate here. Why not surrender? Because the Taliban at this point controls more than half the country, and some say that that's a modest assessment. The Afghan security forces are fighting the Taliban — losing tens of thousands of personnel just in recent years. And that doesn't include all the civilian deaths and the destruction and the huge number of Afghans who continue to leave the country — the brain drain from that country. I mean at some point, recognizing the Taliban strength, isn't surrender may be in the cards here?

RC: Well first, in terms of who controls what, it depends very much on how you size that up. You know all major towns and cities in Afghanistan are in the control of the government. Most of the major roadways are in control of the government. Second, in terms of why stay, 911 came to us out of Afghanistan. It came to us through an Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban, who gave safe haven to al-Qaida. Well, it's the same Taliban. If anything, after 18 years, it is harder, meaner, and more determined. They gave up the country rather than give up al-Qaida. Will they bring al-Qaida back no matter what they say? When we're not around to do anything about it, I would say they will do exactly that again. And the third point I'd make, this is also about American values — not just our interests. I opened our embassy there after the fall of the Taliban. The first thing we did was start to open girls’ schools. We encouraged girls and women to step forward. They did. They're in business. They're in parliament. They're in the military. They're in government. Girls are in school. Forty per cent of 8 million students in school are girls. What do you think is going to happen to them? They will get it in the neck.

CO: This is very important what you're saying because what Zalmay Khalilzad has been able to extract from the Taliban in the way of a promise is that they say that they will not give safe haven to al-Qaida or ISIS or any of the foreign terrorist groups that they'd had in the past, that their ambitions are regional, and that's what he is taking back to Washington as evidence as to why it's possible for the United States to leave. But you would urge Washington not to believe that?

RC: There is no reason to believe that. They can say anything — they will say anything. And then they revert to behaviour that I know they will revert to. What are we going to do about it? We’re gone. We don't care anymore. So to put weight on these kinds of assurances is just ridiculous. I mean it's absolutely ridiculous.

CO: The Associated Press had a statement from Taliban yesterday. And Taliban said to it that they don't want a monopoly of power. They want war to end. They don't want to return to what they had before. Everyone's tired of war in Afghanistan, and they are too. Is it possible that they've changed their stripes? Is it possible they want to have peace?

RC: Anything is possible in this world. If that is a possibility then we want to test it. And the way we test it: bring in the Afghan government. If the Afghan government stays out, it is pretty clear whatever the Taliban says what they intend. They intend to run the country — not to have a sharing of leadership or democratic process. Otherwise why keep the Afghan government out? It represents all kinds of factions there. To believe what the Taliban says beyond naivety. It is dangerous.

CO: We spoke with a woman lawmaker — a woman in the Afghan parliament — earlier this week, and she wants to hear from the Taliban because she wants to hear what their plans are. She says women work. Girls go to school. Everyone has a mobile phone now. All of these things banned under the Taliban. And that if they are going to have even a power-sharing arrangement, how will they deal with the fact that Afghanistan has vastly changed in the years that they have been out of power? What would you say to her? She wants to be at the table.

RC: That is exactly the point I was going to make, Carol. That is the voice of a modern Afghan woman. She and her sisters have got to be at the table for this to go anywhere remotely good. I would love to hear her put exactly those questions to the Taliban, looking them straight in the eye and saying how about it guys. What are you gonna do next? And then let's see how credible they are.

CO: It's an extraordinary image when I think of it — this strong woman looking in the eye of the Taliban, and asking what are you going to do about us now?

RC: Yes, I would buy tickets for that.

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

RC: Thank you, Carol.

CO: Bye-bye

KG: Ryan Crocker served as the U.S. charge d'affaires in Afghanistan in early 2002. He was ambassador to the country from 2011 to 2012. He was in Spokane, Washington. And we have more on that story on the “As It Happens” website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Brexit skilled workers

KG: Is making lots of money a skill? Does a taste for olives make a person posh? These are the vexing questions the UK parliament is pondering, as it tries to envision the country post-Brexit. The government is considering how to define which workers are, quote, "skilled" — and so eligible for work visas. The going suggestion is a salary cut-off. By which standard, anyone earning over 30-thousand pounds is "skilled". And anyone under — not so much. That didn't sit well with Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley. So Ms. Phillips stood in the House of Commons to make a rather skillful speech. Here's part of what she said.

SOUNDCLIP

JESS PHILLIPS: The idea that my constituents are not skilled because they don't earn over thirty thousand pounds is frankly insulting. It is insulting on every level that our care workers, our nurses, our teachers, there's so many people who don’t earn over thirty thousand pounds. So I really think that this would need to be revisited. And, perversely, I have met many people since I was elected. I thought I'd met posh people before I came here. But I'd actually just met people who eat olives. I mean I had no idea. I had no idea of the level of how posh one person could be. I have met lots of people who earn way more than thirty thousand pounds who have literally no discernible skills — not even one — since I have been in politics. Not necessarily in this place, although there's a smattering, but I have definitely met some very rich people, who earn huge amounts of money, who I wouldn't let hold my pint if I had to go and vote while in the bar because they would almost certainly do it wrong. So just to speak up for the ordinary people of Birmingham Hall Green, and the people of Birmingham Yardley, who are incredibly proud actually of the migrancy to their country. And are proud that people want to come here. They are skilled, and we should we should care much more about them than I think sometimes we do.

KG: That was Jess Phillips, the British Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, speaking yesterday in the U.K. House of Commons.

[Music: Ambient]

Jane Austen painting

Guest: Johnnie Nettlefold

KG: It's a painting of a young girl smiling. And the family who owns it says that smiling girl is the beloved author, Jane Austen. But it is a truth universally acknowledged that the identity of a person in an old portrait is never universally acknowledged. For decades, there have been disagreements about the subject of the painting. Now, the family says a note believed to be written by her great-niece proves it's Ms. Austen. And if that's true, it would be the only professional portrait of the author. Johnnie Nettlefold's late stepfather was a direct descendent of Jane Austen's brother — and his mother Anne Rice now owns the painting. We reached Johnnie Nettlefold in Dabrowa-Gornicza, Poland — near Krakow.

CO: Johnnie, what I can see of this painting, it’s quite charming isn't it of this girl. Can you describe it for us?

JOHNNIE NETTLEFOLD: Absolutely. Well, it's a beautiful picture. She's facing forward. She's wearing the lovely white muslin-spotted dress. And she has a distinctive green parasol in her right hand. And she's surrounded by in the background trees and a lake. I was very lucky to have her in my house in Oxfordshire for quite a long time.

CO: Why is it so difficult to get it authenticated as Jane Austen?

JN: Oh, that is a really good question. I think there's a number of issues surrounding that. And I think the main one was the misattribution by Harding Newman to Zoffany rather than Ozias Humphrey — who is a much more likely candidate having already painted her great-uncle Francis.

CO: So the confusion was over who had actually dead done the painting?

JN: That was some of the confusion, yes. And I think also when Sir Henry Haig was looking for an image of Jane Austen in the 1930, and he detailed a lady to look for a picture. And I think when the picture wasn't forthcoming they identified this as being the right portrait. But at the time, the Rice’s didn't want to sell the picture. And so I think there was a little bit of a problem after that because they wanted it in the 1930s and they couldn't get it.

CO: Now what’s surfaced though is interesting is that there's this letter. Can you tell us about that?

JN: Oh, it's a wonderful thing it's came. It came completely out of the blue. It came through an extended familial connection from a very brave lady, who I think found it. I think it perhaps was slightly overlooked. And she got in touch with a third party who she knew was an Austen scholar, and that person got in touch with our family. And we are so delighted to have it. in fact, there's been a new development. This lady has been extraordinary generous. And she's actually gifted the letter and envelope to my mom.

CO: And a letter inside describes how and when and where the painting was done, right?

JN: Absolutely. And the most important thing for me was the first paragraph, which says the history of the portrait of Jane Austen, now in the possession of Morland Rice, her great nephew. It seems to be quite unequivocal really.

CO: isn't one of the issues though — one of the questions as to doubts about this being a Jane Austen is that the dress that she's wearing — this beautiful white muslin dress actually — actually dates later than 1800, and so it couldn't be a painting that was done in the late 1700’s.

JN: That was a very valid point. But one of the people who has done a lot of research for us, Ellie Bennett, has discovered a number of dresses on pictures of children of that time which were almost identical to the one that Jane is wearing.

CO: I mean the fact that it was so difficult to identify that the painting to make sure that it was Jane Austin. Why is this letter only surfacing now?

JN: That is a very good question. And the lady who passed this across I think has been enormously brave to do so. And she has come across this, and she's decided that it is time that this was accepted. And she's passed it across.

CO: And where did she find it?

JN: I don't know exactly where she found it? I understand that it was in the desk that was given to the British Library — Jane Austin's writing desk.

CO: But this information — what’s described in this letter — doesn't that contradict the arguments you had as to why it was Jane Austen before? I mean there's a whole different story that it came with. That it was done in Kent and not in Bath, and it was done by a different artist, and she was 12. I mean aren't you contradicting yourself at this point?

JN: I don't think so. This lady said it was done in Bath. Well again, it's difficult to tell exactly this far away exactly what the locale was. Funnily enough, somebody said to us the other day that they think they might recognize the background to the picture. They think that background still exists. And it's something that Ellie and I are still going to look into because we might actually be able to identify the background, which would be great fun.

CO: Why does it matter? I mean you love this painting obviously. You believe it to be Jane Austen. Why did it matter that you get this validation?

JN: Well, as a schoolboy, I've always been a keen reader. And I have to say that when I was originally presented with Jane Austen's work, it seems such a silly thing. But it was the picture on the back rather put me off. Like so many others, I adore her work. And it seems to me that this wonderful picture with this vivacious young face. And again, she was pretty much writing at the time that this was painted just gives a much better picture of what this lady — this extraordinary lady — was all about.

CO: But is it not the intention of your family to sell this painting if you can identify its provenance?

JN: I think yes, eventually that would be our intention. But on the other hand, that I think is a very good thing because it seems sad that something as wonderful as this is limited to a relatively small audience. And I actually think it would be so great if she was in a great gallery and she'd be looking down. I think it would be standing room only frankly to get into the room to see her.

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

JN: That's a real pleasure, Carol. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk.

KG: Johnnie Nettlefold's mother, Anne Rice, owns the "Rice Portrait". He was in Dabrowa-Gornicza, Poland. To see the portrait, and find more on this story, go to our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Amazon stun gun

KG: It came as a terrible shock. A potential terrible shock, anyway. Speaking of shocks: did you know that you can just order stun guns on Amazon-dot-com? There's a huge selection! There are dozens of them, and some cost less than ten bucks American. Now, I stress "American", because in Canada, stun guns are a prohibited weapon. On this side of the border, we can't just order them from Amazon. That's why Jacynthe Cardin of Montreal was so surprised when one arrived on her doorstep. Actually, that's not really why she was surprised. She was surprised because she'd ordered a cat dish. According to CTV, Ms. Cardin placed that order with Amazon Canada. But the order was filled in the U.S., where an employee made some kind of mistake with a bar code and a label. That's how, instead of a nice colourful bowl for her cat, George Michael, she received a Sabre stun gun — in boring black. It promises "Maximum Stopping Power", and was accompanied by pepper spray. It was disappointing for George Michael. But it was downright disturbing for Ms. Cardin — who luckily recognized the stun gun was not a cat dish, and turned it over to police. Amazon says it is "taking this matter very seriously to ensure it doesn't happen again." Good plan. Because the cat wants is a cute vessel that holds a small amount of water. Not a scary vessel that holds a scary amount of juice.

[Music: World music]

Part three: Adam Capay case, Europe: Iran sanctions

Sound Of The Day: throat singing

KG: Two Nunavik teens are laughing their way through the Sundance Film Festival. And Eva Kaukai and Manon Chamberland have reasons to laugh. First of all, their short film is taking all the Hollywood types by storm. Then there are the questions that all the Californians in their once-a-year ski gear keep asking about life on the ice. And last but not least on the young filmmakers' list of reasons to laugh is the fact that their movie is about the two of them throat singing through four gorgeously-shot Arctic seasons. That means that they're standing face-to-face, holding hands, and making mesmerizing sounds — until one or the other breaks down into giggles. From the soundtrack of "Throat Singing in Kangirsuk”, here are Eva Kaukai and Manon Chamberland with our sound of the day.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: I’ve always been fond of throat singing]

KG: From the film "Throat Singing in Kangirsuk”, which just debuted at Sundance, that was Eva Kaukai and Manon Chamberland.

[Music: Ambient]

Adam Capay case

Guest: Michael Lundy

KG: It's overcrowded, understaffed, and unsafe — just some of the chronic problems facing prisoners and personnel at the Thunder Bay Jail in northwestern Ontario. The 93-year-old institution has been scheduled for replacement more than once. But those plans didn't come in time for Adam Capay. Or for Sherman Quisses, the man Mr. Capay was accused of killing inside the prison in 2012. This week, Mr. Capay walked free from custody. A judge stayed the charge of first-degree murder against him, ruling his Charter rights were violated during his pretrial custody. There is a publication ban in place for the judge's reasons for the stay, and the evidence given. Michael Lundy blew the whistle on conditions at the jail years ago. He was a corrections officer there. Mr. Lundy is now vice-president of the local Ontario Public Service Employees Union at the nearby Thunder Bay Correctional Centre. We reached him in Thunder Bay.

CO: Mr. Lundy, it was an extraordinary moment for many people to see Adam Capay walk free, at least for now this week. What was it like for you?

MICHAEL LUNDY: It's a tough situation to really fully I guess get my feelings out on. I feel very sorry for the victim's family. But at the end of the day, this is unfortunate… I don't even know how to word. You know, the ministry has for years neglected infrastructure and staffing models and stuff like that. And this type of thing was bound to happen.

CO: Was it emotional for you to see him?

ML: You know what? I didn't actually see him personally. I mean I read the article, and I guess one of the emotions is I know that a lot of my friends and co-workers experienced a lot of trauma going through you know the initial incident. Plus you know there was a lot of media scrutiny over the last couple of years when Adam's issues came to light through the human rights commissioner. So it was kind of one of those bag of mixed emotions.

CO: The reason why I'm asking what your personal feelings were is because of the role you played in getting to this place. Because you were the one who blew the whistle on what was going on inside that Thunder Bay jail. You knew what the conditions Mr. Capay were being held in. What compelled you to tell the commissioner that day when she was visiting?

ML: There was a lot of things. Definitely the first is just the type of person I am. I mean it's human nature to not want to see what's in our jails. It's unfortunate that it was the Thunder Bay incident that brought it to light. But these kind of conditions are inside many of our jails right now. There's a lack of infrastructure. There's no place to house those that are suffering from mental illness that need to be kept away from the general population for a variety of reasons. There's just no infrastructure to do it. It sounds all good to put it on a policy on paper, but when you don't provide people with the tools to do it. It’d be like telling a carpenter to build a house with a hammer, nails, and wood, and then not giving them the hammer and nails, right? I mean it just it doesn't work.

CO: You were there the day though that the human rights commissioner was visiting, and you wanted her to see where Adam Capay was, and to talk to him. What did you expect to come out of that?

ML: I don't know if I expected that huge media thing that came with it. But I wanted her to know the truth is we're tasked to do care control and custody of people that are for whatever reason the courts are decided are to be in our facilities. And the truth is it's not right 100 per cent what we're doing with them. I guess I wanted her to see how systemic the problem is. That the system's coming very close to being completely broken, and we're not taking any steps to really fix it.

CO: We want to tell a bit of the story of Adam Capay, but we're going to have to tell listeners, and you already know this, that we are limited in what we can say because there is a publication ban in place, and the case is still before the courts. But you know the conditions where Mr. Capay was held when he was in solitary confinement for four and a half years. Can you describe those conditions?

ML: The biggest thing is that all inmates are supposed to have certain rights. They are supposed to have times out of their cells. They are supposed to have access to a yard. They’re supposed to have access to programs. Well, we had no program officers. At the time that Adam was going to that, we had one social worker that was in charge of classification. We didn't have enough staff to facilitate yards every day for inmates. We didn't even have staff some days to facilitate time for our inmates that were held in our special handling units to get out of their cell during the day because of a staffing shortage. Thunder Bay Jail has been dealing with a staffing level that hasn't changed in 45 years. The roles and responsibilities of correctional staff have changed so much that we need those extra staff.

CO: After you urged the human rights commissioner to visit Adam Capay, she found a young man who had been in solitary as you say for four and a half years. He was almost unable to speak. But I guess what people point out to the problems with solitary confinement often is the lack of human contact, the lack of stimulation, the lack of an ability to live your life in anything resembling being a human being. The conditions might be clean, the bunk might be there, and the water might be running. But it's inhuman, isn't it?

ML: Absolutely, some of the cells that we have, inmates have to be let out of their cells to use the phone. Well, if we can facilitate time out of the cells for the inmates to shower and stuff. So on that day they, don't get a chance to talk to anybody, right? Like maybe they can hear someone down you know outside of their cell from another cell to talk to another inmate. But really you're right it limits very much any human contact. That's not something that can even be up for debate.

CO: You've been trying to bring attention to the conditions in the prison for some time. There's a riot there in 2015. You knew that things had to be done. There was after the story of Adam Capay the Ontario government announced that the jail would be finally replaced with a new facility. Where does that plan sit now?

ML: Right now, they're saying all the right things. They’re saying that they're still going forward with it. However, from a union standpoint, we've seen no progress since the Progressive Conservative government took power is essentially what I would say. I mean they told Bill Mauro, who's our city mayor, that there's no firm dates, that they don't have anything.

CO: What does that mean? If it doesn't get replaced, this 93 year old facility, if it's not replaced what does that mean for your members — for corrections officers first of all?

ML: I think that I need to paint the picture that it creates conditions that aren't right for anybody. And by no means when I brought Adam’s issues forward was I speaking just about Adam. I was speaking about a variety of inmates, and even the ones in our general population area and stuff like that. I like the conditions are awful. There's nothing really…. I mean they have a TV in their ranges, and that's about it. They get out the yard once a day. We still don't offer enough programs, and we don't offer enough safety and security for staff. So the conditions for everybody is awful. For staff, especially right now, I would say that this would be a very demoralizing announcement if it was stalled.

CO: Since you blew the whistle though on that Adam Capay case, the media has, and especially the Globe & Mail, has done extensive coverage on the conditions of solitary confinement in Canada. Do you think that things are changing? Do you think the public is more aware, and that there is more pressure to see prisoners treated more humanely?

ML: I think that there's a lot of pressure being put on from the top for sure. I think that Renu from the Human Rights Commission continues to hold the ministry accountable. Do I still think it's being handled properly? Absolutely not. I mean when we talk about places that are 93 years old, there's only so much you can do. I mean can you can list everything, but at the end of the day, we still do have some inmates that are mentally unwell and they pose a threat to either themselves, to other staff, or other inmates, and we have to have areas to house them in. And so now what they're doing is they're saying that we can still keep them in the same housing areas. However, they have to have access to their time out of their cells, and their yards, and everything that they should have had all along. But that's not always happening when they're also not willing to invest in the staff to do it and the resources to do it. It just seems to be one disaster. It's almost like if the Hoover Dam was leaking, and all you had was some bubble gum to fix it, and you're just going from you know leak to leak. And until somebody really wants to make some change, it's unfortunately going to be like this because it's not a popular ministry to spend money on unfortunately.

CO: Mr. Lundy, we will leave it there. We had to work with limitations on what we could talk about, but I appreciate what you were able to tell us today. Thank you.

ML: No, thank you very much for the time.

CO: Bye-bye.

ML: Take care.

KG: Michael Lundy is a former corrections officer at the Thunder Bay Jail. He is now the vice-president of the local Ontario Public Service Employees Union at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre. We reached him in Thunder Bay.

[Music: Jazz]

Marie Colvin lawsuit

KG: For most people, there was never much question about who was responsible for the death of Marie Colvin. The Sunday Times war correspondent was killed in a rocket attack in Homs in 2012, while reporting on the Syrian government's attacks on civilians. And, from the beginning, many believed she was assassinated. Today, a U.S. court ruled that President Bashar al-Assad's regime deliberately targeted Ms. Colvin — and ordered his government to pay 300 million dollars in punitive damages. It was the result of a lawsuit launched by Marie Colvin's sister Cat Colvin. Last April, she spoke with Carol about the case — and the evidence it exposed.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: these are remarkable documents that had been released by the courts. What story do they tell about your sister's death?

CAT COLVIN: Well, it was clear to me from the beginning after speaking to Paul Conroy, who you may recall was injured with Marie, that she was targeted. Paul could hear the artillery bracketing them, which is a different kind of sound. The challenge was proving it. And the Centre for Justice and Accountability has spent literally years interviewing defectors, refugees, and experts in the field to collect evidence, which makes it extremely clear that the Assad regime marshalled all of their political, security, and military apparatus to target the journalists. Not only Marie but to really silence the news and prevent the truth from getting out.

CO: There was a statement that has been revealed that was made by Syrian Major General Rafiq shahadah, who said — and I'm sure this is disturbing to you because it’s about your sister — Marie Colvin was a dog, and now she's dead, let the Americans help her now.

CC: Yeah, that was the hardest part of the evidence for me to read honestly because I really adored my sister. The lawsuit part of the motivation obviously was very personal. I was just angry at her being taken away from me and my family. But reading that celebration, and imagining them laughing and jeering, getting rewarded even with cars for the successful attack, you really hit the most difficult part of the testimony for me to absorb.

CO: I'm so sorry. She was for so many people an inspiration because of how courageous she was. She was able to get into Homs through an underground water tunnel in 2012 is when her final days of reporting are. And you can just tell that people may remember some of these images and stories she his time. What was she reporting out of Baba Amr?

CC: You know ironically, they used her satellite signal on the last night of her life. She was reporting on the targeted attacks on civilians, and in particular, you know a little baby who was dying in the hospital. There were images coming out from civilian journalists, and Marie reported that you know no matter what you're hearing from the Assad regime he is targeting civilians. As important as she was to me, she was such an important voice for the innocent victims of war. That's what she cared most about, and that's what she was reporting on.

KG: Cat Colvin, the sister of journalist Marie Colvin, speaking with Carol last April. Today a U.S. court found the Syrian regime responsible for Marie Colvin's death, and ordered it to pay 300 million dollars in punitive damages.

[Music: Sombre]

Europe: Iran sanctions

Guest: Esfandyar Batmanghelidj

KG: Europe's biggest economies have created a new financial tool for side-stepping the United States' sanctions on Iran. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom say the payment mechanism is a sign of Europe's commitment to salvaging the Iran nuclear deal, after Donald Trump decided to walk away last year. The idea is to allow non-U.S. companies to send and receive payments without going through banks that might be reluctant to challenge the U.S. policies. At first, the mechanism will only cover medical and other humanitarian needs but there's already talk of it expanding in scale. Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is the founder of Bourse & Bazaar — a media group focusing on what he calls European-Iranian business diplomacy. We reached Mr. Batmanghelidj in London.

CO: Mr. Batmanghelidj, what message does today's announcement send to Washington and to Donald Trump about his sanctions?

ESFANDYAR BATMANGHELIDJ: Well, I think first and foremost, it sends a clear message that Europe remains very committed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the nuclear deal. And that even though U.S. policy has been to decide that that deal is insufficient until withdrawal from it and to re-impose sanctions, that the European parties that deal are trying to take these extraordinary efforts to keep their commitments in line. And also by extension, keep Iran committed. So that's the first message. I think the second message, and perhaps the more interesting one in the longer term, is that Europe is really standing up for itself at least in the initial way to the incredible economic power that the U.S. can wield. So one of the problems that European businesses have been facing is that U.S. secondary sanctions often actually inhibit their ability to conduct trade with Iran. And by creating this SPV — this new state-owned company — European governments have taken a first step in trying to explore what are the mechanisms they can come up with to counteract some of that U.S. economic power?

CO: And when it was first suggested last year that they would come up with this payment mechanism, we heard from the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time. He said that that was deeply disappointing to hear that this was going to happen. He said it was that one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional and global peace and security. And he added that that he imagines the corrupt ayatollahs laughing at the announcement this morning. What will you say to Mike Pompeo?

EB: I mean that's trademark hyperbole from the Trump administration. It's notable that the initial reaction from the administration today has been far more muted. I think there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the way that the SPV has been set up — this new mechanism — is focused primarily on trade and food and medicine. So that's actually trade that's exempt under U.S. sanctions. So the new company isn't intended to bypass U.S. sanctions. It's intended to deal with the indirect effect of U.S. sanctions on banks, which are very reluctant to accept payments. And that reluctance has actually created a restriction even in the trade for food and medicine. So that might be one reason why the administration is a little bit less vocal at the moment. But at the same time, I think that's part of the genius of the European move in that they've chosen the battle very carefully by constructing this SPV in a way that will make it difficult for the U.S. to actually interfere with it. And Mike Pompeo is on the record in December saying that if the mechanism is humanitarian in nature, the U.S. wouldn't place sanctions on it. It allows Europe the chance to actually learn how to conduct this trade. And in the future, and that's certainly an expectation from the Iranian side, they can use some of those lessons to consider facilitating trade that the U.S. would see a sanctionable if there isn't some sort of movement in terms of the U.S. policy on Iran.

CO: You said at the beginning something quite startling is at least part of the message — in part maybe even the reason — is to say to the United States no, Europe can operate by its own rules. That we can stand up to the power the United States — its dollar — and have this payment mechanism. This is what Germany, France, and the United Kingdom is saying. So how important is that message that look, I mean we're not gonna be bullied, and maybe we don't share the same interests between Europe and United States anymore?

EB: So I think it's a really important message. It's also a message that is interestingly being sent by former Treasury Department and State Department officials in Washington, who in recent months have been writing op-eds and publicly sort of speaking about the risk if the U.S. over uses its sanctions powers, and basically drives allies such as Europe or adversaries such as Russia and China to come up with mechanisms to circumvent U.S. economic primacy. And I think the other thing to keep in mind here is that this didn't have to happen. If the United States had been more reasonable in how it was seeking to treat humanitarian trade, particularly given that the Trump administration repeatedly points to its support for the Iranian people, then there would have been little impetus for Europe to try and intervene through the creation of such a mechanism. But it's worth remembering that when the European foreign ministers wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary Mnuchin back in June, requesting among other things clarity around humanitarian trade, they got no substantive reply. And so that in some sense laid the groundwork for the thinking that drove the Europeans to create this new entity. If the U.S. had been more reasonable, more sort of pragmatic about where sanctions powers need to be applied, and where sanctions exemptions need to be real and usable, I don't think we would have necessarily come to this interesting kind of threshold.

CO: All right, very interesting. We'll leave it there. Mr. Batmanghelidg, thank you.

CO: Thank you. Thanks for the time.

KG: Esfandyar Batmanghelidg is the founder of the Iranian-European business media group Bourse & Bazaar. We reached him in London.

[Music: Indie rock]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 31, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This