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 March 26, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

MEGAN WILLIAMS: Hello, I'm Megan Williams, sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

MW: Emotionally un-charged. Shock, relief, and anger, as prosecutors drop charges against actor Jussie Smollett — who was accused of lying about suffering a racist, homophobic attack in Chicago.

JD: Past tense. On a whim, a reporter decides to look into the history of one of the richest families in Germany — and finds a fortune build on slave labour, and links to the Nazis.

MW: Probes and cons. If the justice committee won't hear from Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Conservatives say the ethics one should — but today, the Liberals on the committee shut that down.

JD: Assets happen. And for "As It Happens", our greatest assets are tireless, sometimes shameless producers — three of whom tell us their stories of getting guests' stories.

MW: The power of positive tinkling. Officials in Brussels are shocked to find their famous "peeing boy" statue is wasting clean water — and set about relieving themselves about the way he relieves himself.

JD: And...screeching to a start. A Belgian bar hosts the first-ever European Gull Screeching Championship — and our guest will talk the talk about the people who were there to squawk the squawk.

JD: "As It Happens", the Tuesday edition. Radio that knows you should never underestimate people's gull-ability.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Jussie Smollett charges dropped, Ethics Committee: NDP, seagull screeching championship

Jussie Smollett charges dropped

Guest: Jason Meisner

JD: It's a stunning about-face that has the Mayor and top police in Chicago fuming. Today, state prosecutors dropped all charges against the actor Jussie Smollett — who had been facing 16 counts of disorderly conduct, after he allegedly staged a fake violent hate crime against himself. Mr. Smollett spoke to reporters outside the courthouse this afternoon.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSSIE SMOLLETT: I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one. I would not be my mother son if I was capable of one drop of what I was accused of. This has been an incredibly difficult time. Honestly, one of the worst of my entire life. But I am a man of faith, and I'm a man that has knowledge of my history. And I would not bring my family, our lives, or the movement through a fire like this. I just wouldn’t. So I want to thank my legal counsell from the bottom of my heart, and I would also like to thank the state of Illinois for attempting to do what's right. Now I'd like nothing more than to just get back to work and move on with my life. But make no mistakes. I will always continue to fight for the justice, equality, and betterment of marginalized people everywhere. So again, thank you for all the support. Thank you for faith. And thank you to God. Bless you all. Thank you very much.

JD: Jussie Smollett speaking after state prosecutors dropped all charges against him today. Jason Meisner is a federal courts reporter with the Chicago Tribune.

MW: Jason, in all of your years of court reporting. How extraordinary is this decision?

JASON MEISNER: This is something I don't think I've ever seen before. I mean it's extremely unusual — especially in a case that's this high-profile. This is one of most intense media firestorms I've ever seen. And to have prosecutors simply drop charges in a case where the police were saying it's airtight it was stunning.

MW: Ok, the prosecutors, as you say, have dropped all charges against Smollett. And what does he have to do in return?

JM: Well, that's what's been unfolding throughout the day. At first, his lawyers came out and said there was no deal. Prosecutors had dropped the charges and that was it. He agreed to forfeit his bond basically — which was ten thousand dollars. And they said he did that so that the case would go away. But now prosecutors have been coming back with information saying that he did agree to perform community service. They've provided the letter from the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Jesse Jackson's charity, showing that Smollett did actually perform two days of community service. So that is just coming out as we speak. They're saying tthere was a deal. Meanwhile, Smollett’s camp is saying there wasn't a deal.

MW: So what is it if it's not a traditional plea deal?

JM: Normally what we would see in these cases is what you said a plea deal. He might agree to plead to a lesser charge in exchange for them dropping he had 16 felony counts against them. But that's not what happened here. They also have something called a deferred prosecution, where if you stay out of trouble for six months and do some other things community service, whatever agreement they reach, after that six month period, they drop the charges. But again, that's not what happened here. They simply went into court, dropped the charges, and have left us all trying to figure out what the heck happened?

MW: Now we just heard Jesse Smollett speaking after the announcement saying that he'd always been truthful. I mean he's essentially arguing that this is exoneration. Is it?

JM: It is in a sense that his criminal case is over. He's not been found guilty of anything. The prosecutor certainly could have pushed for him to have to admit to something whether it's a misdemeanour or a felony in exchange for ending the case. But that's not what happened. So he's been free to go out to the media and say I was found you know that the case is over. So now the prosecutors are trying to say that while the case was still a solid case, we believed in it. They're standing behind their decision to charge him, and they're saying this is all very normal. But I can tell you from experience that this case has not been normal from the start, and it is certainly not normal now.

MW: So if they're saying they could they had a strong case and there was enough evidence why would the prosecutors strike such a deal?

JM: That's what they have not come out and said — other than a short statement saying that it was it was in the interest of justice to get this case resolved. And that they have to focus on violent offenders and public safety is their number one priority is what they said. And they do not see Jussie Smollett as a threat to public safety. So they decided to dispose of the case this way. Lots of questions as to why and even more questions as to why they didn't tell anybody — particularly apparently the police and even the mayor were taken by surprise here.

MW: So just a question of expedience then?

JM: Yes. That's basically their argument. We have to focus on public safety and violent offenders. And when they get a case of somebody accused of filing a false police report, which is at its heart that's what this case was. It certainly wasn't a murder, it wasn't a violent crime. They prioritize those, and they're claiming that they saw an opportunity to resolve this in everybody's best interest. But what the police are saying and the mayor was very forceful he said you know Chicago was victimized here, not only the man hours the detective hours that it took to investigate this, but also the reputation of the city. They wanted him to repay the city for everything that it took to investigate this case, which was a lot more than ten thousand dollars. But apparently they're not going to get that.

MW: Now this case has been incredibly divisive. As you say Mayor Rahm Emanuel was very upset. He called this a whitewash of justice. What's been the police reaction?

JM: The police superintendent stood with the mayor today, and they seemed dumbstruck. You know a lot of times you see measured responses. This was not measured. The police superintendent said he wanted an apology, and that justice wasn't served. And then his commander, who commanded the detectives who investigated it, called it a punch to the gut.

MW: What about this separate federal investigation? What could come of that?

JM: The FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspectors the last I checked, which was earlier today, they were still investigating this letter that had been sent to Smollett at the “Empire” studio. It arrived about a week before the attack threatening very similar to what he alleged that his attackers had said. The FBI sent the letter to a lab for testing because there was some white powder in it. So we're still waiting on that aspect of the investigation. Unclear whether any charges would ever be filed because if he did send a letter to himself, then it's a little unclear how they would charge it if he would be the victim.

MW: Right. And this is the letter that police think he sent to the studio. And when he didn't get a big enough reaction, he moved to organizing this assault against him.

JM: Right. Yes. The police held a big news conference on the day that Jussie Smollett was charged Laying out what they thought had happened. And it was that he was upset that this letter didn't get more attention. And so that's when the whole plot to stage this attack started.

MW: Well, it's a story with endless twists and turns. And we'll continue to follow it. Thanks so much for speaking with me Jason.

JM: Thanks for having me on.

JD: Jason Meisner is a federal courts reporter with the Chicago Tribune. We reached him in Chicago.

[Music: Ambient]

Ethics Committee: NDP

Guest: Tracey Ramsey

JD: Opposition members on Parliament Hill had hoped the Ethics Committee would take up the gauntlet on the SNC-Lavalin affair. That hope was dashed today — when the Liberals voted against a motion to bring Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to committee. The two former cabinet ministers are now backbenchers. They have suggested there is more to the story on SNC-Lavalin — but feel they aren't permitted to talk until the Prime Minister lifts restrictions on them. Here's what Liberal MP and House of Commons Ethics Committee co-vice-chair Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said about why he and his colleagues voted down the motion today.

SOUNDCLIP

NATHANIEL ERSKINE-SMITH: Today was whether the Ethics Committee is an appropriate forum for this. And the reasons I laid out, which my colleagues agreed with because we discussed this beforehand, is one it's premature because we haven't heard all the information that is being provided to justice. That we should hear before we make any determination of how we proceed. Two, the Ethics Committee does not have the waiver applicable to us in the way that it's applied to justice. So if Jody Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott were to attend before us, they would be even more restricted in what they can say to us than what they can say to justice. And look, if we need to revisit this at some point, we are absolutely open. We want to get at the truth, and we're willing to do so. But there's no reason today to make the decision that Mr. Kent wanted us to make. We should see how this unfolds.

JD: NDP MP Tracey Ramsey also sits on the Ethics Committee. We reached her in Ottawa.

MW: Ms. Ramsey, Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said he wants to get at the truth on the SNC-Lavalin affair. But the Ethics Committee isn't the way to do that. What do you say to him?

TRACY RAMSEY: Well, I disagree with him. You know I believe that the Justice Committee was an opportunity to get down to the truth. And, unfortunately, the Justice Committee — the Liberal members on that committee — where I sit as vice-chair have decided to shut everything down. So there is no ongoing study, there's nothing happening. The Ethics Committee I think is a great place for that to happen because the Ethics Committee one of their mandates is to study lobbying. And obviously there was excessive lobbying that resulted in this pressure that was put on to the former Attorney-General. But what's clear to us after today is that regardless of which committee we attempt to bring the study to, the Liberals are not going to support it. And they're using their majority to shut down the truth.

MW: So what did you and your Conservative colleagues today propose as a way to get closer to the truth?

TR: So we're really asking the Liberals at this point to go to the Prime Minister, have the complete waiver given so that she can speak her truth, and she certainly has been very public about wanting to do that — and Ms. Philpott as well. You know it was quite clear in the McLean's article that she believes she has additional information to bring to light and would like the opportunity to do so.

MW: But as you know, the prime minister has said repeatedly that he will not waive all restrictions on Jody Wilson Reybould or Jane Philpott to speak. So even if this motion had passed and you were able to invite them to speak at the Ethics Committee, they really wouldn't have been able to tell the whole story. So how satisfying would that have been?

TR: Well, it was part of the motion that they would extend the order in counsels. And I think that the more we get into these Liberal majority committees and see the fact that they're just shutting down any attempt by opposition members to get to the truth, there is no stronger argument for an independent public inquiry than the behaviour that we've seen recently at the committee level.

MW: Jody Wilson-Reybould although has already told the Justice Committee that she's going to submit a written submission, along with text messages and emails and so on on the SNC-Lavalin affair. Why didn't you want that process to happen first?

TR: So is she actually isn't going to submit anything new. But the problem is this: the Justice Committee has shut down any study. There is no ongoing study. There will be no action taken once a letter is received or anything is received from Ms. Wilson-Reybould. So to think that the Justice Committee is going to pick this back up and study it is simply not going to happen.

MW: So what questions do you still have? And how do you think you're going to get the answers to them now?

TR: Well, we have many questions. Obviously, we believe strongly that Miss Wilson-Reyboulds should have been afforded the opportunity of right of reply, given the testimony, and given that other people at the Justice Committee appeared more than once like Mr. Warnick. We just find that fundamentally unfair that she hasn't had that opportunity. There's been a lot of conversation about parliamentary privilege. And these women are really being asked to take a strong risk to push the limits of parliamentary privilege in a way they've never been pushed, which could result in them being sued. All of this really is just a smokescreen. And the Liberals are really closing ranks and not allowing the truth to come out. All the prime minister has to do right now is right that order and counsel and waive cabinet confidence so that she can speak freely. Why will he not do that?

MW: Some political observers say that Canadians really don't care a lot about this story now. I mean do you think that Canadians care as much as you do or other people on Parliament Hill?

TR: I actually know that they do because I'm talking to them every day. And down in my riding of Essex, you know I went into the post office the other day, and the woman at the post office knew Jody Wilson-Reybould’s name, knew Jane Philpott’s name. Was saying to me I want them to be able to speak. I'm at the airport in the security line, the same thing. People who are not even paying attention to politics are paying attention to this, and understand that these women should have their ability to speak. And the prime minister is preventing them from doing it. So I think the perception that Canadians don't care about this or want this to be left alone you know sure I think a really strong Liberal person might be concerned about the health of their party, might be concerned about what the Prime Minister may have done. But I also believe that those Liberals would want the truth to come out. And that's really fundamentally what we're talking about is getting to the truth.

MW: Do you not think that there are a lot of Liberal voters worried that this issue will lead to the Conservatives getting elected?

TR: Well, I think that's a false argument. I mean the NDP was an official opposition in the last parliament. We are another option for Canadians. I don't think it's either or; we're not a two--party system. Canadians know that well. And I think it's a scare tactic by Liberals to say if you do this we're going to end up with Andrew Scheer. No, we're not. Canadians actually have an opportunity to vote for the true progressive party in Canada, and we believe that’s the New Democrats.

MW: We know that Liberal caucus members are frustrated. Liberal MP John McKay said to our show last week. If Mrs. Wilson-Reybould and Ms. Philpott have a story to tell, tell it. Do you think that Liberal MPs really want to get to the bottom of this as well?

TR: If they did, they would provide an venue and an avenue for her to tell it. And so far, they haven't done that. So I think that their frustration is misplaced. Putting that frustration on Ms. Wilson-Reybould and on Ms. Philpott is not the place where they should be putting it. They should be putting it to the PMO. And they should be pressuring them collectively to get the truth out.

MW: There have been questions raised lately about the political motivations of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. Do you have any thoughts about their motivation?

TR: I think their motivations have been clear that they want to get to the truth. You know I don't think this is motivated by some type of leadership aspirations that she has. If it is, it's a really bizarre way to try to mobilize your base around you when you're really lobbying these very serious accusations at the prime minister.

MW: Ms. Ramsey, thanks so much for your time today.

TR: Thank you so much.

MW: Bye-bye.

TR: Bye.

JD: Tracey Ramsey is an NDP Member of Parliament. She sits on the House of Commons ethics committee. We reached Ms. Ramsey in Ottawa.

[Music: Ambient]

Seagull screeching championship

Guest: Jan Seys

JD: Is there anything more excruciating in a bar than bad karaoke? One thing. There is, and that thing that happened in a bar in Belgium last weekend. Patrons stopping by for a quiet glass of Duvel were instead treated to a room full of people dressed up as birds with a sign that read: "European Gull Screeching Championship". Jan Seys is a researcher at the Flanders Marine Institute. He served as the judge for the competition. We reached him in Ostend, Belgium.

MW: Jan, why would anyone want to go to a Belgian bar on a weekend and listen to people screech like gulls?

JAN SEYS: Well, it’s fun, of course. If you go to the coast then, of course, the first animal you think about — the first sounds you think about — is the seagull. The seagull screech is the sound of the sea. And it’s been really very funny there.

MW: So what was the point of this championship?

JS: Well, actually those started a few years ago when the coastal province here in Belgium involved in nuisance created by seagulls realized that there was need to counterbalance that a little bit to put it into perspective since many people were complaining about seagulls opening trash bags, the bird droppings, and even seagulls stealing ice creams and sandwiches on the sea dikes. And there was a feeling like we should make sure that it's not becoming too negative, and that we get the seagull a more friendly and likable image at least.

MW: Now you were judging this competition. So tell us what you were looking for as people stepped up to the mic?

JS: We looked at for 15 points of the 20 points, to the gull. How well they performed the imitation. And the other five points dealt with the performance how they were flapping their arms and imitating a gull, or some were really dressed up as a gull. Some were wearing seagull-style beaks on top of their heads. It added, of course, to the atmosphere and the fun that we had.

MW: Okay, so I'm going to play you three contestants from the competition. And I'd like you if you don't mind to give me your judgment of their calls.

JS: Yup.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Human #1 sounding like a gull]

MW: OK. That was gull call number one. Tell us what you think about that, Jan.

JS: Yeah. Well, this sounds very much like a typical begging call for food. So that gull is saying it's probably a chick, and it's saying I want food. Of course, if you have such a chick on your roof terrace, and it starts screaming at 4:00 in the morning in June when the young get out of their eggs, it's rather annoying. And I can understand that people are not feeling very happy about that.

MW: So what would you give that one out of 20?

JS: This one was a very good one. I would say this is close to 17, maybe even 18.

MW: Wow! And that's without even seeing the re-enactment element.

JS: Yeah, but this is a real natural sounds as the herring gull would do.

MW: OK. So here's gold call number two.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Human #2 sounding like a gull]

MW: Jan?

JS: Yeah, this is what we usually call the long call. And it's a gull who is saying here I am. So this one I would was also a very good one. More or less the same, I would say also 17 to 18.

MW: OK. And at the risk of losing listeners, here's one more.

[Sound: Human #3 sounding like a gull]

MW: Jan, your verdict?

JS: Yeah, also a very good one. It's a bit different. It's what they call the moo cow call. And it's another way of saying here I am because they have many ways of saying here I am. So it's comparable. And I would say again a 17, 18. These are some of the best ones you have been providing me.

MW: So what is the best, do you think?

JS: Maybe I would go for the last one.

MW: Oh, ok. Well I've got to tell you, we pulled a fast one on you. The last one is a real goal is a real gull.

JS: It’s a real gull, ah ha, ok! [laughs]

MW: But you didn't give it a 20. You gave it a 17, 18.

JS: Yeah, but maybe that's because of the microphone and the telephone, of course. I've been working with seabird colonies, so I should know the difference. But indeed, some people were really performing so well that it was hard for us to distinguish between the real call and that one. So that's good.

MW: Now I'm gonna put you on the spot here, but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and give us your own gull impression?

JS: You mean that I should try to imitate…

MW: That's what I mean.

JS: I'm very bad in that. So I don't think it will add value.

MW: Could you could you just do a little irritating check call for us?

JS: Well what some seagulls do it's not this chick, but it's like this typical. [honking] That's what they do, and it's not the the begging for food call, but it's called the choking call. And they use it in courtship and in territorial disputes. And it's saying I'm not moving. Here I am. And make sure you don't forget about me.

MW: Lovely. Well thank you so much, Jan for speaking with me. This was illuminating, and I will try to keep an open mind about gulls.

JS: Yes. Yes. Yes. And you will manage to do that I'm sure.

MW: Thank you.

JS: All the best

JD: Jan Seys was a judge at last weekend's European Gull Screeching Championship. We reached Mr. Seys in Ostend, Belgium. For more on this story, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih. And if you're feeling the urge to subject us to your best seagull screech or chocking call — call Talkback at: 416-205-5687. And please, no real gulls need apply.

[Music: A waltz]

Cat rescue suspension

JD: When the princess was in danger, her subjects came together. But the one who truly rose to the occasion is being punished for saving her. And there's nothing the princess herself can do to intercede. She does not interfere in the petty affairs of her kingdom. Plus, she doesn't remember what happened, and is probably asleep. Earlier this month, Princess Momma — a tortoiseshell cat — climbed to the top of a telephone pole in Philadelphia. But having gained a new perspective, she realized she'd lost perspective: she couldn't get down. So there she sat, hour after hour — while her human subjects became more and more worried about the safety of her majesty. They called the fire department and animal rescue services, no one showed up. Then, after Princess Momma had been trapped for 12 hours, someone approached a Verizon employee who was doing work nearby, using his bucket truck. His name was Maurice German. And, going above and beyond the call of his duty, he bravely plucked the princess from the top of the pole. Yet Verizon insists Mr. German may have endangered human lives by saving Princess Momma's. It suspended him for three weeks. A spokesperson said, quote: "While our actions may not be popular, it's in the best interest of our employees and the communities we serve." Unquote. No, not popular, Verizon. People on Twitter are savaging the company for punishing Maurice German. And a bystander started a GoFundMe, which has raised more than three thousand dollars for the man who saved Princess Momma. Because someone had to save her highness from her highness. So I think it's fair to say that Verizon has screwed up royally.

[Music: Island]

Part two: Nazi links family, Belgian peeing statue

Nazi links family

Guest: Maximilian Kiewel

JD: The Reimanns are the second-richest family in Germany. They own controlling interests in Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Panera Bread, and Pret a Manger. They also, it has now been revealed, have a dark past — with links to the Nazis. The German newspaper BILD am Sonntag has reported the family used slave labourers in the 1930s and '40s, and were enthusiastic supporters of Adolf Hitler. The family's company, JAB Holdings, says the reports are true. But that it's shocked by the revelations. Now, the Reimanns have committed to donating ten million euros — about 15 million dollars Canadian — to charity. Maximilian Kiewel is the senior reporter who broke the story at BILD am Sonntag. We reached Mr. KIEWEL in Berlin.

MW: Maximilian, the Reimann family has just donated millions to charity, and that's just after your reporting showed their links to Nazis. What do you make of that?

MAXIMILIAN KIEWEL: First of all, I think it's a good thing that they want to donate money. And for us, it's pretty interesting that they came up with that idea only a few days after we were asked about their past.

MW: Your report is about how the Reimann family use slave labour during the Nazi era, and the enthusiasm that they had for Adolf Hitler. First though, how important is the Reimann family in Germany?

MK: So they're the second-richest family in Germany. They own lots of businesses, lots of companies all around the world. But the truth is most Germans probably never heard the name Reimann because they live a very secret life. There is no jet set, no parties, no red carpet. On one hand, they're very important businessmen. On the other hand, they live a very secret life.

MW: So what prompted you to start looking into the Reimann family and their history?

MK: There are newspapers in Germany that publish like the 100 richest families in Germany stories every year. And the Reimann’s they became second, and I started to dig a little to do some research basically followed the question where does the money come from? When you talk about German companies, you have to look about their past, about the years and 1933 to 1945. And what was surprising for me was that there was no article, no book, no nothing about their time during the Second World War. And this is the reason why I started my research. I started to check archives and tried to collect evidence.

MW: So once you got the archival documents, you began to learn a lot about this family’s use of slave labour, the conditions at the Reimann chemical plant. Can you tell us about what was going on in the factory at the time?

MK: So I found documents by the police and so on. And you find former workers who tell about the conditions. There were a group of Russian ladies who worked in the factory. And you had one worker would show up at their barrack, and forced the female workers to get naked in front of them, touched them. You had prisoners of war from France who were beaten, who were slapped, who were kicked. What happened is that during the Second World War, there was an office that was controlled by the Nazis who checked on labourers and workers. And that Nazi labour force you can say they showed up and said you know what? The way you are handling your forced labourers is not ok. You beat them, you slap them, you are responsible. This has to stop. That gives you an idea of what was going on inside the factory.

MW: So the Nazis themselves were telling the Reimann family that they were going too far in their abuse?

MK: Absolutely, absolutely. This is what happened.

MW: You also uncover a letter written by Albert Reimann SR to the mayor of a town that he worked in. Can you tell us what that letter says?

MK: Absolutely. So you have Reimann sitting in his office, and he's looking out of the window. And on the other side there is a small place, and you have forced labourers who are working for the city. And they are digging holes. They are smashing stones. It's August; it's hot. And Reimann he looks at them, and then he writes a letter to the mayor complaining that these people are not working hard enough. That the mayor should push harder. That it's a shame for the German people and how these people work. And that something has to happen to them.

MW: So when you brought this this horrible information to the Reimann family and their company, JAB Holdings, how did they react?

MK: On Thursday, I got an email from a lawyer telling me that we going won't get any answers at all. And on Friday, they told us that the CEO of the holding is going to give us an interview. We were kind of surprised how I mean he confessed, he admitted, and he told us right away your research is correct. From what we know, everything is exact. And this is what happened, and what happened is horrible. And Reimann should have been sent to prison. And we’re all speechless. And we want to donate the money.

MW: Did they not also say that they'd been doing research of their own at the same time that you'd been doing your investigation, and that weeks earlier they'd learned of these same Nazi links?

MK: That's very true. They told us that they hired a historian three years ago to do research on their family history. And that he presented like basically the same documents, the same evidence we found to the family a few weeks earlier.

MW: What do you make of the timing of that?

MK: It's a coincidence maybe. I don't know? But what I can say is that during the interview, Peter Harf he was really touched. And yeah, we will see what comes out of it.

MW: Given Germany's history in the 20th century, how many other influential families and German companies are possibly out there that share this kind of dark history, but haven't fully reconciled or disclosed in any public meaningful way?

MK: That's the big question. Honestly, I can tell you I was kind of surprised to find these documents, all these stories that had never been told before. Are there other important families which share the same past? Probably, yeah — I don't know if it's a family like the Reimanns are able to keep this story secret for such a long time. Probably other families are as well. The clock is ticking, and all these families and all these companies should come out of the dark into something.

MW: Thank you very much Maximilian for speaking with me today.

MK: Thank you. Thank you very much for having me.

JD: Maximilian Kiewel is a senior reporter at BILD am Sonntag in Germany. We reached him in Berlin.

[Music: Sombre]

Cemetery Maple Syrup

JD: A Saint John, New Brunswick man has been harvesting vital liquids from a local cemetery — and boiling them down to make a sweet, life-giving elixir. With the permission of Fernhill Cemetery, Don Creamer is tapping the trees on the ground to make maple syrup — just a wholesome, fully aboveboard, and above-ground, thankfully, activity. He's super excited about it. He spoke to CBC Saint John host Julia Wright.

SOUNDCLIP

DON CREAMER: Well, it started with the maple tree right my front yard. And just for the fun of it, I tapped it with a bucket, and I got some sap. So I took it in once early morning and I boiled it down. I said oh my God, look at that! It's working. And I didn't have enough to get a pancake wet, so I just kept it going till I made some candy. And it was honest to god Maple candy. And I’ve been doing it in my kitchen ever since. [laugh]

JULIA WRIGHT: And did you approach the the owners of the property — the cemetery board — and say hey look, this is what I'd like to do?

DC: I did indeed. I contacted the cemetery manager, and I expressed my desire. And he said he's going to talk to the board, and cleared it with them. And I got the green light. On a good day, I get a gallon of sap out of each tree. I check on them every day.

JW: Does anyone ever think it's a little bit weird?

DC: There are some people that think it's a little bit weird, but that's ok. I know what I'm doing. And I enjoy it. It's a hobby.

JW: I don't know if I would want to eat pancakes with maple syrup that came from a cemetery. Did anyone ever say anything like that to you?

DC: I've had that a couple of times, yeah. But you know I boil it all day long.

JW: Is it to die for?

DC: [laughs] It is to die for. It's very good.

JD: Saint John, New Brunswick's Don Creamer — talking to CBC’s Julia Wright about tapping the trees in a local cemetery to make maple syrup. Yummy!

[Music: Indie rock]

Belgian peeing statue

Guest: Benoit Hellings

JD: A famous statue in Belgium has literally been peeing water down the drain. It's called the Manneken Pis — or the "peeing boy". And recently, officials in Brussels found that that statue of a cute little twerp wasn't recycling the water it's constantly whizzing. It was, in fact, wasting a truly astonishing amount of clean drinking water. And now they're doing something about it. Benoit Hellings is an alderman in Brussels. That is where we reached him.

MW: Mr. Hellings, first of all, just how much water is this statue peeling away?

BENOIT HELLINGS: So it's the equivalent of the consumption of ten families. That's why we acted as soon as we could.

MW: Wow! So before we get into the water waste can you remind us what the statue looks like?

BH: This little statue was built in the 17th century, and it's the symbol of a little guy. It's a little guy — a very little boy of five or six. He’s peeing water, in fact. And it's the symbol of the very sympathetic way of living of Brussels people. It's a symbol of a little guy peeing on fire because Brussels was on fire at this time. And it was a way to thank this little boy Manneken Pis. Manneken means man — a little man. And pis — peeing.

MW: So this little boy, what did he pee on to put out the fire? That must have been a lot of peeing?

BH: He didn’t pee tap water. He was really peeing. But you know it's a legend. It's incredible that the symbol of our city is a little boy peeing. We don't care about greatness, you know? we are simple people. And this little boy is a symbol of that way of life. And that's why we're very proud of him.

MW: Now you often dress him up, is that right?

BH: Yes, indeed, indeed. He dressed every day of the week. And a lot of association, a lot of big companies, a lot of countries like, for example Canada, they offer a costume to this little boy. And he has a wardrobe, you know? And you can visit it in Brussels.

MW: So how did you find out about the water waste?

BH: You know, I'm the alderman in charge of environment. So we decided to put trackers on every metre of gas, water, and electricity. And that's how we discovered that the metre of Manneken Pis was giving that amount of water which is incredible. So we tried to how is it possible that this little guy is peeing tap water for the 17th century in fact. Se we discovered the leak, we placed some stuff there. And now he is not being tap water anymore. It's a pump giving him the water from another part of the statue. So it's better. So now we see on the tracker and we see that online every day, every six minutes, we have some information coming from the tracker on the statue. And we see then we don't have tap water to draining away anymore.

MW: Now before you discovered he was paying tap water, where did you think the water was coming from?

BH: We were thinking of that then it was coming from a little vask, and we would put tap water inside. But we didn't know that we needed to be linked to the tap water all the time.

MW: Right. So you thought the water was being recycled?

BH: Yes, we were thinking that. But there was a leak in the direct tap water that was giving tap water to the tank.

MW: So you fixed it now, and you must be feeling better about that?

BH: Yes. [laugh] I am feeling relieved.

MW: But there are statues like this I mean replicas in many other places in the world. I mean how worried are you that the other statues are also peeling away clean drinking water?

BH: I hope they are not. But what we are doing it now it's the monitoring of all the other fountains in Brussels to be sure that if it's not drinkable water, if it's only fountain for the beauty of the water but not to be drank, we are trying to be sure, and we are putting some trackers on every meter to be sure that it's tap water leak.

MW: And do you think that what you're doing in Brussels should be rolled out in other countries?

BH: Yes, absolutely. Because you know Manneken Pis is very symbolic. That's why we put this information out because it's a way for us to say ok, check out every public building. Check out your own private consumption of water. You know tap water is to drink, is to have a shower, it's not to spill out like that — it's too precious. So that's my message to all the other public authorities in the world and in Europe: check your water consumption because it's very important that this water is used for what it is.

MW: Ok. Mr. Hellings, thanks very much for your work, and your message. And best of luck with the project.

BH: Thank you. Bye-bye.

MW: Bye-bye.

JD: Benoit Hellings is an alderman in Brussels. That is where we reached him. And to see a photograph of the cute little Manneken Pis, check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Glassy guitar]

PEI MacKay

JD: We don't know when exactly Prince Edward Island will hold its provincial election. What we do know right now is that it will be a hard-fought, no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle battle. And one district in particular is going to be a veritable tinderbox, as two candidates battle each other, while also battling confusion. The campaign hasn't even begun, but we are sure they're already bitterly attacking each other. Because both candidates are named Matthew MacKay — and only one can emerge triumphant. A Globe and Mail headline manages to express the desperation each Matthew MacKay is feeling. Quote: "Two PEI Candidates With Same Name Aren't Worried About Being Confused With One Another". Unquote. Oh. Well, I guess it's probably tough to capture the rage of Matthew MacKay in just a headline. I'm talking about Matthew MacKay the Progressive Conservative incumbent in Kensington-Malpeque. He must be livid about the other Matthew MacKay — the upstart who'll be running for the Green Party. And the Green Party Matthew MacKay must be furious as well! How dare Matthew MacKay have such different policies but the same name. Well, thankfully, yesterday, Bob Murphy — host of "Maritime Noon" — managed to get both Matthews MacKay on the phone. Just listen to the fireworks as these two square off!

SOUNDCLIP

BOB MURPHY: so possible confusion in a political campaign is one thing. What about conducting this interview? How should we proceed to make it clear to our listeners that we know who's talking, any ideas?

MATTHEW MACKAY: If you're good other Matthew, do you want to just go with Matthew J today?

MATTHEW J: Yes, actually I'm going to be running as Matthew J, Matthew. So I will refer to myself as Matthew J in all these chats. And since you've run as Matthew MacKay before, you be Matthew MacKay. How's that?

MM: That sounds good.

BM: Okay.

MJ: Okay.

JD: Okay, right, well, they seem...fine about it at the beginning. Now as the interview continued, their mutual antagonism erupted. Right? Didn't it not?

SOUNDCLIP

BM: So there is a bit of an agreement here then, this j is part of the campaign going forward, is it?

MJ: Oh definitely. When I was approached to run, I was concerned about this. And folks from the Green Party did my understanding, Matthew, is they did approach you to work out something that was acceptable to you as well. So that that's my understanding, now you can correct me if I'm wrong there.

MM: No, that’s right. I was reached out probably about two weeks ago by a deputy green leader, and she was great on the phone, which I had heard rumblings over the few weeks prior that there was another Matthew MacKay going to be running against me. So Lynn reached out, and she was great. She said I understand that this could be awkward, and she said you know what can we do to help this out? And that's kind of when between Matthew Lynn, I think they decided to use a middle initial, which I thought was let's go to them for doing that.

MJ: It's only fair.

JD: Only fair. Well, um… where do we go with this? So there are two guys named Matthew MacKay running against each other in the upcoming PEI election, and neither one minds at all, and they don't think there will be confusion. And they also seem to like each other pretty well. We'll...keep you posted as this story develops. I guess?

[Music: Show tune]

Part three: Long-term care report, Encore: #AIH50 producer panel

Long-term care report

Guest: Sue Moore

JD: They're voices we don't often hear. When someone moves to long-term care, the workers that keep the place running aren't always the first people you think of. Now, their stories form the basis of a new report. It's called "Breaking Point," and it paints a picture of violence and abuse of workers in Ontario care homes. Sue Moore is a registered practical nurse. She's also the president of her union local for CUPE. We reached her on a train just outside Toronto.

MW: Ms. Moore, can you tell me about the time when you personally had to deal with violence at work?

SUE MOORE: One of the situations I struggle with more even now. The situation that occurred with some family members; they were advocating for their family member. And things quickly escalated to them bullying and intimidating staff on our floor.

MW: Can you tell me what that bullying looked like?

SM: So it began as a barrage of unrealistic expectations of the staff on the floor — expectations that we couldn't meet because we had other residents care to complete. So as I was the charge nurse on the floor, I'm trying to communicate with the family and give realistic expectations. Their harassment quickly turned from all of the staff on the floor to being directed at me. They would call me vile and disgusting names and my co-workers. They would yell at me while I was at my med perch. They were stare and glare at me. And then they began with verbal threats towards me.

MW: At this point, was your fear of physical attack?

SM: I was afraid of going to and from my car. I was afraid of when they would arrive at work. I couldn't concentrate. And yeah, I felt that the situation was very unpredictable, and I was at risk. So I called the police. Not press charges. I understood that this family was very much struggling with their ill loved one. My intention was to keep myself safe.

MW: And what happened when you called the police?

SM: They came in and they interviewed me. And then they had a conversation with the family. And I told that if I ever have any problems moving forward to let them know, but I never did.

MW: Now this latest study backs up what other studies have said as well that the rate of abuse and violence towards caregivers in Canada is very high. But the rates at which people report the abuse is low. Why do you think that workers are afraid to speak up and make formal reports when they experience abuse?

SM: Well, I think one of the biggest things is people don't report unless they sustain an injury that puts them off work. So you have very low reporting rates. So you have people who aren't reporting that they were punched in the face. There are people who aren't reporting that they were kicked, punched, or scratched. They endure the violence, and they carry on with their day and complete their tasks. I do believe that there is a certain amount of reprisal when staff members report violence. Usually the question is what were you doing when it was caused, or when it occurred? What could you have done differently?

MW: The reprisals coming from superiors?

SM: Exactly.

MW: This latest report has stories from nurses and other workers who had chairs thrown at them, who were spat on, and there was, in fact, part of part of the study a chart that showed where many people had been struck on their bodies. What did you think when you saw and read that?

SM: I'm not surprised at all. I believe it is underreported. I think that the emotional effects of all of those they build up. And the emotional effects are more difficult to deal with.

MW: So how do you strike a balance between caring for patients who might lash out for any number of reasons, perhaps because they're not completely lucid, or they're sick, or their families are under stress, and protecting yourself at the same time?

SM: Well, I think that definitely comes from reporting. If people aren't going to report, then their health and safety committee or your employer isn't going to have an accurate picture of what's happening out on the floor. But until we and staffing in our settings and we acknowledge that violence is happening, I'm not sure we are going to do better because we don't have an accurate picture.

MW: Right. And do you think there needs to be better training — more and better training?

SM: Absolutely. It should start when people start in school for front line working. Nobody told me when I got into this, until I got out on the floor, that I with the abused. That I would experience workplace violence. And I think the first time that happened, it is shocking. And then it becomes part of your daily routine.

MW: Given everything that you've been through all these years, why do you still do this work?

SM: Nursing is a huge part of my life. I've chosen to spend my career caring for our elderly population, who I want to care for in the manner that I would have wanted my parents cared for, or your grandmother your grandfather. They deserve the absolute best.

MW: Have you ever thought of quitting because of the abuse?

SM: Yep, absolutely. I think it's going back to office work. It's a struggle. I worked very hard to join the nursing profession, and to dedicate my career to it. And I work with the best team in long-term care to go above and beyond every day. They work through a break. They stay late. The residents become our family. We share so much with them that I can't I can't picture not being in nursing in long-term care.

MW: Ms. Moore, thank you very much for speaking with me today, and for your commitment to nursing as well.

SM: Thank you so much.

MW: Bye-bye.

SM: Bye.

JD: Sue Moore is a long-term care nurse and the president of her local union for CUPE. She was speaking about a new study that details the violence workers face in long-term care homes. Researchers from the University of Windsor and University of Stirling presented the study to the Ontario legislature today.

[Music: Ambient]

Encore: #AIH50 producer panel

JD: You never know what will happen when you tune into “As It Happens”. Here's what listeners heard on the evening of March 21, 1977 -- a hostage negotiation on the radio with host Barbara Frum in the middle. [sc]

BF: Hello, my name is Barbara Frum. Can you tell me what situation you're in?

ROBERT MCLAGEN: I'm in a pretty good situation. Really, as long as these callboys out here don't try anything you know funny.

BF: Yeah?

RM: I've got about 15 people up here, and there's really no way that the police can get at me unless they can smite me, which I doubt.

BF: What are you in there for?

RM: I want a C-130 Hercules aircraft. I don't want to own it. I just want to borrow it.

BF: Who'd you come in with?

RM: Myself.

BF: What kind of weapons?

RM: Twelve gauge pump-gun; chopped down.

BF: Can we talk to any of the people you're holding there?

RM: Yeah, Okay. Hang on, I’ll get somebody.

JD: Some of you may have heard that unforgettable moment the first time it aired, 42 years ago. Barbara Frum also spoke with one of the hostages. Then she put Robert McLagen, the hostage taker, on the phone with a Toronto police officer. After they hung up, Mr. McLagen surrendered peacefully. But some of you may recall that interview from our 50th anniversary programming. Pat Nobel is the producer who got through to Mr. McLagen. Last fall, we rang her up -- along with former "As It Happens" senior producer George Jamieson — for a behind-the-curtains look at the anatomy of the chase producer's day. Tonight, we're airing a longer cut of that interview. Here's Carol's conversation with the producers.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Hello, Pat.

PAT NOBLE: Hi.

CO: Hi, George.

GEORGE JAMIESON: Hello.

CO: Welcome to “As It Happens”.

PN: It feels like old times.

GJ: Glad to be here again.

CO: Just like yesterday.

PN: Yeah, I tell you I haven't heard that clip since the day we ran it. And it just makes the hair on my back my neck stand up. That is pretty spectacular, if I do say so.

CO: Pat, it is pretty spectacular. What do you remember about that day, and tracking down Robert McLagan?

PN: Well, I remember we got the news that something was going on at the corner of whatever it was. So we had to find out you know a phone number. No Internet, no cell phones back then you got to remember; just landlines. So got us a phone number for the bank, I dialed it, and it rang and rang. I let it ring maybe 20 times. Somebody picked it up and put it down. And I knew at that moment I had them. They weren't going to let this phone keep ringing. Called back again, let it ring and ring and ring, and he answers the phone.

CO: And he answered the phones as in the hostage-taker?

PN: Exactly. And I identified who I was. You know, we had to let them know that we were recording this for broadcast later. The law says we had to do it. And I said you know, would you talk to Barbara Frum, our host? Okay, so put him through, and the rest is Barbara. I mean just took over and it was amazing.

CO: Now, I understand that that moment on the radio that you produced led to changes in policy of the police and their procedures, is that right?

PN: Yeah. I think it started in Toronto, but it's pretty much worldwide. When there's any kind of hostage situation, the first thing the police do is cut off any outside communications. They take over, and you can't make a call into a bank today when it's under siege like that — or any situation.

CO: Now, you were there Pat about 1976 to 1980 for those five years with Barbara Frum. And George, you're there. You were there at the same time.

GJ: I was.

CO: But you were there during that period of time which is pre-Google, pre all kinds of things it will just take for granted now. So what was it like to track people down?

GJ: We only had one piece of technology. We had landline telephones. And in our case, rotary dial phones. And as Pat said, one of the ingenious bits of luck was then, there was no call display. You didn't have people look at the phone and say I'll get that later. If the phone rang, and someone was there, they were very likely to pick it up.

CO: And that's a very generational thing, isn't it? Older people still if the phone’s ringing, you have to answer the phone whoever it is.

GJ: They’ll fall down and hurt themselves running to the phone, yeah.

CO: You had one other piece of technology that I learned very quickly. It doesn't seem like a great secret, but it obviously was, you had phone books.

GJ: We had a library of phone books. We would make sure we had a Washington and all the suburbs of Washington. We'd get the Manhattan phone book. We tried to get a phone book from anywhere we thought we might need a phone.

CO: We're going to fast forward some decades now, into a completely different technological landscape, which is now. And I have with me in studio one of “As It Happens”’s finest, Imogen Birchard. Hello, Imogen.

IMOGEN BIRCHARD: Hello there.

GJ: Hi, Imogen

IB: Hi.

PN: I'm anxious to hear how you do it today.

CO: How do you do it? What are your tricks?

IB: We Google like crazy right away, as soon as you have the person's name. And then it's email, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn sometimes, but phone is always king.

CO: I remember last fall, you produced a story with a soccer fan in Iran — a woman. And she had traveled 400 kilometres for the FIFA World Cup qualifier against Syria. She wanted to see that game. She couldn't attend a game in her own country. She explains how she managed because Iranian women are forbidden from the stadium. I’m going to play a part of my conversation with her, and then you can tell us about.

GUEST: The name of a stadium is “Azadi”, which means “freedom” in Persian. And that's funny because half of our people in Iran cannot go to there.

CO: You're a soccer fan — you're a football fan. Have you been able to attend any matches in Iran before?

GUEST: Yeah, yeah, I once I went to this stadium actually, pretend to be a guy, and they didn't find that I'm a girl, and I went. It was really nice experience, and I really liked that.

CO: And so that is a conversation I had with an Iranian woman. How did you find her, Imogen?

IB: All I had with this woman was her first name, which is a very common first name, and the university she went to. And I thought this is kind of a longshot. That's a really common first name. That's a big university. But I started Googling, and I started going through social media pages, and the other detail I had about this woman was that she was a huge soccer fan. And so I found the Instagram account, which is a photo-sharing social media platform, of a woman with her first name in the city that university was in who seemed to love soccer. She was posting a lot about the Persepolis, the big soccer team that she was a fan of. And I was careful in sending her a private message, in which I said hi, my name is Imogen. I'm with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, can I call you? She was like why? I was like oh, I'd love to talk to you about being a soccer fan. And she was just like how did you find me? And after we did that interview, we used less revealing details than the Guardian, which is how I initially found her. And I told her. I said if I can find you, and you're worried about your safety, other people can find you. You should write the Guardian and tell them to try and take down some of these details about you.

CO: It's really interesting, Imogen. Because I know I mean we didn't give her last name, and we tried to disguise details, but this happens a lot, doesn't it? The new technology is that if we can find them, the authorities can find them. We have talked to people in Tahrir Square in the middle of the of the uprising there — the revolutions in different places. Young people who are so enthusiastic they just want to tell the story. And yet, we have their safety, their security, in our hands, don't we?

IB: It's an enormous responsibility. And we try and be careful with using encrypted apps like Signal or WhatsApp, which is supposed to sort of I guess block the IP addresses. But you have to warn people that you know we don't want to put anyone in danger. We don't want to put anyone at risk.

CO: I’m going to ask all three of you, Pat, George, Imogen, now regardless the technology, what do you think it takes to be a successful “As It Happens” producer? I'll start with Pat.

PN: You've got to love the chase. The crazy stories, the interesting stories, the crime stories — I used to love those. And you got to have stamina. Wow! It's a tough job.

CO: And George?

GJ: I think the real key is tenacity. Pat has it, and had it, and the ability to step sideways, and look for somebody in a way that perhaps they weren't expecting to be looked for. And if someone gets in your way or tries to tell you there's nobody here, or they don't want to talk, can you be persuasive? Can you get the person who knows the number to give you the number? Can you get the person who answers the phone to agree to an interview even if it's a brief one?

CO: Imogen, what do you think it takes?

IB: Well, I'm nodding along with the persistence and the persuasiveness. I think it takes a certain degree of shamelessness to just call someone up and demand that they talk to you, or asks as persuasively as you can that they talk to you. Sometimes, you'll find you know a high-ranking politician’s cell phone number somewhere, and you just call. Yeah, it's fearlessness.

PN: The good producers of our kind of programming are among the best cold call salespeople on the planet. We're so lucky that we're using these talents for the forces of good.

CO: Pat Noble, George Jamieson, Imogen Birchard, thank you.

ALL: Thank you.

JD: Former “As It Happens” producers Pat Nobel, George Jamieson and Imogen Birchard. They spoke to Carol in November as part of our 50th anniversary show. If you missed that interview, or any other special “As It Happens” 50th programming, you can find it all on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

WW2 spy

JD: Marthe Cohn was 19 years old when the Second World War broke out. As a French Jewish woman, she felt compelled to do what she could in the battle against Hitler. What she could do was speak German. And that's what landed her behind enemy lines, spending months alone in Nazi Germany as an Allied spy. She now lives in California. And she still feels that pull to do her part. At 98 years old, she spends much of her time on the lecture circuit, sharing her story. And lately, her speeches have taken on a new urgency.

SOUNDCLIP

MARTHE COHN: It’s a mission for me. Because it's extremely important that people understand how serious it is right now. But I have done it all these years so that people remember. But now it's more for people to make sure that it doesn't start again. Not just for the Jews. I mean for all you people — of all kinds of people. My mission was a duel mission — military information, of course, but also information how to German civilians were acting to the war and behaving. So my information went all over. Even the German government gave me a high reward in 2014 because one of my citations says that my information allowed the war to be shorted. The Germans feel that I saved German lives because the war was shortened. It's really dangerous right now. Our president, and I don’t mind saying that, our president follows exactly what Goebbels did. Did you know fake news comes from Goebbels. He didn`t invent it. [laugh]

JD: That was 98-year-old Marthe Cohn speaking to CBC Calgary's Terri Trembath. Ms. Cohn is speaking in Calgary tonight at the Jack Singer Concert Hall.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 26, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This