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 February 8, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

SAROJA COELHO: Good evening, I'm Saroja Coelho, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is “As It Happens”.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

SC: Tonight:

CO: Anti-bully pulpit. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer accuses the Trudeau government of a cover-up, over allegations that the PMO pressured the former Attorney General to let SNC Lavalin avoid prosecution for serious crimes.

SC: The exception that disproves the rule. A former federal prosecutor says that, if those claims are true, they contradict the Prime Minister's insistence that Canada is "a country of the rule of law".

CO: The art of selfie defense. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos says the National Enquirer tried to extort him over revealing personal photos. Our guest says the tabloid has just revealed its political motives.

SC: Chunk mail. If you use the word "chunky" to market your canned soup, you might get a cease-and-desist letter from the folks at Campbell's — because they just trademarked that adjective.

CO: With all overdue respect. Their deaths went unmarked at the time. But now, to celebrate "Black History Month", the New York Times is publishing belated obituaries for Black men and women who made history.

SC: And...like a duct to water. The fjords on Norway's western coastline makes drives incredibly exquisite, and incredibly exhausting. So the country is building a 40-billion-dollar floating tunnel for impatient travellers.

"As It Happens", the Friday edition. Radio that knows it won't be finished in the ... fjord-seeable future.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: SNC Lavalin: Andrew Scheer, SNC Lavalin: prosecutor, Bezos ‘extortion’ New York Times ‘overlooked’ obits

SNC Lavalin: Andrew Scheer

Guest: Andrew Scheer

SC: Andrew Scheer is accusing the Trudeau government of a cover-up. The Conservative leader is calling for a public inquiry into allegations that the Prime Minister's Office pressured the former Attorney General to let the construction and engineering giant SNC Lavalin avoid a criminal trial for corruption and fraud. So far, Mr. Trudeau and his team have only offered very careful denials. Now the former Attorney General — and now Veterans Affairs Minister — Jody Wilson-Raybould has said that solicitor-client privilege bars her from speaking publicly about the case. We reached Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Scheer, you said earlier today that it's quite clear that there is a cover up going on. What is being covered up?

ANDREW SCHEER: Well, we'd like to get to the bottom of that. There are serious allegations about political interference by the Prime Minister's Office with an independent criminal prosecution. That strikes to the very core of the independence of our justice system. And we have asked for a parliamentary committee — the Justice Committee — to convene as early as Monday, to summon officials in the Prime Minister's Office to find out exactly what has happened.

CO: You said you want to have that that hearing because you said then Canadians can conclude that the reports of political interference are true. So have you already concluded that that's the case?

AS: No, actually what I've said was that if the Liberals refused to allow the proceedings to go ahead, that is the only possible conclusion. The Liberals have a majority on that committee, so they will have to agree with the request to summon key officials. They could choose to block that — to reject that motion. If they do that, then when I would say is that there can only be one reason for that. And that is because they don't want the truth to come to light.

CO: Are you talking about obstruction of justice?

AS: You know I point you to the comments made by the former Liberal Attorney General in the province of Ontario, who said — and I quote — “that a lot of obstruction of justice charges have been laid on a lot of ordinary Canadians with a lot less evidence than this.” Ultimately, that would be for independent police agencies to conclude. But I believe that we can start getting some answers by having the Justice Committee start summoning officials in the PMO, to ask questions like there are at least 14 meetings between lobbyists for SNC labelling and key officials in the Prime Minister's Office, where the subject matter of justice and law enforcement were brought up. What were the nature of those meetings? What was the ask made by SNC Lavalin? What were the commitments made by officials in the PMO? We need to start getting answers to these very important questions.

CO: But I guess the question is what is the smoking gun here? Because in the end, what happened? I mean this request to have a remediation agreement didn't go through. If there was pressure on the Attorney General — on Wilson-Raybould — she didn't apply that to the prosecutor. If she did, the prosecutor didn't respond to that. Her prosecutor rejected the request for a remediation agreement. So the whole story comes out of Bob Fife is a great reporter, and we had him on last night, but he has two anonymous sources who say that there was pressure from the PMO. What more do we know than that? And doesn't it appear that, in the end, nothing really happened?

AS: Well, except that it seems a very good reason to believe that the prime minister fired his Attorney General because she refused to cave to his political will.

CO: What do you base that on?

AS: I'm saying that this is what the allegations suggest.

CO: No, no, no we asked Bob Fife this question directly last night. Does he draw a connection between the SNC Lavalin case and the demotion of the minister? And he says no — categorically no.

AS: Well, there is certainly enough to attack these types of questions. We know for a fact that we know what the former Attorney General said in her statement, where she talked about the requirement to be independent — to not even give the appearance of political interference. We know that the Liberals made the change to the deferred prosecution agreements in a budget bill, not a justice bill. We know that that she lost her position. And now we have these sources indicating that there very well could be this link. We need to get to the bottom of this. You'll excuse me if I don't take the Prime Minister at his word. Justin Trudeau told us that there is nothing to worry about with his illegal vacation in the Bahamas. He told us that there is absolutely nothing to see in the Marc Norman affair. And, of course, he said that his Fisheries Minister who gave a contract to a family member didn’t violate any rules.

CO: How are you going to get around the fact that the woman at the centre of this — Jody Wilson Raybould — is barred from speaking publicly because of solicitor-client privilege?

AS: Justin Trudeau has the option to waive that privilege. Other prime ministers in the past in order to facilitate investigations and hearings have done exactly that. Both Conservative and Liberal prime ministers when there have been serious allegations in order to get to light of day have waived that privilege. So Justin Trudeau can free his former Attorney General to speak by waiving that privilege. And then she can answer any questions that are posed to her. So that choice rests with him.

CO: And just I mean you've said that it's unprecedented allegations. But just I mean really unprecedented? Even the Liberals have had bigger scandals than this. And I'm looking at Harper Conservatives’ long list of things from Senator Mike Duffy to Dean Del Mastro. So aren't you tweaking this just a bit?

AS: I'm not aware of any case in the past where a sitting prime minister — or anyone in his office — has tried to affect the outcome of an independent criminal prosecution.

CO: But you don't know that happened though do you?

AS: Those are what the allegations are. And that is why it's important we find the truth. We're talking about things that have been alleged, and that's why it's important to get answers. All we have from Justin Trudeau is a very carefully scripted line, and that's not good enough. If there is nothing to worry about — if all these allegations are false — then the Liberals they should welcome the opportunity to participate in these hearings so that the light of day can shine upon this.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Scheer, thank you.

AS: Thank you very much.

SC: Andrew Scheer is the Leader of the Opposition. We reached him in Ottawa.

SNC Lavalin: prosecutor

Guest: Emilie Taman

SC: Emilie Taman is a former federal prosecutor, and the NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre. She co-wrote an op-ed about the SNC allegations for today's Globe and Mail. We reached Ms. Taman in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Taman, we just spoke with Andrew Scheer, who says the only way to know if there was political interference is to have an emergency Justice Committee meeting, and have people come and testify. Do you think that would actually reveal what happened?

EMILIE TAMAN: I guess that remains to be seen. I mean I think we certainly need some kind of proceeding or mechanism to get further details. Because at this point, what we have is still a little bit squishy, and I think we need a few more facts so we can really figure out what's going on here.

CO: In the article that you co-wrote, you do say that you believe that there has been what appears to be from the Globe and Mail article political interference. What do you base that on?

ET: Well, I mean I think that's the implication in the article in The Globe, that if in fact undue pressure was exerted on the Attorney General by the Prime Minister or members of his office to change the course of a prosecution, that's really problematic and flies in the face of the constitutional independence of the Attorney General.

CO: As a former prosecutor yourself, what are the red flags for you?

ET: Well, I was counsel at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. So that's the same Crown agency that some you know in play here. And there is a reason that the decision was taken to separate the Public Prosecution Service of Canada from the Department of Justice. And it was for the very reason to kind of put structures in place that would facilitate maintaining that independence. So in terms of a red flag, I mean at the end of the day, the remediation agreement wasn't entered into. And so the Attorney General maintained her own independence. But it's troubling you know given the timing of her then subsequently losing that portfolio that does raise certain red flags in my mind.

CO: Okay. We just spoke with Mr. Scheer about this too. And we spoke with Bob Fife — the reporter — last night, who said he cannot make a direct connection between those two events of the SNC Lavalin and issue and the emotion of the minister. But to go back to what you just said was that, in fact, nothing happened, right? The Attorney General did not either put pressure on, or that pressure was not heeded by the prosecutor. And the SNC Lavalin case did not get to leave to have a mediation agreement. So didn't everything turn out okay in the end?

ET: Well, I think you know that question — and I agree you know based on how I read the article in The Globe and Mail — it certainly was not the case that they were able to make the connection between the exertion of pressure and the subsequent dismissal from the position. But I think we need to know more about that because it would be very, very troubling if a message were to be sent to future Attorneys General that if you don't bowed to the pressure that's coming from the PMO that you risk losing your position. And so while it's true I don't think the facts bear that out right now as we know them. But that would be one of the reasons that I'd be really interested in further probing and seeking to get more details on what it was that really happened.

CO: But is it not reassuring to you at least that the prosecutor did not bend?

ET: It is. Yeah, no, it is it is reassuring, and I think Jody Wilson-Raybould should be commended for standing her ground as you know it's her constitutional responsibility to do in that position. But it still could be, and again, some of this is speculative because we're trying to extrapolate a lot from a relatively vague set of facts as set out in the article. But if it is true that that kind of pressure was being exerted, we do have to wonder whether this is an isolated incident or not? And it is disturbing to think of political considerations infusing criminal prosecution.

CO: But is there no public interest in this? I mean SNC lavalin is a very big corporation, it employs a lot of people, it’s a big part of the economy, a hostile takeover would take that company out of the country. So was there not a public interest in this? Would it not be of a perhaps an obligation on the part of the PMO to at least find out if there couldn't be something done? I just want to walk through whether or not it really was a violation for the PMO to have spoken with the Attorney General.

ET: Well, the Director of Public Prosecutions in making her decision and exercising her discretion as to whether to proceed with charges and whether or not to enter into discussions regarding a remediation agreement. The public interest is one of the really important considerations that she has to consider. So that analysis would have been done by the Director of Public Prosecutions in determining that a remediation agreement wasn't appropriate. You know I don't think it's inappropriate for the public interest factors to be raised with the Attorney General. And this is again where I think it would be useful to get further information because it's not necessarily a problem for the PMO to go to the A.G. and lay out what the case is for the public interest — but exerting pressure in the face of her already having laid that out, that's sort of more where the concern lies for me.

CO: All right. We don't know yet. We may never know. But at least we're trying. Ms. Taman, thank you.

ET: Thank you so much, Carol.

SC: Emilie Taman is a former federal prosecutor and the NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music: Ambient]

Bezos ‘extortion’

Guest: Jerry George

SC: An explosive blogpost, written by the richest man in the world. Jeff Bezos is alleging that the National Enquirer tried to blackmail him. The Amazon CEO and Washington Post publisher says he received an email from the tabloid's lawyer, threatening to publish sexual photos of Mr. Bezos — including a, quote, "below-the-belt selfie" — in its upcoming issue. The threat came after the tabloid had already published details about Mr. Bezos' divorce from his wife, and affair with another woman. And it raises questions about whether the Enquirer's behaviour amounts to criminal extortion — and whether it was motivated by politics. Jerry George is the former Los Angeles bureau chief of the National Enquirer. We reached him in LA.

CO: Jerry, do you think the National Enquirer was expecting that Jeff Bezos would come out swinging against the company like this?

JERRY GEORGE: No, I think it was the furthest thing from their mind. I think they thought they had him over a barrel, and that he would capitulate. I don't think they ever dreamed that he would come back swinging the way he has.

CO: And Mr. Bezos is accusing the company and the paper of blackmailing him. He said that they threatened to publish several sexual photos with him and his mistress, Lauren Sanchez. They say a below-the-belt selfie, scantily clad body shots. Is this what they do? Is this a kind of usual M.O. for the National Enquirer?

JG: It wasn't when I worked there. I mean as a journalist, you know there are times when you have to twist arms a little bit to be persuasive. But this is nothing short of extortion.

CO: If it's true, and it appears through these e-mails that the National Enquirer was ready to release these photos — unless Jeff Bezos agreed to say publicly that the tabloids coverage around him was not politically motivated. So what do you make of that?

JG: Well, I think that you know from the genesis it was politically motivated. You know Bezos himself is certainly not a name for Enquirer readers. I mean we know he's the wealthiest man in the world, and the history with Amazon and the Washington Post. But to the average Enquirer reader, it doesn't register. It's not as if he's George Clooney.

CO: So what are the politics behind this?

JG: I think that President Trump has had a hard on for this guy for a long time. And I think it was perhaps David Pecker's way of making up to him after the federal commission. You know, take me back. I'm sorry; let's be pals again.

CO: Just tell people that David J. Pecker is the head of American Media Inc. — which is the company behind the National Enquirer. And, of course, we have to know talk about this is such a tangled story, isn't it? But, of course, this goes into what happened with the payout to the catch and kill stories that the National Enquirer had with former relationships of Donald Trump. Just remind Canadians what that's about?

JG: Well, I think that the David Pecker-Donald Trump friendship goes back 25 years. They consider themselves good friends. And as Donald Trump emerged as presidential timber, I think David Packer saw in him a ticket to greater fame and fortune. So when he eventually threw his hat in the ring to run for president, David threw all the resources of American Media behind him to assure his victory.

CO: And one of the key things which has turned up in the Mueller inquiry is that it seems that the company helped to arrange payments to two women — the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, and the porn star Stormy Daniels — to pay them off, rather than have their stories come out about their relationship with Donald Trump. And that was a favour to Mr. Trump, was it?

JG: Correct. In effect, it was taking those stories off the market so no one else could print them.

CO: And that, of course, is now part of the Mueller inquiry, and part of the argument that there were illegal campaign finances in the Trump campaign. So that's the big part of the story. Now the next twist in this saga is, of course, the company — the National Enquirer's company — made a deal with prosecutors that they would cooperate in exchange for not being prosecuted for having helped with that financing of the two women. So what does the possibility that the National Enquirer well is extorting from Jeff Bezos? What does that do to that agreement with the prosecutors?

JG: I think that the editors at the National Enquirer thought they were a lot smarter than they really were. I think that they thought they could get away with this and it wouldn't come to anyone's attention. It would be just business as usual. And it was quite a blunder.

CO: The agreement they made with prosecutors is that they'd keep their noses clean.

JG: Certainly.

CO: Or else they'd not only be prosecuted for something else, but they'd be prosecuted for the thing that they got forgiven for. So you'd think you'd think they wouldn't have done this?

JG: You would think so, but you know right now it appears that all bets are off. They are really in the thick of it. This may ultimately spell the end of the Enquirer.

CO: How so?

JG: Well, I think that you know Bezos has the means to grind them into pulp financially. You know I think David Pecker’s job certainly it's secure. I think there is a board of directors that are scratching their head and panicking, and it doesn't look good.

CO: And do you think that Donald Trump is happy about all of this?

JG: No, because you know it's more negative publicity. But Donald Trump really only considers Donald Trump.

CO: But Donald Trump does not like Jeff Bezos, does he?

JG: No, certainly not. There's professional jealousy. Then take into consideration the Washington Post, and you know the outstanding coverage they did during the campaign and since the presidency. Trump’s certainly got to be satisfied that the Jeff is getting his come-upence. But this isn't going to go away. And this is just perhaps going to lead directly back to the president.

CO: All right. Jerry, we will leave it there. We’ll be following this saga as best we can. But thank you.

JG: My pleasure. Thanks again.

SC: Jerry George is the former Los Angeles bureau chief for the National Enquirer. We reached him in Los Angeles. We've got more on this story on our webpage at www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

New York Times ‘overlooked’ obits

Guest: Veronica Chambers

SC: One was known as "The Black Thomas Edison." One could design perfect-fitting dresses for celebrities just by looking at them. Another was a millionaire who used her money to fight slavery. But you may never have heard the names of these African American trailblazers. Their lives — and their deaths — received little recognition from mainstream media. That's something the New York Times now wants to correct. For Black History Month, they've released a special edition of their "Overlooked" obituary series, highlighting extraordinary black men and women whose lives the paper should have celebrated. Veronica Chambers is one of the editors of the series. We reached her in New York.

CO: Veronica, these are extraordinary stories — extraordinary lives. What was it like for you to work on the series?

VERONICA CHAMBERS: I was such a fan of the series when it launched a year ago. “Overlooked” you know brings to life these remarkable people. This year when Amy Padnani, who created the series, invited me to edit a special edition for Black History Month, it just felt like such an honour and a gift.

CO: We spoke with one of the editors when it was the women's series — when they're showing women who had died without ever having a New York Times obituary. But this particular series, again, I mean women — black women and black men as well — but just some extraordinary black women. Mary Ellen Pleasant, can you tell us about her?

VC: Sure, so Mary Ellen Pleasant is a woman who was born a slave, and was, by the end of the 19th century, a gold rush millionaire. And she owned businesses, restaurants, boarding houses. She was a very controversial figure because of her power, and her access to the powerful men in this city. And you know she just lived this kind of incredible renegade life at the same time. She was a staunch abolitionist, and she was a conductor on the Underground Railroad. And so here was this person who was very proud of being a capitalist as she put it. But at the same time, was very much a freedom fighter for slavery.

CO: Another woman, Zelda Wynn Valdez. Can you tell us about her?

VC: Yes, sure. So Zelda Wynn Valdez is somebody who became known as just an amazing designer. And her specialty was designing for the curvy figure. So she designed for a ton of women from jazz singer Ella Fitzgerald, to movie star Mae West, to you know Hollywood stars like Dorothy Dandridge. And you know she's often credited with designing the Playboy bunny costume. But you know we're not entirely sure whether or not she just helped to make it and refine the design, or if she did it.

CO: It's interesting because it's the purpose of the series, isn't it? That these are people who should have been honoured when they died with obituaries in the New York Times. Like a white equivalent of Zelda Wynn Valdez would have been honoured in that way, wouldn't she?

VC: We would think so. I mean it's always hard to say exactly what one would have covered or didn't cover. But I mean the fact for us that Scott Joplin, who was known as the king of ragtime, who composed one of the first African-American operas “Cheema Nisha”, who really is seen as not just the godfather of ragtime but really an ancestral like legacy person in the creation of jazz music as a whole didn't get an obit. I mean it's shocking.

CO: I was going to ask you about that because I couldn't believe it when I saw his name. Another person who would have different context — in a white context — would have been certainly had an obituary is a man named Granville T. Woods.

VC: Yes, so Granville T. Woods was known as “The Black Edison”. And it's interesting. He was very competitive with Thomas Edison. He is credited in some books as inventing the system that allowed for trains to communicate with each other, as well as inventing the third rail.

CO: It's really distressing how much of his life he spent fighting for that recognition.

VC: Yes. And you know he lost a million dollar patent. And he also really suffered personally for his inability to do the thing that he was so good at. He was constantly fighting legal battles. His marriage ended in divorce. We know that he was not a good husband. And so you see some sadness in some of these stories too.

CO: And the sadness around all of them — which was the racism that surrounded their lives, and prevented them in so many cases from being as successful as they could have been, right?

VC: Exactly. I mean I think that what they say here in the obits department is that if someone's life made news while they were alive, likely their death will be news too. But for some of these — especially these African-Americans — their life didn't always make news when they were alive. So you know you start to view their accomplishment through a slightly different lens.

CO: Have you had much reaction to them? I’m speaking in particular of descendants of these people who you featured?

VC: Yes, you know nieces, nephews, depends on how long they've been passed. So, for example, one of the writers wrote today to say that she heard from the family of Zelda Wynn Valdes. And I think just the overall reaction to the readers it is a runaway hit of a series, which is really interesting because it's our younger readers too that love it. I mean they I think really loved seeing all these different ways that these people were rule breakers. And I think that's very inspiring.

CO: Just finally, I’d like to know what working on this series has meant for you?

VC: You know I think that, for me, I came to United States when I was almost six years old. And I just remember going to the library; this was before Google. And you know taking out these big biographies, and just trying to read about like what life was like here. And what people who had brown skin might be able to do. And so every time I go into the section, I just prepare to be inspired. Prepared to just feel like a little bit like that little girl again, discovering something about the world that I never knew.

CO: Veronica, it’s delightful to speak with you. Thank you.

VC: Thank you so much for having me. Have a great day.

CO: Bye-bye.

SC: Veronica Chambers is an editor at the New York Times. We reached her in New York. And for more on this story, head to our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Horns!]

Part two: Thai election, Norway tunnel

Thai election

Guest: Erik Martinez Kuhonta

SC: Thai Princess Ubolratana has announced a bid to run for prime minister in next month's election. And her brother — the king — is not happy about it. The princess' entry into the race is the latest twist in an already-fraught political situation. It means she's upending the tenuous separation between the Thai monarchy and its political system. And it comes as the leader of the military junta that seized power in 2014 was hoping to solidify his role as the country's leader. Erik Martinez Kuhonta is an associate professor of political science at McGill University. He's in Montreal.

CO: Professor Kuhonta, how big a deal is this that the princess would be running for public office in Thailand?

ERIK MARTINEZ KUHONTA: It's a huge deal. It's quite a game-changer in the sense that there's never been a royalty who's run for a political office, and this is quite unexpected on many fronts, and allows the former prime minister Thaksin a way back into the Thai political system.

CO: Just to stay on the royal question before we get into all the political intrigue that this introduces, I mean would this be like… I don't know if, in Canada, Prince Harry was to run for prime minister?

EMK: It's somewhat comparable to the extent that this would be a constitutional monarchy where a royal member of the royal family would then enter into politics. But it's a much graver, deeper implications in a country like Thailand that is very unstable. And because it also creates a divide in the monarchy where it was long assumed that the monarchy as a bulwark — as one unit — was in support of the military and was in support of the conservative establishment. While the other side thaksin, the former prime minister, and the rural sector of Thailand was on the other side. And so for the fact that the princess Ubolratana is actually citing very openly with Thaksin creates a very clear divide. And it really upends all conventional wisdom.

CO: And Canada doesn't have the relationship with a monarchy that Thailand does. I mean this is really quite extraordinary. You don't challenge a monarch in Thailand, do you?

EMK: No, exactly, exactly. I mean this is what Thailand has been grappling with for many years. But has become really a very heightened issue in the past decade — really especially in the past five six years — where the law that protects the king, the queen, and the immediate family from any challenge has been used and called upon very, very frequently. And many individuals have been sent to send to prison for very minor comments. So the extent to which the monarchy is seen as untouchable in Thailand really raises this to a very different level. And so for a princess to run, and all the implications of that in terms of the extent to which she can be challenged, and for the fact that she is also in effect challenging the reigning monarch, all of these really adds some very amazing developments in Thai politics.

CO: The king of Thailand himself has weighed in on this — on his sister's nomination — saying that he he's very concerned. He says to involve a high-level member of the royal family in politics directly or indirectly is against royal traditions, norms, and the national culture. It is extremely inappropriate. What does it take for the king of Thailand to actually speak out against his own sibling?

EMK: We haven't had that in Thailand where the family now clearly has as a sharp divide come out in public. But there's a lot of hypocrisy in many ways because, in fact, anyone who studies Thailand knows very well that the monarchy in the past and currently has been involved in politics behind the scenes. The only issue here is that the princess is running for office, and is in effect challenging directly the bastion of the monarchy. And so that is why a statement had to be made against her running.

CO: But I guess that one of the big questions that's coming out is there's a lot at stake in this next election, isn't there? I mean this election may solidify a military dictatorship in Thailand, and give it sort of the official sanction that it seeks. So isn't it a time when you're going to actually restore democracy to some extent in Thailand that you have to pull out all the stops.

EMK: Yes. I mean this election is going to be very, very consequential. The conventional wisdom had it that General Prayut Chan-o-cha, the current prime minister and general dictator of Thailand, would become prime minister. He's going to run, and because to become prime minister now according to the new constitution, you need not just the votes from the House of Representatives, but you also need the votes from the Senate. The Senate is not elected; it's appointed. And most of those appointees will be linked to the militaries. But for the princess to not now step in, that could really put a significant stop on the military's determination to rule the country.

CO: Now, she also brings together the yellow shirts and the red shirts, which is how the political division has been. It brings those two sides — those rivals together — doesn't it, under one banner.

EMK: Well, not quite. It's unclear what that would mean for the Bangkok middle-class — the yellow shirts — that have supported the monarchy against Thaksin. But what the princess will do though is provide immense legitimacy to the red shirts. Because now they will not be seen as anti-monarchy, they will be linked with the royalty. The aura of the princess will grant thaksin and the red shirts, who are based largely in the more rural areas, significant cover.

CO: Just finally, what kind of a prime minister would princess Ubolratana be?

EMK: She has had no political office or direct political experience. So this is really very difficult to predict. But she does have a degree in biochemistry from M.I.T. — and she lived in the United States for many years. She was married to an American then she got divorced. She returned to Thailand 2001, and since then she has been involved in in making films and some public advocacy campaigns. I think she is a very intelligent woman, and I think that she would perhaps provide more of a sense of public interest than other leaders. But I think this princess would also have significant capacities.

CO: All right. Well, we'll be following this story. Professor Kuhonta, thank you.

EMK: Thank you.

SC: Erik Martinez Kuhonta is an associate professor of political science at McGill University. We reached him in Montreal.

[Music: Ambient]

Brexit radio star

SC: It's hard to believe that it's been two-and-a-half years since a small majority of voters backed Brexit in a referendum. Probably seems longer for Britons, who still don't know how it'll all turn out. And it definitely seems longer for James O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is a host at the talk radio station, LBC — which stands for Leading Britain's Conversation. And every day, he talks to caller after caller about Brexit. which he is very much against. James O'Brien has been on the air since 2004. But he got a huge boost in audience in 2014, when he interviewed future Brexiteer, Nigel Farage. That interview has been viewed almost a million times on YouTube. Since then, Mr. O'Brien's audience has quadrupled. He now has about a million listeners, and hundreds of thousands of YouTube followers. Most of his callers want Britain to leave the European Union. James O'Brien disagrees — insistently, but usually calmly — until he gets provoked. Here he is taking a call from a Brexit supporter named Julian.

SOUNDCLIP

JULIAN: Because it was always argued that we can't have it on the table.

JAMES O’BRIEN: No, it wasn’t.

J: Right from the word “go”.

JO: March 2018, the European Union published 80 “no deal” notices explaining the preparations they were making. That’s nearly a year ago. December 2017, David Davis wrote to Theresa May complaining that the European Union were making preparations for “no deal”

J: Yeah, but after Chequers….

JO: Just repeat back to me what I just said.

J: After…

JO: Repeat back to me what I just said.

J: Yeah, okay. You’ve given me some examples.

JO: No, just repeat back what I just said.

J: I can't.

JO: Right, I know you can’t, so listen. In March of 2018, the European Union published 80 “no deal” notices explaining in detail the preparations they were making for the eventuality of Britain leaving or the United Kingdom leaving with no deal. In December of 2017, David Davis wrote to Theresa May — the letter was leaked — complaining that the European Union were making preparations for “no deal”, and that this was hindering his negotiating process. So for you to sit here on national radio and say we never really made them fear that “no deal” was a possibility. It's not even silly, Julian. It's like arguing that the moon is made of cheese while sitting on the moon.

J: I don't agree. I mean…

JO: Oh, my days man! Eighty notices!

SC: That was part of James O'Brien's conversation with his caller, Julian. Mr. O'Brien is host on the British talk-radio station, LBC.

[Music: Folk]

Norway tunnel

Guest: Arianna Minoretti

SC: The drive along the west coast of Norway is pretty astonishing — and astonishingly pretty. Its beauty is only enhanced by more than a thousand fjords — long, narrow indented shorelines with steep sides or cliffs, created by glaciers. But that beauty is also a problem. Navigating the fjords makes a drive just from one town to the next into a long journey. Now, the Norwegian government hopes to cut down the travel time with an ambitious, if complicated, plan: it's building the world's first submerged, tunnel along the west coast. Arianna Minoretti is the chief engineer on the project. We reached her in Paris, France.

CO: Ms Minoretti, that coastline of Norway is so beautiful, isn't it? Can you just describe what it's like to drive on that highway?

ARIANNA MINORETTI: Well, it's an experience that you have to do once in your life. It's a beautiful area, full of nature, water, and these fantastic fjords. What you can feel driving there is that you know this sensation that's all these advertisement of cars that try to sell this the sense of freedom driving in nature. Well, that's a place where you can feel it.

CO: So why would anybody rather spend that time driving in a tunnel or a tube under water? I mean how much faster could they travel that coast?

AM: So the studies we have done — the Norwegian Public Road Administration has done — shows that there could be a reduction of half the time that is used nowadays to drive on that road. And this is due mainly for the seven ferries that are present along the west coast of Norway. This submerged floating tube bridge Is that one of the possible structure that we are evaluating for several of these fjords.

CO: And how long will these stretches of submerged bridge — these floating tunnels — how long will they be?

AM: Well, it can be several kilometres. We have also studies, for example, the latest study we have done is for the Bjornafjorden, and this was around a 5-6 kilometre crossing. But we have also evaluated this structure for other crossing that are really shorter like 600 metres because the possibility of having this type of structure has let's say other process that a normal bridges will not have.

CO: I mean looking at pictures of this, it’s extraordinary that this can have a floating tunnel like that with the braces above the water the way it looks. Has this been done before? Is there another example of something of this nature that is already been built?

AM: No, this would be the first in the word. So this structure, if we are going to build it, it would be the first in the world. But it's not a new structure in in the sense that the concept is an old concept. So it was proposed for the first time in 1882 I think from Sir Edward Reid. But the technology obviously wasn't ready. In Norway, the concept was proposed the first time in 1923 or something like this. And the Norwegian Public Road Administration thought it let's say early to develop some of these studies. But it’s just the with studies along the E39, and this structure has been proven to be really feasible. And this is thanks to the experience that Norway has with the offshore and oil structures.

CO: I was going to say that they do kind of look like those platforms — the same concept as the platforms for the oil industry. But they have to be low enough. This tunnel has to be below the surface far enough that it doesn't interfere with ships on top. And it can be so low that it interferes with anything going underneath it, right?

AM: Yeah, but these are all situations that are evaluated during the design. So for the Norwegian fjords, for example, we have evaluated the situation of having a possible collision with a ship for a pontoon for example. Because we have proposed for some fjords are two separate structures, or an SFTB vertically stabilized with the floating pontoons or a SFTB connected by tethers with the seabed. And in the first situation, obviously, you have the pontoons that are floating on the water, so you could have it in a collision with a ship. But also under water, some of these fjords are an area of practice for the Marine and Navy, so you could have a collision with a submarine for example. But all these are situations that are evaluated during the design. Everything is under control.

CO: All right, well we'll have to take your word for it — because you're one of those engineers that’s going to make that commitment to us. Just finally, just to ask you one last question, it will still be possible I presume for people who want to drive that coastline and see that extraordinary scenery, that will still be possible, will it?

AM: Yeah, yeah, of course. The idea is for some of these fjords, we are already thinking to build some oversea bridges. So in that areas, they will pass in here. But any way, the local transport would be maintained, obviously. So if you are on holiday, you can choose the longest road. But if you're in a hurry, or you have to reach a hospital, obviously I don't think that you want to see the scenery. You want to arrive as fast as possible. So yeah, there will be this possibility. Yeah.

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

AM: Thank you. Bye.

CO: Bye-bye.

SC: Arianna Minoretti is an engineer leading a Norwegian government project to build the world's first submerged floating tunnel — to cut down on long travel times through the country's western fjords. We reached her in Paris. If you're curious to see what one of these floating tunnels looks like, we've got pictures. Check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Electronica]

Chunky trademark

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Another day, another sandwich. Hey, what’s that?

SPEAKER TWO: Chunky steak and potato.

SPEAKER THREE: Sandwiches again. Hey what have you got?

SPEAKER FOUR: Chunky beef burger. Want a taste?

SPEAKER FIVE: Campbell's Chunky. All the goodness of big chunks of vegetables and big chunks of meat in a thick, tasty broth — delicious! With a roll or salad, Chunky makes a lite meal your family will love. Campbell's Chunky. It's the right light meal

SPEAKER SIX: Tastes great, mom.

SC: That's a commercial for Campbell's Chunky Soup from 1980 — in which people are very excited when someone near them eats soup with large pieces in it. Now, we already had a name for that kind of soup. We called it "soup". Or "stew". But in 1970, Campbell's added a key modifier. They called it "chunky". And now, no one else can. I'm exaggerating slightly. But Campbell's has just been given the exclusive trademark to that adjective. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was impressed by the company's application, which established that "chunky" had become synonymous with their soups. The application cited references on "Saturday Night Live", late-night talk shows, "The Simpsons", and a song by Ghostface Killah.

SC: Case closed. Trademark granted. But if you sell a soup that features chunks, don't worry. Campbell's is feeling generous. A spokesperson said, quote: "Campbell would not even object to uses of 'chunky' in connection with soups, as long as the use was in a non-prominent, descriptive fashion." So soup-makers, you can still use that word. Just in tiny letters, and just as an explanation. So keep that in mind — because, in the U.S. at least, the "chunky" ruling might just change how and what you can and cannot can.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Part three: fish reflections, stranger’s funeral

Bissonette sentencing

SC: Today, Alexandre Bissonnette was sentenced to at least forty years in prison — for killing six men and wounding several others when he opened fire in a Quebec City mosque — which is a long time. But for some people, not nearly enough. Mr. Bissonnette pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder. And there were those who hoped he would be ineligible for parole for 150 years. But the judge said that would be cruel and unusual — and a violation of his constitutional rights. Outside the courthouse, the sentence was met with mixed reactions.

SOUNDCLIP

HASSAN GUILLET After forty years, Mr. Bissonnette will be sixty-seven. We don't know if he would still be alive or not. We don't know if we were going to be alive or not. But the orphans! Very likely these orphans will be still alive. And the debate will be open again. And they will relive again what we lived today. We were wishing to have the peace of mind, and to have these widows and these orphans starting their life in dignity and peacefully, and to start a new page. It seems to me the wound is still open, and we are still going still to live this again. And what I liked in the judgment when the judge insisted on the hate character of this criminal act. Because we know, unfortunately, in our society, many people deny that. They say Islamophobia does not exist, or it's a personal act, or because he had some mental illness. At least the judge recognized that it's a hate crime, it's racist, and he came to kill these people for the only reason that they are Muslims. So we are very glad that this was came out, and it should send a message to everybody young and old who is sitting in front of his computer or on social media or the media sending hate messages and trying to incite violence to show that violence will lead too far we destroy lives. And the lives that were destroyed is not only our lives many other lives. I saw the parents of this guy in the courthouse, and there they were destroyed. I'm talking about Alexandre Bissonnette. I saw his father and his mother in the courthouse, and they were as destroyed, as demolished as we were. So a message to everybody who's propagating hate crimes: think about your parents, think about yourself, think about your society. It's not with hate that we can build this society. It’s with love, with openness, and dignity. Thank you very much.

SC: That was Hassan Guillet, speaking today after Alexandre Bissonnette was sentenced for killing six men and wounding several more in a Quebec City mosque. Imam Guillet is a spokesperson for the Council of Quebec Imams.

[Music: Sombre]

Fish reflections

Guest: Alex Jordan

SC: It's been a test of self-awareness for decades: which animals can recognize their own reflections? Only a small number of species have passed the test so far. That includes humans, apes, bottlenose dolphins — and a single elephant. Now, a new study suggests that an unremarkable fish may have achieved this remarkable feat as well. And the research team is very excited — despite calls for caution in the scientific community. Alex Jordan was on the research team. He's a principal investigator in the Department of Collective Behaviour at the Max Planck Institute. We reached him in Konstanz, Germany.

CO: Professor Jordan, what is it about the cleaner wrasse that attracted you to do this study?

ALEX JORDAN: I'm very interested generally in the evolution of social behaviour, and the evolution of social cognition. And there's a hypothesis called the social brain hypothesis, which posits that being social leads to increased cognitive abilities and increased brain complexity.

CO: So is the cleaner wrasse a particularly social fish?

AJ: It is, yeah. So it has an incredibly complex lifestyle, and the way it lives it has to deal with client fish that come into the cleaning stations. And it has to decide whether it approaches potentially dangerous fish. It has to remember its past interactions with fish. And so it has a very complex social existence.

CO: Now, the mirror test that you applied to the cleaner wrasse, this is something is considered the gold standard of testing animals for their cognition — for their intelligence. So how did the cleaner wrasse pass the test?

AJ: So it begins with a phase that’s called the pre-phases of the experiment, in which the animals initially show aggression towards the mirror. This is a very common response in animals when presented with their reflection. Then they go through this period which is very sort of difficult to interpret, in fact, of contingency testing behaviours — sort of strange behaviours that are not observed outside of the mirror condition. In humans and in chimpanzees for instance they might make funny facial expressions that you otherwise wouldn't see. But, of course, in a fish, that's somewhat challenging to interpret.

CO: What do the cleaner wrasse do in order to instead of making funny faces what did they do to strange behaviour?

AJ: Yeah, so they perform some behaviors which are very easy for us to interpret as being strange. For instance, they swim upside down. Now I don't know if you'd have kept fish, but if the fishes swimming upside down, it's typically a very bad sign for that fish. But these cleaners wrasse would approach the mirror swimming upside down as they did so. And then they would right themselves and swim back away and then repeat this process. But then there were some other behaviours that were a little bit less obvious what their function is. Overall, we observed about ten different types of these unusual or potentially mirror testing or contingency behaviours. If they pass through these phases then they're given a mark on their body in a place that they cannot observe directly. Now fish are different in the sense that they have very much broader field of vision. So we have to put the marks under the chin, where there's absolutely no way they could see that mark. And so if the animal sees the reflection in the mirror, sees the mark on their body, and then attempts to remove the mark from its own body, that indicates that the animal understands that the reflection is a representation of themself.

CO: And did the cleaner wrasse do that?

AJ: Yeah, they did exactly that. And fortunately for us, in the context of this experiment, cleaner wrasse and almost all species of fish perform a behavior called glancing or scraping, where they swim up to a hard surface, and then they rapidly accelerate and scratch their body against the surface. This is a normal behavior for fish that are attempting to remove some irritation. And so what we would observe is that the fish would posture in front of the mirror in a sort of orientation and in a manner that could reflect their body. And then they would go away from the mirror to a rock or the sand, and then they would scrape their body against that substrate. And then they would repeat that process. And we saw zero instances of those scraping behaviours when we gave them clear marks. So the same procedure but there was actually no visible stimulus, or when we gave them coloured marks but they didn't have access to the mirror. In both of those cases, they never showed this behaviour.

CO: OK, so you know that your research is controversial, right? Because they say this is you know humans and apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, they all do this. We consider these animals to be very high up in the in the evolutionary chain. These are fish. And it seems that there is a lot of pushback from the scientific community that you have actually been able to prove that fish of any kind of self-awareness. What do you say to that?

AJ: Well, the first thing that I'd say, of course, is that I don't think this is proof that fish have self-awareness. It's proof that they pass through the mark test. And that should make us critically re-evaluate in all corners of the scientific community what our understanding of the test is? And what it's really showing? There is pushback from for instance primatologists that this test is not comparable because of the way the fish behaved in the test. But that should immediately lead us to the question if we are interested in understanding the breadth and the diversity of the animal kingdom and the cognitive abilities of all animals, then we should be designing a test that's fair. It's not a fair test if parts of the community will reject it just because it's a fish, and because the fish's behaviours are less easy to interpret.

CO: Ok, it's a bit of a slippery slope for those who judge what animals we can eat by which ones we think have some kind of a consciousness. So what's next for you? Now that you've looked at the cleaner wrasse and found these exceptional qualities, where are we going with this?

AJ: Well, I'm not I'm not sort of trying to collect stamps here. I'm not going to keep going and then do you know the insects and these things. But really what I want is to try and understand or develop a methodology that allows us to understand the language of animal behaviour in an objective way.

CO: All right, well I'm sure people listening to this there will be a lot of conversations about this when they hear it, Professor Jordan. And it's really interesting. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

AJ: Not at all. Thanks a lot.

CO: Goodnight.

AJ: Right.

SC: Alex Jordan is a principal investigator in the Department of Collective Behaviour at the Max Planck Institute. He's in Konstanz, Germany. His research was recently published in the journal, P-L-O-S-One.

[Music: Ambient]

FOA: Albert Finney obit

SC: After just his second film, "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning", Albert Finney was a star in England. His character was an angry young man — and he was all the rage. And he didn't fizzle out. For more than five decades, he was a giant of stage and screen. He made films as diverse as "Tom Jones," "Erin Brokovich" and "Skyfall." He was nominated for an Oscar five times, and was one of the most respected and versatile actors of his generation. Albert Finney died today in London. He was 82 years old. He started his career playing handsome leads — including in the 1963 movie "Tom Jones", which made him rich and famous everywhere. But he wouldn't be typecast: he would go on to play Winston Churchill, Pope John Paul the Second, and Ebenezer Scrooge. He was also selective. Not only did he turn down the lead role in "Lawrence of Arabia", he also turned down a knighthood. He said, quote, "I think the 'Sir' thing slightly perpetuates one of our diseases in England, which is snobbery." Unquote. In 1961, after "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" came out, a 24-year-old Albert Finney appeared on CBC Radio, and spoke with Gerald Pratley about his career began.

SOUNDCLIP

ALBERT FINNEY: I was at grammar school in Salford. I never did any homework, and I was in the fifth form two years, trying to get ordinary level. And the first attempt, out of five subjects, I got one. And the second attempt, the next year, out of five subjects, I got none. And the head master as a last resort suggested I tried acting, which I had done in school plays — not because I wanted to be an actor because I enjoyed the school activity. And he sent me down to RADA for an audition. I got in. And I was at RADA two terms. And I suddenly realised what I supposed to be doing there: training to be an actor. When I sort of applied myself to it and I realized I enjoyed it, and I became an actor. Then I went to Birmingham Rep, which is a monthly rep, for two years. And there played Henry V and Macbeth at the age of 21, which is a bit young. I had to play him like a juvenile delinquent instead of a sort of great Scottish nobleman. But it was you know a marvellous experience. And then Charles Laughton came and saw me play Macbeth, which he hated. But he offered me a part in his play which he was going to do in London anyway. I was in a play called “The Party” in 1958. And I left Birmingham and did that. And then Charles said come to Stratford with me next season. So I did. And it was there that I was approached for the film “Saturday Night and Sunday Morning”.

SC: Albert Finney speaking with CBC Radio's Gerald Pratley in May, 1961. Albert Finney died today. He was 82.

[Music: Ambient]

Exploding pizza

SC: Yesterday was the 45th birthday of the classic CBC logo launched in 1974. It looks like a flower unfolding. Or the image inside a kaleidoscope. Or, less poetically, like an "exploding pizza." For those who grew up watching the CBC in this era, it's a powerfully nostalgic symbol — even when you're nowhere near Canada. Christian Mueller of Calgary, is out of the country right now, on a trip around the world with his wife and two daughters. And he made sure to pack his favourite article of clothing - a retro CBC t-shirt. In every picture of himself on Instagram on vacation, he's wearing that shirt, with that 1974 logo. He's wearing it in front of a waterfall in Argentina, next to a camel in the deserts of Morocco, and when he was on a gondola ride in Venice, it was on him. Mr. Mueller says the shirt has helped him connect with Canadians in many of the countries his family visits. Yesterday, he talked about some of those connections with CBC News in Calgary.

CHRISTIAN MUELLER: It's kind of a secretive society that only Canadians recognize it, which isn't unreasonable I guess. But I've been finding that it it's a conversation starter. People come up to me when they recognize the logo. Well, first, they ask do you work for the CBC? Of course, I have to say no. We then get into where are you from in Canada? And so it's sort of a connection to home everywhere we go. I personally I like it. I think it's nice. I just you know when you're far away, sometimes you get homesick. But every now and then, somebody recognizes that, you have that conversation about home, and it just keeps you connected to your roots — to what's important. We were touristing around the Great Wall, north of Beijing, and this young lady comes running up to me real fast and with a huge smile on her face, and she just says I gotta have my picture taken with you — I just gotta. And so I did. I obliged and she asked me, of course, if I worked for the CBC? And I said no, and I found out that her mom does. Her mom works for CBC in Winnipeg. So we had a chat about that, and we had a couple of pictures and shared some time and an experience, and then went on our way. And, of course, I put it on Instagram.

CO: Rabbi Newman, first of all, who was Eddie Ford?

ZALE NEWMAN: Eddie Ford was a great little, sweet older man, when I met him eight months ago. Grew up in Budapest, Hungary. The Holocaust came to Hungary, and in order to save his life, his mother took him and put him in hiding with a Christian family — a very benevolent family — who risked their lives to raise him. But that was the beginning of great change in life. In a sense, he lost a lot of his family. He certainly had no Jewish upbringing. He never had a chance for regular education of any kind. And eventually, he came to the shores of our great country after the war.

CO: And how did you come to meet him?

ZN: So he got onto our list here in Sunnybrook. And when I met him, he was a cancer patient — eighty-four years old at the time — with three different types of cancer. Eventually, it was determined that it was inoperable because of the severity of his illnesses, and he moved to palliative care. And we became kind of his surrogate family, and he became a friend and kind of like an uncle.

CO: He passed away last week, and you wanted to see that he had a Jewish funeral. But how did it come about? I mean how many people did you think were going to actually connect to say goodbye to him?

ZN: Well, Carol, I had promised him… we had a conversation about this, and he felt he wasn't worthy of a traditional Jewish funeral because he hadn't kept tradition all those years. And I said Eddie, you are deserving, and there's no requirement. If that's what you want, I promise you you'll get it. And I thought I'll do the funeral by myself. But on Wednesday night, before I went to sleep at 10;45, I put up a little Facebook posting seeing if he could get ten people because in the Jewish faith, when you have ten together there's some spiritual energy which makes it like a quorum and more powerful and you can recite different prayers and it kicks it up a notch. And I was hoping that nine people would join me. When I checked the next morning — Thursday morning — I noticed two things: a, it was going to be really, really, really old. I think the windchill was minus 27, and that's before you get out there in the open field with the polar vortex wind, and three people responded that they would attend. So I thought Ok, we'll have a funeral of four, which is a lot better than one. And when we got there, that's not was not the case, Carol.

CO: When you arrived at the cemetery, what did you find?

ZN: I couldn't get in. I came at five to twelve for a twelve o'clock funeral thinking you know there's just four of us. And the cars were lined up, and I said oh no, there's another funeral, and I'm never going to find mine. And not only that, the other one's a big one. There's many, many people attending. So I parked the car — frankly illegally — and I walked, and it took me about 15 or 20 minutes to get to the gravesite. And along the way I asked people excuse me, whose funeral you attending? And the first one said Mr. Ford, and the next one said Mr. Ford, and the next one said Mr. Ford. And my heart began to race, and I said no, no, this can't be. And when I got to the gravesite, there was a big circle of people dressed and all I could see was eyes because it was so full. People had their hats, hoods, toques down to their eyes on one side, and a scarf over their mouth and nose on the other side. And there was almost 200 people in a big circle, huddled together. And I was shaken, I’m still shaken by it and it’s a week later. And it just blew my mind that on a little Facebook note — and I didn't know anyone there.

CO: What is it you think that inspired all those people to turn out for Mr. Ford?

ZN: I think the inspiration was maybe three-fold. And I'm not sure because I'm not a psychologist, but I think one is he was a Holocaust survivor. He already had been to hell and back, and he deserved a better sendoff. I think part is an awareness of how bad loneliness is. And maybe the third thing is that the Jewish people we don't view ourselves as a nation. We view ourselves much more like a family. And I think family members said oh no, there's some elderly lonely person who needs me. And it touched a couple of hundred people to leave work for three hours to drive far to the north — well beyond the bounds of the Jewish community; that’s where the cemetery is. And to stand there and freeze, I think that's touching, but a lesson for all people. It’s not just the Jewish lesson, it’s a human lesson.

CO: Rabbi Newman, this is just a lovely story. As you say, it is an inspiration for everyone, and a sense of family. I appreciate you telling it to us. Thank you.

ZN: Thanks, Carol. All the best. Bye-bye

CO: Bye-bye

SC: Zale Newman is a volunteer rabbi. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music: Sombre]

Newfoundland Google Home

SC: As a smart speaker, Google Home is supposed to help you. It can wake you up, tell you the weather, play your music. But when four-year-old Liam Sheppard, from Gander, Newfoundland, asked Google Home for help, it seemed helpless. About three weeks ago, Liam's grandmother filmed Liam, standing on a stool in his kitchen, talking face-to-speaker with Google Home. Liam's parents posted the video on Facebook. Here he is, bossing around his Google Home.

SOUNDCLIP

LIAM SHEPPARD: Ok Google, can I please train you? Because you don't know what stuff is. You should train me because I don’t even know my abcs.

GOOGLE HOME: Huh, looks like there's a problem.

LS: No, it’s not.

GH: Oh, Ok.

LS: Ok Google, that’s all right.

GH: Second step. Beat butter with a hand or a stand mixer until creamy. Then add the flour, sugar, and salt, and beat until a dough forms.

LS: All right Google, stop. Google, stop. Will teach you and you teack me my abc’s? Will you copy what I says instead of ingredients. Ok Google, can you do that please?

GH: Here are some suggestions: you can say play a trivia game, or is porridge gluten free? Do you want a couple more ideas?

LS: Ok Google, I was teaching you? Will you teach me?

GH: According to facts of life.net, Pablo Picasso’s mother said he learned to draw before he learned to walk.

LS: I already knows how to walk.

SC: That was four-year-old Liam Sheppard, trying to communicate with his family's Google Home smart speaker. Liam was in Gander, Newfoundland.

[Music: Folk]

Thermostat wars

SC: Sometimes, if you live with someone — even if you're married to that someone — there are still six degrees of separation between you. Usually it's not six. It's four, or two. But to you, that separation means the difference between freezing, being comfortable, and sweltering. And rather than actually separate, you just go behind your partner's back — and adjust the thermostat. Some of you are looking at your spouse right now, with a frozen smile. Or a sweaty one. But it's time to admit it. Because — thanks to a recent, not-very-scientific survey by BC Hydro — this common subterfuge is now a hot topic. In that survey, British Columbia's provincial power utility asked people to reveal their secret thermostat habits. 60 per cent of respondents admitted to changing the temperature when their partner wasn't looking. Half say they do it when their partner is out of the room. And 20 per cent said they do it for the sole purpose of irritating their partner. Well, it's probably good that we're discussing this publicly. Because when one of you is caught doing it behind closed doors, things can get ugly. And we can wind up saying things we don't mean in the heat of battle. Or the ...battle of heat.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 8, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This