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 26, 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

ATW: Tonight:

CO: Air strike — or strike-out. India says its jets destroyed a terrorist cell in Kashmir with extreme precision — but a journalist in Pakistan says the bombing raid doesn't appear to have hit anything significant at all.

KG: Going the Brextra mile. British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tentatively endorses a second Brexit referendum — but "Remainers" remain skeptical about the Brextent of the party's commitment to the idea.

CO: All are bored! For more than 36 hours, dozens of passengers were trapped on an Amtrak train, stopped in its tracks in a snowstorm — our guest explains how she got some exercise in the futility.

KG: Putting the "punch" in punchline. Just For Laughs takes over a satellite radio station devoted to comedy — and Canadian stand-ups say the idea that that will be good for them is a joke.

CO: Now is the winter of their dog's content. And yet, people keep complaining that a Charlottetown couple is leaving their husky mix outside — so they've taken action against those who hound them.

KG: And...moving rat along. In Germany, volunteer firefighters conduct a daring rescue that thrills some onlookers, and disgusts others — because, after much effort, they managed to free a sewer rat whose paunch got it stuck in a manhole cover.

KG: As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that wonders if they used extra vermin olive oil.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: India-Pakistan escalation, Stranded train, Canadian comedian Sandra Battaligni

India-Pakistan escalation

Guest: Mosharraf Zaidi

KG: It marks the most serious escalation between India and Pakistan in years. Early this morning, Indian fighter jets crossed a ceasefire line into Kashmir and fired airstrikes. It was India's first attack on Pakistan since two countries went to war in 1971. According to Indian officials, the strikes were hugely successful. They say the attack wiped out a jihadist terrorist training camp run by Jaish-e-Mohammed. That's the group that claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing two weeks ago, which killed 40 Indian security officers. But Pakistan says that story is untrue. It says the Indian war planes dropped bombs in a heavily forested area — and there were no casualties. Mosharraf Zaidi is a Pakistani columnist and political analyst. We reached him in Islamabad.

CO: Musharraf, this is the first time since the war in 1971 that we've seen India enter Pakistan airspace and launch these kinds of airstrikes. How is it playing out in Pakistan tonight?

MOSHARRAF ZAIDI: Well, it's been seen as exactly the kind of grave escalation and very serious violation of Pakistani territorial integrity and Pakistani sovereignty that it is. The prime minister has spoken. There's been a National Security Council meeting. Tomorrow, there's going to be a meeting of the National Command Authority, which is responsible for strategic level decision making when it comes to Pakistan's defensive capabilities. Both the state, the government, the military, as well as the people of Pakistan are taking this quite seriously.

CO: And let’s just talk about what we understand happened. Because India says that its jets went into Pakistan to strike this militant group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, which claimed responsibility for this attack on Indian paramilitary police two weeks ago — where 40 of them were killed in this convoy by a suicide bomber. This is what they said the target was. What do you know at this point as to what India struck inside Pakistani space?

MZ: Well, as far as the pictures that have been shared of the site by the spokesperson for the military, it's a hilltop. And there is a bunch of trees and there's a big crater on the side of a mountain or not even a mountain on a grassy hill, essentially. There are accounts of journalists who reached there today during the day. They've been reporting back that the so-called compound that was supposedly targeted is still intact. Others are reporting that there's some damage. There is a Reuters report and an Al Jazeera report that suggests that there was one person injured, but not a whole lot of structural damage, and certainly not the kind of loss of life that has been claimed by some in India. In India, of course, the media has been alight. There has been reporting of as many as 350 people killed, and large compounds taken out. But the evidence for that either does not exist or we haven't seen it yet.

CO: This conflict in a Kashmir region, often there are differing stories between India and Pakistan as to what happened. But have you seen such an extreme difference between possibly no one hurt or hit and hundreds killed?

MZ: You know I think that it speaks to the unbelievable divide between these two countries. Earlier today, I tweeted two pictures of the Reuters tweet of the exact same story. And the Reuters Pakistan office had tweeted one villager injured, and the Reuters India office had tweeted government sources claim 300 killed in Indian attack on Pakistani territory. So it's the exact same story, but it's being reported even by some agency, even as credible as Reuters, and there is that much of a of a divergence. This has become standard. The people that are terrorists for Indians are freedom fighters for Pakistanis when it comes to Kashmir. And it's not it's not a distinction that Pakistanis are shy about. That is the official position of Pakistan, and has been for 70 years.

CO: We know there is an election very soon in India, and there is much speculation that the point of this airstrike was political. The message to go home was that we're not going to stand by and see our police killed by terrorists and not strike at Pakistan — who, as you know, India blames for this attack. How is it likely to play in India as far as you know?

MZ: I certainly think that this is a winning electoral issue. And so many of us here in Pakistan believe that the sabre-rattling and the aggression from India has less to do with Pakistan's connection to this event, and more to do with the fact that there are electoral gains to be drawn from continued stoking of the fire between these two countries by India.

CO: The young man who did the suicide bombing on the convoy on February 14th was a local Kashmiri. But the group Jaish-e-Mohammed has claimed responsibility as you just mentioned. And this is a group that is understood to be based in Pakistan. So doesn't India have a legitimate claim to blame Pakistan for something where the group that seems to have orchestrated this campaign and perhaps radicalize this young man is actually based in Pakistani territory?

MZ: This is the Achilles heel of any argument that Pakistan makes: The GM and the LET are the two groups that India wants Pakistan to basically terminate. And the long-term struggle that Pakistan seems to have in doing that is a constant irritant in the relationship. But the original sin in the relationship are not these groups. The original sin in the relationship is the illegal occupation of Kashmir by India. And unless and until that issue is resolved, it's going to be very difficult for the Pakistani state or society to be able to manage or suffocate the kinds of voices that end up going and supporting militant activity in occupied Kashmir. But I certainly think that Pakistan can do a lot more to muzzle and suffocate the ability of these groups to recruit, raise finances, and to have any kind of a voice. So as a Pakistani, and as somebody that's interested in broader peace, including peace with India you know notwithstanding what's happening in Kashmir, those actions are things that Pakistan certainly needs to needs to look at.

CO: Pakistan's army says it will respond to this incursion by India at an unspecified time. And the quote from the spokesman in the military: It's your turn now to wait and get ready for our surprise. What is Pakistan likely to do?

MZ: Look, I hope it's likely that Pakistan will eschew the opportunity of any kind of surprise or any kind of retaliation. Because the escalatory ladder is an unpredictable one — especially given that there is an election in India. The fear, of course, is that better counsel will be ignored, and Pakistan will feel compelled to make some sort of a retaliatory gesture simply for the sake of ensuring that India doesn't feel that it can just up and attack Pakistan whenever it feels like.

CO: Musharraf, I know it's very late in Pakistan. So I appreciate that you would speak with us tonight. Thank you.

MZ: Thanks a lot.

KG: Mosharraf Zaidi is a Pakistani columnist and political analyst. We reached him in Islamabad. For more on this story, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Latin flare]

Stranded train

Guest: Emilie Wyrick

KG: It's supposed to be a beautiful, scenic train ride from Seattle to Los Angeles. But for riders on the Amtrak Coast Starlight, the view has been unchanging, and bleak — because their trip went south figuratively, instead of literally. On Sunday evening, during a snowstorm, the train struck a fallen tree. And ever since then, passengers have been going nowhere fast. Emilie Wyrick was stuck on that train. She's trying to get home to California. We reached her somewhere between Oakridge and Eugene, Oregon earlier today, when the train finally started moving.

CO: Emilie, how fast are you moving now that the train started to go?

EMILIE WYRICK: I would say we're going maybe 15-20 miles an hour. We have to stop every so often when we get to signals because power is out. And so they have to actually manually switch the signals.

CO: And you're headed back to where you came?

EW: We are headed back, yes. I got on the train in Eugene at 5:30 on Sunday night. And now I'm heading back there.

CO: So at this time that we're talking, you've been on the train for about 40 hours?

EW: For about 40 hours, yeah.

CO: What have you been doing with yourself?

EW: It's so funny, I can't even really remember. It's kind of a blur. The people who are in the train car with me — my cabin mates — are all awesome. We’ve made really good connections and good friends, and I was going to be on the train for 13 hours. So I'm actually pretty well prepared with a lot of entertainment. And so I actually feel really fortunate. I had blankets, and I had a pillow. I've been sharing my toothpaste and deodorant. I'm lucky, I've had service this whole time, so I’ve been sharing my Wi-Fi hotspot with people, and giving people my phone so that they can make phone calls to their loved ones. But that's just what everyone is doing. Everyone's coming together to make this go by as good as possible.

CO: And there's at least 180 of you on that train.

EW: Yup.

CO: How many kids? A lot of kids?

EW: I think there's maybe between 10 and 15. I don't know. There are two children in my car, and they've been great running back and forth and screaming at the top of their lungs, which everyone in the car I think is just like go at it. Like we can't do it, so someone should.

CO: And so what about supplies? I understand that basic things like diapers or feminine hygiene products are in shortage?

EW: Yeah, those were depleted I think yesterday early afternoon. And we all have water. They gave away the last of their food last night. So in terms of that, none of us have had any food outside of like a little snack pack for breakfast this morning. So everyone who's had like snacks has tried to share that so that the kids are at least getting food.

CO: After the train struck this tree that was down — and that's what stalled you there. How long were you just sitting there before you could actually start this very slow motion movement back home?

EW: So the train like it was actually at a really low overhanging branch that ripped off the air hose for the air brake on one of our engines. And we stopped, and it took them probably about two hours to be able to rig it. Those engineers are miracle workers. It took them about two hours to rig a temporary fix to get us out of this dead zone that we were in. We were in the middle of nowhere. They got us to a little bit less of the middle of nowhere in Oak Ridge. And then there was talk of a rescue team trying to make repairs overnight. But the snow kept that highway from being passable. And so then 7:00 a.m. Monday morning — yesterday morning — they said that they were going to bring in rescue engine and get us back to Eugene. And that didn't happen until 7:00 o'clock this morning.

CO: Good heavens!

EW: Yeah, so we were stuck for a full 20-36 hours.

CO: But why couldn't you get out? I mean you were in the middle of nowhere when you when you got stopped the first time. But when you got to Oakridge in Oregon, why couldn't they just find some accommodations for all of you?

EW: So there was no power in the city of Oak Ridge. There were only two hotels. And so we were actually probably in our train in better shape than a lot of the people who were in like in Oak Ridge itself. So I think that they made the decision that we as passengers would be better off on the train. You know that being said, they didn't let us out even to like stretch our legs. And I know all of that was for safety concerns. But I know any number of us would have just absolutely adored sitting outside. We've been on this train… I've been doing pull ups on the luggage racks to try and get my body moving. And walking lunges up and down the aisles. I'm a personal trainer, so I try to not be just stationary for this long.

CO: But you are I'm one of the most beautiful stretches of train track in the world. I mean it's just stunning.

EW: It is beautiful.

CO: Aside from everything else, are you enjoying the scenery?

EW: Oh, it's incredible. We were stopped at one of the signals on a bridge, and I was looking out the window, and I saw this bird with like a splash of white and I realized it was a bald eagle. So I screamed out there’s a bald eagle. And he flew right past the window. A couple of people got photos of him. It was pretty spectacular. I mean there are way uglier places for us to have gotten stuck for sure.

CO: And you've also learned all kinds of ways to exercise on a train.

EW: Yeah, exactly. I could write a book. “40 Hour Train Ride Workout”.

CO: Now, at this point, you're hoping that you get back to where you started after several days.

EW: Yes.

CO: And then how will you get back to California?

EW: So my plan is to get to Portland. Eugene does have an airport, but the flights are really sketchy, and it's really expensive. So I will probably be served better to stay on the train and get up to Portland so that I can get a flight home. My hope is to get home by Friday. I live in the Bay Area.

CO: And what are your plans? What is the first thing you want to do or eat or whatever when you get off this train?

EW: I want to dial in my way home. Before I eat, before anything else happens, I just want to know that there is a solid plan to get me out of Oregon and back to California. Back to my husband, back to my dogs, back to my home, back to my bed. That is priority number one for me.

CO: And then get to eat what?

EW: Oh, I am a really big fan of nachos. So I think I'm probably going to treat myself to a plate of nachos.

CO: Well, enjoy those nachos, and enjoy the scenery, Emilie.

EW: Thank you so much.

CO: It's great to talk to you. Thanks.

EW: You too. Take care.

Emily

KG: Emilie Wyrick is one of the passengers on the Amtrak Coast Starlight train. We reached her near Eugene, Oregon earlier today. Before we went to air, we checked back in with Ms. Wyrick. She finally made it to Eugene, breathed some fresh air and was getting back on the train bound for Portland. We've posted more on this story — including Ms. Wyrick's view from the train — on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Canadian comedian Sandra Battaligni

CO: Okay, I want to ask you more about that. But just on that 80-20 split between Canada Laughs and Just For Laughs. Are there not a lot of Canadians? Are you not in that catalog with Just For Laughs?

SB: Well, I've had one performance at Just For Laughs So in 2017 I think. And also what we're hearing is that some of this stuff might be pre-2012 — from their pre-2012 catalogue. And some comics who they're already playing like pre-2012 material because what we're hearing is that because they have an exclusivity deal with Bell, they're not able to use material after 2012. And some comedians don't want that stuff to be aired because it's quite a long time ago.

CO: So ok, now as you just point out, a lot of details have not been formally announced, and we're trying to read the tea leaves a bit on this. But as far as you can you can determine from your own personal work as a comedian, what's at stake for you? How it will affect your ability to make a living as a comedian?

SB: I just released an album, and it's up there right now. And you know it just started getting played. So you know that's going to be reduced quite a bit. You know and I was starting to you know plan to release another album within the next year. And you know I don't want to see that I don't have a place for it to go. It very well may go on that station. But naturally, you know the air time has shrunk. So you know in a in a shrinking media landscape that is Canada, and with such few opportunities for Canadian comedians, to have a place that it was exclusively ours to then have it taken over by Just For Laughs, who you know a lot of the comedians that are on that festival are American. You know and it's sort of the same story. It's like we are always prioritizing and giving prominence to American acts and American content. You know in Canada, it's nearly impossible to be to be a comedian. And you know I characterize the experience of a standup comic in Canada. I call it a circle of entrapment — because when you headline a club or do Just For Laughs, you hit the ceiling. And then we have no arts grants, and then we're like well we'll go to the States. But just to perform in the States, it's five, ten, fifteen thousand dollars. And then you know when we want to pitch and create you know TV stuff, you know sometimes we get from the broadcasters. That's a great idea. You should film it in the U.S. because it's cheaper for us to buy American content.

CO: So this is the perennial Canadian culture question. You answered it in part, but this is what people always ask: Why can't you compete with the Americans? Why can't there be a level playing field where you are doing your thing and be able to make a go at it, make a living, without having some that's dedicated to you?

SB: Because there's no support for us here in this country. There's no art support. There's no infrastructure for us. There's no respect.

CO: But now all of you sharing this 20 per cent of what used to be 100 per cent. And so there is this much smaller pie, and you're all divvying it up. So to what extent does that mean that some won't get pie, or that some might go someplace else like L.A. to get pie?

SB: Oh, I mean it's very likely. Leaving this country seems like the only alternative for a lot of people. I mean I certainly feel like I don't know what else to do here. I really don't.

CO: And so are you considering it? Do you think you have to go to the states to make a living?

SB: Yeah, I mean I don't want to move there permanently. But I do want to work there more. But like a lot of people feel defeated. I have to go down there and be there way more. That's just what all this is really pushing to.

CO: well, there’s a reason why they say that Los Angeles is one of Canada's largest cities.

SB: Well, that's it. It's so true.

CO: It’s not in Canada. But just finally, about going back to what Howie Mandel is saying — because we just heard from him at the beginning. And he says that if this wasn't going to happen, Canada Laughs was going to disappear. That if Just For Laughs didn't step in, that it wouldn't exist anyway. So we're better off at least having that 20 per cent.

SB: But what is he basing that on? Like what is the proof to that? I don't know that that's true. If this is great for Canadian comedy, we want to see it. I mean we wrote a letter to the president of Just For Laughs and the CEO of Sirius XM where we're really asking them the math. If this is going to feature you know and highlight and showcase Canadian comedians, what percentage is it going to be?

CO: All right. We'll see if he can get some answers.

SB: I hope so.

CO: Sandra, thanks for speaking with us.

SB: Thank you for having me.

KG: Sandra Battaligni is a comic ,and the co-founder of the Canadian Association of Stand-up Comedians. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music: Elevator music]

Fat rat

KG: "'Oh, help!' said Pooh. 'I'd better go back.' "'Oh, bother!' said Pooh. 'I shall have to go on.' "'I can't do either!' said Pooh. 'Oh, help and bother!'" That's from "Winnie-the-Pooh --, in which the stuffed bear gets overstuffed at Rabbit's house, and gets stuck on his way out. In the end, Rabbit calls some animal rescuers. One of whom commented, quote: "Even animals that are hated by many deserve respect." Unquote. Whoops, no, wait. I mixed up two stories. Excuse me. In that fictional story, Rabbit calls Christopher Robin, who waits with Pooh until he's digested all the honey he ate, and then helps pull him out. In the real-life story from Bensheim, Germany, this weekend, people called volunteer firefighters — who lifted the manhole cover and popped a big fat rat out. The rat in question had tried to crawl through that manhole cover. Without realizing it had too much of what the Germans call "Winterspeck" — which means extra weight put on during the winter. (If you haven't seen the photos, you can find them on our Twitter page, @CBCAsItHappens.) So, the rat tried to go back. It tried to go on. It couldn't do either. It could have been the world's easiest game of Whack-A-Mole. Instead, after a young girl reported the situation, animal rescuers attempted to free the rodent. And when they couldn't, they called volunteer firefighters, who travelled 30 kilometres to carefully nudge the rat free. Some cranks were unhappy about the amount of effort to get a sewer rat unstuck. But most people seemed happy enough. And the rat definitely was. "So, with a nod of thanks to his friends, he went on with his walk through the forest, humming proudly to himself." Oops. That was Pooh again. Sorry about that — just change "forest" to "sewer".

[Music: Electronica]

Part two: Corbyn second referendum, PEI husky owner

Corbyn second referendum

Guest: Lara Spirit

KG: The UK may be headed for a Brexit do-over. Yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party announced it would support a second referendum — if it was the only option to stop the country from leaving the EU with no deal. It was a reluctant step from Labour's leadership, which has faced an internal revolt. Many of its MPs are pushing for a so-called "People's Vote". In the meantime, Prime Minister Theresa May is still struggling to salvage her own deal with the EU. And now, she's suggesting she would be open to delaying Brexit — if she can't get the votes she needs. Lara Spirit is the founder of a UK youth group which is campaigning for a second referendum. We reached her in London.

CO: Lara, how much more likely does a second referendum look to you now that the Labour party seems to be onboard?

LARA SPIRIT: I would hope more likely. And it is definitely a significant movement, although I would caution against too much celebration and optimism at this stage.

CO: Why you want to see a second referendum is that you're hoping that Britain does not leave the union, right? You want to see this reversed. Is that correct?

LS: Right. I mean I think that we are stronger within the European Union. But I more strongly believe that the way that our government has handled Brexit has been utterly shambolic. I think that the deal that Theresa May has negotiated is terrible for the future of young people such as me. It is so far away from what was promised in 2016. It is so far below the current relationship that we have with the European Union and the political declaration that we have and the deal that we currently have means that we've got no clarity and no closer about what our future relationship will actually look like within the European Union? So young people such as me, 80 per cent of us now don’t want Brexit. We're seriously opposed to it, and worried about the impact that it could have on our futures.

CO: And would this referendum be on a deal — an exit strategy deal like the one that Theresa May is proposing or another version of it? Or would it be on the actual leave or a stay question once again?

LS: Yes, so look, I feel very strongly about this I think that there should be a tangible, real, and negotiated or negotiable deal that is put to the public through referendum. There absolutely must be an option to remain. But we cannot have what we had 10-and-a-half years ago, where leave meant all things to all people. And enabled politicians to lie about what it might mean. We can't have a situation whereby politicians promise the world and eventually deliver nothing. And so whatever leave option is on the ballot paper I think given that we've had two-and-a-half years of negotiations and we do have a deal which Theresa May has negotiated poor though I believe it to be, I think that's the most sensible thing of putting to the people.

CO: Now, Jeremy Corbyn is saying that why he is supporting the idea of another vote is because he fears a no deal Brexit, which increasingly it seems that's where you're headed at this point that by the end of March. Is there a chance though that this will come about? That Theresa May will be able to cobble something together, and there will be an actual deal between the U.K. and Europe that will allow Brexit to happen?

LS: Yeah, I mean, of course, there's a possibility that a deal will be able to pass through parliament. There’s a possibility that one of the many different factions and coalitions folds, and gives up on its principles and accepts the second best option. But I personally think that for the moment, and for the foreseeable future, I don't see any of those coalitions voting. I don't see the DUP or the ERG giving in. I certainly don't see people who know that Theresa May’s deal is awful and want to a softer Brexit giving in soon either. You know it's a false Hobson's choice as Jon Cryer, who was at leave-supporting Member of Parliament, and now actually backs a amendment for people's votes. You know you cannot run the clock down and force people to make a decision between a terrible deal and no deal. And so for that reason, I think that people know the trees may feel is awful, and they want their leaders to stand up for them and show real leadership on this issue and give them an alternative. And I don't think that has to be no deal. I think that can be a people's vote.

CO: But you know a lot of things get decided at that famous eleventh hour — that moment when all looks like it’s apart. And people cross lines, they change their minds, they go with things, they hold their noses or whatever. I mean that is possible isn't it?

LS: Of course, of course. And you know I think nobody can predict, and nobody I think really claims to predict now with any certainty what it is that will happen in those crucial hours and days leading up to March 29th, when it really is pining for Brexit and crunch point. But what I do really strongly believe is that I don't think Theresa May, and I know we know now that many of her cabinet will allow a no deal, I think what you're looking at is an extension or a people's vote. And I think that those are the two most likely options. And the problem with the extension is that I think we desperately need it. We definitely need to extend Article 50 because we're not ready as a country to leave. We haven't got nearly enough of the statutory instruments in place yet to prepare adequately and deal with our departure from the European Union — with or without a deal. And so I think for that reason, we're gonna need an extension. But you know at the end of an extension, you still have to have an idea of what it is that you want. And I fundamentally think, two-and-a-half years down the line, Britain still doesn't have an idea of exactly what it is they want from a Brexit deal. And that's why I genuinely believe that the only way out of the Brexit impassive will be to hand the decision back to the people.

CO: All right. And if there is a question — if that comes to pass — if you could write the question, what would it be?

LS: On the ballot paper, I would say do you want to still leave on May’s deal? Or would you like to remain?

CO: That's simple. Just May’s deal, or business as usual.

LS: On the basis of time and simplicity, I would favour May’s deal vs. remain. Because I think no deal is so unthinkable that we can't count on that as a country and be serious about that in any foreseeable way.

CO: And you know there's always that possibility. And we've had many people on this show mentioned it that if you go to a second referendum, that you may just get the same results.

LS: Of course. Yeah, of course. but I'm very, very confident that we would get a remain vote. But I think the campaign would need to be full of energy and run differently to last time. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who stood strongly and is on the same side as me who thinks differently to that — they believe in a different campaign. And we can't be complacent. I didn't think anybody in this is complacent. A year ago a people’s vote was a far flung fantasy. Now, it is very much a serious player in town. And these people are very, very dedicated and hardworking, and they will fight for everything they've got to be able to remain in the European Union because they know how close we've come to losing it.

CO: Lara, we will be watching. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

LS: Thank you.

KG: Lara Spirit is the founder of the group Our Future, Our Choice — which is campaigning for a second Brexit referendum. We reached her in London.

[Music: Ambient]

Jody Wilson-Raybould

KG: Jody Wilson-Raybould is officially cleared to speak. And speak she will. Tomorrow afternoon, all eyes will be on a highly anticipated House of Commons Justice Committee Hearing — where she's scheduled to testify, and respond to allegations that the Prime Minister's Office improperly pressured her to drop criminal prosecution against SNC Lavalin. But if the Liberal Government thought letting the former Justice Minister speak might quell the critics, today's Question Period burst that bubble. Once again, SNC Lavalin dominated QP. Here's one of several feisty exchanges, between NDP MP Charlie Angus and Liberal House Leader Bardish Chagger.

SOUNDCLIP

CHARLIE ANGUS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary step she's had to go to force this prime minister's hand to lift a legal gag order, so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee. But she's not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by prime minister's staff to pressure into intervening in an independent legal investigation, after it was found out that SNC was not eligible. And they used a manifestly illegal argument — which is that economic interests. So in the interest of fairness, will the Prime Minister agreed that Katie Telford, and Gerry butts, and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?

GEOFF REGAN: The Government House Leader.

BARDISH CHAGGER: Mr. Speaker, that member his party as well as the Conservatives, they said the Justice Committee will not be calling for witnesses. Mr Speaker, witnesses are appearing and they’re answering questions. That member, his party, as well as the Conservatives, they said the former Attorney General would not be invited speak. Members of the Justice Committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees. They need to start respecting our institutions, so that Canadians know they can as well.

GR: Honourable Member for Timmins-James Bay.

CA: Oh, she's not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that. Because we're talking about the illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office, so let's just set this. Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister September 17. She said no. PMO official met her December 5th. She said no. PMO staff met with her staff December 18^th. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19^th, and she said no, and she was removed from her position soon after. So in the interests of corruption, I ask the prime minister when does no mean no?

GR: Honourable Government House Leader.

BC: Mr. Speaker, once again, let's look at the record. The Director of Public Prosecutions service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercised discretion independently and free from any political partisan consideration. Mr. Speaker, we on this side we lower taxes on middle class Canadians, so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1 per cent. The NDP said no to that measure.

KG: That was Liberal House Leader Bardish Chagger, responding to NDP MP Charlie Angus during Question Period today. Tomorrow afternoon, Jody Wilson-Raybould is set to testify at a House of Commons Justice Committee hearing. We'll have coverage on that tomorrow night — and for up-to-the-minute coverage of the hearing, go to: www.cbc.ca/politics.

[Music: Percussive]

PEI husky owner

Guest: Courtney Porter

KG: Riley is an active, boisterous dog who lives in Charlottetown, PEI, with some humans. His ancestry is Malamute, German Shepherd, and Husky — so he can handle the cold: he's equipped all year 'round with a thick parka of fur. But that hasn't stopped concerned passers-by from calling the local Humane Society — claiming Riley's owners are neglecting him by keeping him outdoors during winter. Courtney Porter is one of Riley's owners. And she's taken an unusual step to stop the stream of complaints. We reached Ms. Porter in Charlottetown, PEI.

CO: Courtney, what are people complaining about when it comes to your dog?

COURTNEY PORTER: Well, what they see is a husky it looks like it's outside all day — tethered on with any shelter. They think that were being cruel to him. Sometimes he probably barks at dogs walking by too, but that's just because he is real friendly and wants to play with them. But the main complaint is that our husky is cold.

CO: How long does he spend outdoors?

CP: Well, his maximum in the time that he's out in a row is four hours. But he is intermittently out all day. But he spends from eight to 12 outside every morning.

CO: And why is he outdoors so much?

CP: So he has a really bad case of separation anxiety and claustrophobia. He is a rescue dog from Northern Labrador. And he was found without his mother. So I think that contributes to the separation anxiety — the fact that he's separated too soon. And once he gets in the house, he gets worked up, he gets too hot, he starts pacing, and he absolutely destroys the place.

CO: He's also a husky mix, right?

CP: Yes.

CO: So there’s a lot of fur on that dog.

CP: Yeah, so people think that because he's not a purebred husky, he can get cold. Well, he can get cold, yes. But think that he's more prone to get cold. But he's a mix of malamute and we think German shepherd, multiple different breeds in there. So he still has these nice big paws and really thick coat. He's definitely not getting cold out there.

CO: And if he is cold, how does it signal to you that he needs to come in?

CP: He will definitely let us know. He barks and scratches on the door. That really doesn't happen that often though. He tends to fall asleep when he goes outside.

CP: Really?

CP: That’s his favourite place to sleep, yeah.

CO: These calls — the complaints that people were having as you see Riley outside for all these hours — they're calling the SPCA. And what kind what kind of response have you had from the SPCA?

CP: Well, it's the humane society here. And, initially, they were pretty understanding with us because we explained our situation, and what's going on with him. But, eventually, I feel like they're getting a little bit annoyed with the calls. So we decided to move him to the front just so he would be more comfortable. He seems to like it up there. But then, because we didn't have adequate shelter by the welfare laws, people's complaints became valid. So that's when the Humane Society decided to tell us that we have to get another doghouse.

CO: What do you mean their complaints became valid?

CP: So in PEI, you have to have shelter for your dog when we're out at any point in time. But because we moved Riley and he didn't have access to his shed, that means we are in violation of that law.

CO: And where were you living before you were on PEI?

CP: We’re from Newfoundland.

CO: And there in Newfoundland, Riley could be outside all day?

CP: Yeah, he wasn't outside all day — it was still the same idea. But we never had any complaints.

CO: Just since you came to Charlottetown.

CP: Yeah.

CO: And so now you've had to comply with Humane Society rules, and you've built Riley a doghouse?

CP: Yeah. Well, we really don't have an issue complying with the laws. That's not the problem really. We ordered a dog house because we’re students. We don't have time to take on an extra project like that. And it didn't quite get here in time. And they were still going to take the dog over it. Like it was a legality. There was nothing wrong with the welfare of our dog. We were waiting for the doghouse. So I don't think they responded very well to that.

CO: And is Riley using the dog house.

CP: Oh no, he won't step foot in it. It gives him a lot of anxiety. So we don't want to force him in it.

CO: Yeah. And so now you've done something else to try and send a message to people. What is that?

CP: Well, we put up a sign. Some people think our sign is a little aggressive, and I understand why. But we don't have the sign up for the people who are calling and complaining to the Humane Society — we're hoping that the Humane Society can educate these people. But it’s more for the people who have been stalking our house. We've had a lot of people waiting outside our house, taking pictures of our dog both when we’re home and when we're gone. Our next door neighbours are really great and lets us know if there's people watching our house. So we're more just trying to get some privacy. And like I said, we’re from Newfoundland, we're not used to all this attention. This is really crazy to us. So yeah, that's why we put out the sign. Not to be rude to people who are genuinely concerned about you know animal welfare.

CO: What does the sign say?

CP: It says our husky is not cold. Leave us alone.

CO: Okay.

CP: My first sign was a lot nicer. I guess I was frustrated when I made the second sign.

CO: What did your first sign say?

CP: I'm a husky. Don't worry about me.

CO: But now it says this husky is not cold. Leave us alone.

CP: Yeah.

CO: And are you being left alone?

CP: It’s only been a week now. And we have gotten quite a bit of publicity over this. So yeah, we've been left alone so far.

CO: You said you're a student. And I know you're a veterinary student, right?

CP: I am, yeah.

CO: I mean does it at least tell you that people care about the dog, and that the reason that they're making these complaints is because they're worried?

CP: Yes. And I do appreciate their complaint, but I do know that it's kind of the same people calling over and over even though the Humane Society's told them of the fact that it's a husky. And also, people aren't handling it very well. Like people driving, like I said, past my house. And I had one lady stop and start honking her horn in front of my house at me and my dog. And it’s just strange how people in the community are handling it.

CO: What do you think they should know in order to change that?

CP: I just think they should know that well, besides the fact that he's a husky, and can handle the cold. We also are dealing with kind of some special issues with him.

CO: And how is Riley doing?

CP: He is doing great. He is loving all the extra attention, I think. There's been people coming to our house and petting him and loving him. So he really likes that.We've been stressed, but…

CO: Courtney, thanks for speaking with us.

CP: No problem.

CO: Bye.

KG: That was Courtney Porter, owner of a husky-mix named Riley. We reached Ms. Porter in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

[Music: Electronica]

Sleep study

KG: If you have children, you have probably become aware of something about their effect on your sleep: it's bad. And even if you don't have kids, you are probably also aware of this — because the parents that you know won't shut up about it. But if you are a scientist, you may not know this. You just aren't totally sure what impact having a child has on a person's nighttime rest. So what do you do? That's right; a study. New research from the University of Warwick has concluded that parents are — wait for it — sleep-deprived. Furthermore, this sleep deprivation is worst for the first three months after the baby is born. Not only that, but parents' rest at night continues to be interrupted by their offspring for six years. Here was researcher Sakari Lemola's reaction when he looked at the data. Quote: "We didn't expect for find that, but we believe that there are certainly many changes in the responsibilities you have." Unquote. Another bombshell conclusion: dads lose a lot less sleep than moms. Women lost over an hour of sleep a night in the first three months — while men only lost 13 minutes. Still, there was a small glimmer of good news for parents. When mothers have more than one child, their sleep bounces back. Not to pre-parenthood levels, mind you. Just to the post-first-baby levels. "Your baseline is lower," as Professor Lemola helpfully explained to The Guardian. So, parents: science confirms you should resign yourself to not sleeping like a baby, but sleeping like you've had one. And scientists, regarding your conclusions: well, no sleep, Sherlock.

[Music: Jazz folk]

Part three: Cardinal Pell, London Underground posters

Univision anchor

KG: A news crew from the Spanish-language network Univision landed back home in the United States this afternoon — after being kicked out of Venezuela. Anchor Jorge Ramos was interviewing Nicolas Maduro yesterday, when the Venezuelan president brought the conversation to an abrupt halt. Officials seized the Univision team's equipment — and detained them in the presidential palace. They were later released. Here is Jorge Ramos speaking to Univision last night, from his hotel in Caracas.

SOUNDCLIP

JORGE RAMOS: I conducted an interview with Nicolas Maduro. I asked him if I can call him either a president a dictator? Because, as you know, millions of Venezuelans don't consider him a president. Then we discussed the fraud that happened here in May 2018. Also the reports of torture and human rights abuses of political prisoners. And at the end, I showed him a video that I personally took last Sunday of three kids behind a trash truck looking for food. And he just couldn't stand it. He didn't want to continue the interview. He tried to close my iPad where I showed him the video. And then he said the interview was over. It was about 17 minutes of interview. After that, their Minister of Communications told us that they didn't authorize the interview. And they confiscated all our cameras — four cameras. All our video. All that were cell phones. And we were thrown out of the presidential palace. But before I left the palace, they took me in to the security room with producer Maria Guzman, and they asked for our cell phones. And I didn't want to give them my cell phone, so they turn off the light of the room. And a group of our agents came in. They took forcefully my backpack, my cell phone. They did the same thing with Maria's. And they forced us to give them our passports for the cell phones. We didn't know what was gonna happen to us back then — nor what was happening with the rest of the group. We were a group of seven journalists. After two hours of being detained, because we couldn't leave the palace, two hours of being detained, they allow us to leave the presidential palace. They didn't give us our equipment — nor our material or the interviews. I think we'll never have that interview again. They don't want the world to see what we did.

KG: That was Univision anchor Jorge Ramos describing his brief detention yesterday at the presidential palace in Venezuela.

[Music: Indie rock]

Cardinal Pell

Guest: Paul Achettl

KG: Today, the world finally heard that Cardinal George Pell -- once the third most senior figure in the Vatican, and the most senior Catholic in Australia -- is guilty of child sexual abuse. Cardinal Pell had been convicted on five charges against a child under 16, in December last year. But a publication ban meant that the verdict could not be reported on — only whispered about. Today, that ban was lifted. And new questions have been raised as to how the Vatican will deal with its most high-profile offender yet. Paul Achettl was abused by a priest in the Australian Catholic church as a boy. He's also a former family friend of Cardinal George Pell. We reached him in Ballarat, Australia.

CO: Mr. Achettl, how are you feeling now that media around the world can freely report that Cardinal George Pell has been convicted of sexual abuse of children?

PAUL ACHETTL: To tell you the truth, I don't feel relief. It's been a difficult time. The suppression orders are lifted. It's been an amazing thing. And I think everybody's slowly starting to realize how big it is that someone so high has fallen as an offender not just a denier and an enabler.

CO: Why was there a publication ban? Because he was found guilty in December, right? So why only now are we hearing that he was convicted? It was a unanimous decision of the jury, I think.

PA: We’re only hearing now because the defense was able to separate the two groups of people and make two court cases. And they were worried that such a high profile person, that he wouldn't get a fair trial on the second case. But the second case has collapsed now, so I think that's why the orders are lifted.

CO: And can you give us a sense of what he was convicted of?

PA: Well, it was quite amazing actually. I had no idea that it seems as though he was convicted of oral penetration of a child straight after his first mass when he became an Archbishop in Melbourne. And it was quite surprising.

CO: There were two boys involved in the incident for which Cardinal George Pell was convicted. The other boy — well, he's a man now — but the other man died of a heroin overdose. And there were other attempts to try and bring George Pell's record to light. Why has it been so difficult to actually bring George Pell to the place where we see him today?

PA: Well, I think the Church has always been able to operate above the law. And they’ve have had their own laws that seem to have trumped our laws. The tactics that the Church is taking with many of the previous court cases has been to diminish and minimise the way victims are talking as if we were making it up. It couldn't have been this bad.

CO: How did you come to know Cardinal George Pell. What was the family connection with him?

PA: He started turning up to my house when I was a teenager. He'd just arrived in our parish as a young priest. And my father adored him. And he used to come around and just talk. And then he started taking my brother and I to swimming. And then he became involved in our lives. And I was always suspicious that he was helping me because he knew that I'd been abused. But now I'm changing or getting my head, and I'm not clear about what he was up to. But he was a constant visitor in my family's life. And everybody was thrilled to have him around, so this is the complete opposite of what we felt when we were young.

CO: And did your family know about what had happened to you?

PA: No. I never told them. It just seemed too outrageous to talk about. It was like unbelievable to them. And Gerald Ridsdale, one of the worst priests that we've had around here for offending against children, he lived with George at the same time. And he used to turn up after George. And he was actually trying to track my brother and I. And he eventually took my younger brother. And my younger brother took his life ten years ago.

CO: I'm so sorry.

PA: It's so hard to sort of pick it apart properly and see it for what it is. People had so much facing these men.

CO: You were not abused by George Pell; it was another priest who sexually abused you?

PA: That's right. In my life, George kept coming to me and helping me. I've been in trouble as a young person. And George always helped me. Looking back now, I can say that the way he helped me was the way he's helped everybody else. He would say if you come to me quietly I'll be able to help you. But if you could the public can make a scene, you're on your own. Looking back now, I can see that that's been George's tactic all the time.

CO: What we're talking about here is a lot of what his record is is that he is known to have been an enabler or someone who covered up or moved priests around who were involved in these kinds of abuses. And that was something that was talked about quite a bit within the Church. What did you think when he was actually put on trial for being an offender himself?

PA: I couldn't believe it. I still struggled to believe it. To me, the harm that George did was he knowingly moved pedophile priests onto a parish that had no idea. So they kept moving offending priests into the country. My belief is that the great harm that was done to their community by putting offending priests into the community and not telling them was what George did in the past. To me, that was his crime. So this has been a big surprise to learn that he's also an offender.

CO: The whole record of George Pell is that he seemed to have lived a double life where he was a kind of morality crusader railing against sin. He was just strenuously against everything: Homosexuality, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage, mostly sins of a sexual nature. And at the same time he's having this existence of an enabler and then now we've learned an offender himself, how does he manage to rise to Cardinal without being called on that?

PA: That's a very good question. It's amazing now that we realize you can be smooth as silk in public, but completely different privately.

CO: The Catholic Church has said that it won't comment or respond to George Pell's conviction until all the appeals are exhausted. How does that square for you with the promise being made to deal with child sex abuse was heard on the weekend?

PA: Well, it just delays people showing any leadership. We are totally lacking spiritual leadership at the moment. Now I think the Church is being crushed because it has had to obey the law of the land. And my understanding is that the appeal will be very difficult to fight because George did not take the stand during the trial. So he can't give evidence in the appeal. And because the news is so shocking, it's going to be hard to see it reversed. And I think that this is this is worthy of a jail sentence. So it's quite a fall for a prince of the Church.

CO: Paul, we'll be following the developments in this. And I appreciate that you would speak with us. Thank you.

PA: Thank you.

KG: That was Paul Auchettl, a man who was abused as a child by a priest within the Australian Catholic Church. He's also a former acquaintance of Cardinal George Pell.

[Music: Sombre]

SOD: Mom phone call

KG: When Columbus Blue Jackets coach John Tortorella gets annoyed — which is often — it's usually at the referees or his players. But last night at a press conference, it was a reporter's cell phone at the podium that caught his eye, and his ire. Uncharacteristically, though, the NHL coach kept his cool. It's our Sound of the Day.

SOUNDCLIP

REPOTER: How do you think the actions of your team in the last 72 hours have just sort of changed the atmosphere around here from a team…

JOHN TORTORELLA: What a minute. Mom's calling. Is that your phone?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

JT: I didn’t mean to blow you out of water. But your mother is calling you. Mrs. Reed? Hi, this is John Tortorella, and I’m in the middle of a press conference here. No, that's ok. I'd rather talk to you than your son. So I'll be done in about five… I’ve seen you call a few times. So it's rude of him not to call you back, but he's busy right now. It's nice talking to you. Okay. Have a nice day.

KG: That's our Sound of the Day: Columbus Blue Jackets coach John Tortorella answering reporter Tom Reed's cell phone, and speaking with Mr. Reed's mom.

[Music: Show tune]

London Underground posters

Guest: Linda Bauld

KG: Starting this week, people on the London Tube, or on the bus, or in the back of a cab, might notice their view has changed. Instead of ads and posters selling junk food, there will be posters selling something else. On Monday, a ban on junk food advertising came into force — so ads for products high in sugar, fat, and salt are being stripped from property owned by Transport for London, the city's governing body for transit. London's mayor Sadiq Khan says the ban will help tackle childhood obesity in London. Professor Linda Bauld is the prevention expert at Cancer Research UK, which supported the ban. We reached her in Edinburgh.

CO: Professor Bauld, how big is the problem with childhood obesity in London?

LINDA BAULD: Yeah, it's very substantial. London has some of the highest rates of obesity in the UK. Around four in 10 children between the ages of 10 and 11 are obese. And in England overall, what's frightening is that around one in five children start school overweight or obese. And that goes up to one in three when they move on to secondary school. So, unfortunately, like Canada, it is a public health crisis.

CO: And what evidence is there that if you take the advertising for fast food off of bus shelters and tube carriages it will have any effect?

LB: Well, I think as a single measure is probably limited. But we do know the effect of junk food marketing generally on children's consumption so it affects the choices they make or the foods they ask their parents to buy. And kids who are exposed to junk food marketing in the outdoor environment, on TV, or streaming services are far more likely to eat those foods. And that exposure is dose-dependent. So if they're seeing more adverts it doesn't really matter where they are for junk food they're more likely to consume those foods. So it's a step that we need to take to do what we call changing the food environment to remove some of those influences, which definitely affect what children consume.

CO: But how many of the bad food choices that young people make are actually choices and not the lack of access to other kinds of food?

LB: I mean it's no doubt that poverty is an issue. But, unfortunately, in the UK we have what we call an obsegenic environment. I think that's the case in many countries where you know in the last 30 years, for example, rates of childhood obesity have almost tripled here — very similar to Canada. And that's because the foods that are available and that people are consuming are cheap, and they have limited nutritional content, and they're heavily marketed. Our fast food industry, for example, has as grown substantially. Marketing is only one part of the picture, but it definitely has some effects.

CO: But a kid who's not getting fed properly at home and wants to feel just a bit of fullness in the belly, they're going to go to what they can find — which is fast food, right?

LB: Yeah. And a lot of those places are available near schools. Absolutely, and we don't want anybody to go hungry. It's not about that. But the problem is that the junk food marketing and the pricing those products is pushed out some of the healthier products. And also from my perspective, it's affected what kids and their parents see as normal. So if all your friends and family are consuming those foods, they're getting a lot of their calories from those energy-dense foods, then it makes it acceptable. It makes it part of what people routinely do. And that's why our diet has changed over the last few decades. And it's really something we need to shift. And that's why the mayor of London has taken just one step. But it's an important step this week.

CO: But how does that change things? I mean the advertising is no longer there, so the temptation — the visual aid is not there. But how is that to lead to somebody eating whole grains and vegetables?

LB: So I guess the first thing is that it actually removes the appeal of some of those foods. And it allows more space for other kinds of marketing. So we've seen, and I'm really delighted that we've seen just this month, a national campaign about trying to increase fruit and vegetable consumption — which is able to get more airtime, more outdoor advertising in the UK. So if we can get rid of some of the junk food marketing, that marketing has more space. And as I say, it is about changing some of the norms around our diet. You know people say often adults but is the case with kids too that seeing an advert doesn't affect the choices that they make but it does. If you're seeing that many times a day, then those are the foods that we want to eat. And then if they're available and they're cheap, then that is what we consume.

CO: The fast food companies will still be able to advertise on transport services if they feature salads and other things on their menu of that nature, right?

LB: Yeah, I mean there's been a lot of concern about the economic impact of removing those adverts. And certainly the mayor of London has said that many of the companies you know they produce a range of products. They're still buying advertising space. They're just being forced to advertise the healthier products. It's a bit like we introduced a sugary drinks levy in the UK. And many of our manufacturers have substantially reduced the sugar in their drinks to try and make sure that their products are not taxed and not more expensive. So it's actually in many ways about partnership with producers. You introduce this change. And it tries to shift their behaviour so the healthier products are more visible and often more affordable. What we've seen in other areas of public health — including in Canada in relation to reducing your smoking rates for example — is that you introduce advertising restrictions, you also do other things like smoke-free places, you increase the price of these products. All these things work together to try and shift public health towards what are better environments for children and families.

CO: You just touched on it, but is there going to be a reduction in advertising revenues from advertising that will be provided to the transport services? I mean they depend on that money don't they?

LB: Well, they do. But it's a bit like you know I've been doing public health research for over 20 years. And when I first started out, we still had tobacco adverts. Retailers or others said well if you take away those adverts, then we will lose revenue. But there's plenty of companies that are ready to take their place. You know we have booming parts of the economy that want to market their products that are not unhealthy products. And you know as I say the mayor of London indicated today that he's not seeing any reduced projected revenues or place for advertising. So this isn't about removing all advertising everything. It’s just saying that these are products that kids don't need to consume. They don't need to be exposed to the multiple times a day on their way to school and on their way back.

CO: Where will you see the results? Because you mentioned there's got to be more than just removing the advertising — the food eating, the choices have to change. So how will you measure whether this is successful?

LB: In the UK, we have a childhood obesity strategy — which we're hoping will be implemented. And that talks about banning junk food marketing from television, for example, for children. It talks about increasing the price of the most unhealthy products. And also reducing some of the promotions in the retail environment. So if we can do all those things and how we will measure it we'll be over the long term. You know I'm looking for small changes. I'd like to see the continued increase in rates of overweight and obesity in children stall. I then if we can track it over several years, then, hopefully, we can see reductions. These things don't happen quickly. But through a small cumulative steps, we hope to see that evidence in the future.

CO: All right. Well, I wish you success. Professor Bauld, thank you.

LB: Thank you.

KG: That was Professor Linda Bauld, an expert in cancer prevention at Cancer Research UK. She was in Ediburgh. And we've got more on this story on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Bluegrass]

FOA: Twins US citizens

KG: Aiden and Ethan were born two minutes apart. They're twins. But only one of them was recognized as a US citizen. The boys' parents are an American and Israeli same-sex couple. Aiden was conceived through his American father's sperm, and Ethan through his Israeli father's. The twins were born to a surrogate mother in Toronto in 2016. But when the couple tried to certify the boys' American citizenship, they were told a DNA test was required, to prove they were related to their parents. Since Ethan's biological father was Israeli — he didn't qualify. Until now. The couple took the US State Department to court, and last week, they won. A year ago, "As It Happens" spoke to Elad Dvash-Banks about his fight to get his sons recognized. Here's part of his conversation with Carol.

EDB: The idea from the beginning was to move to California. And since in 2008 we couldn't do it because of DOMA, after DOMA was struck down into 2013, we started the plans to move to the United States. And then when the kids were born with decided that's the right time. But then when we wanted to give them American passports and American citizenship we went to the U.S. consulate in Toronto and asked to register them as U.S.-born citizens. The consulate official informed us that we would have to prove a genetic connection to the U.S. citizen in order to grant both the boys American citizenship at birth. That's when the problems started. And we later discovered, through a DNA test that we had no intention of doing and we didn't want to do, that only one of our children was genetically related to Andrew who is a U.S. citizen. And the other was genetically related to me. And the State Department denied Ethan, who is the child who was genetically related to me, denied U.S citizenship at birth from him.

CO: Why did you not want to know who is the father of which one?

EDB: I think that when we decided that we're going to get married and have a family all we wanted was one unit. The genetics or the connection, the biological connection, did not matter to us at all whatsoever. We didn't want the kids to start dealing with this ‘Oh you're genetically related to him, and you're genetically related to him,’ they're both of our kids, we're raising them the exact same way, we were there from the beginning, we were in the delivery room and we saw them being born and we were the first people that held them. We saw their first breath and we heard them cry for the first time. So we look at our kids and we look at them equally and they are both of our kids. And I think that what the State Department is doing here is discriminating against us because we're a same-sex couple and creating a divide between our kids.

CO: So the State Department — you may see them as two kids, belonging to both of you — everything's equal, you’re a family unit. But the State Department doesn't see those boys as the same, ones an American and the other isn't.

EDB: Right, and I think that this is exactly what we are fighting against. That's why we filed a lawsuit against the State Department. The State Department interprets the Immigration and Nationality Act law in a way that it requires genetic connection. However, the law itself does not require that genetic connection. So we're fighting for the interpretation of the State Department, which is a memo that was produced by the State Department, and we are fighting for Ethan to get what is rightfully his.

KG: That was Elad Dvash-Banks, father to twin boys Aiden and Ethan, speaking to Carol in January 2018. A US court has now recognized them both as US citizens.

[Music: Ambient]

Kingston Food Basics

KG: When the police arrived, the scene was not chaotic. Acting sort of quickly, officers managed to restore the calm that already existed. And afterward, a completely unshaken Kingston cop told the media, quote: "It looks as though there was no damage, and the situation wasn't out of control or anything." Unquote. Monday, February 18th was "Family Day" in Ontario. Accordingly, lots of businesses close, to give their employees a chance to spend time with family. And to give themselves a chance to not pay time-and-a-half. That day, a Food Basics grocery store in Kingston was "closed" -- in the sense that no one was working. But it was open in the sense that someone had forgotten to lock the doors. So people just showed up, and started shopping -- before they realized there were no cashiers. That's when the mayhem did not begin. People didn't start looting. Zero customers smashed the doors of the freezer section and filled their arms with boxes of popcorn shrimp. As one customer said, quote: "I was standing there trying to decide what to do, and a guy comes out of the store with two packages of cherry tomatoes. So I asked 'Hey, buddy! You just taking some tomatoes?' He said 'I left 5 dollars on the counter.'" That unnamed customer called the Kingston Police, who assessed the complete lack of damage. So there you have it: an unchilling tale of true non-crime -- in which the only thing Food Basics customers decided to take was the high road. Coincidentally, we recently found this ode to that very grocery store chain in our inbox.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 26, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This