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 April 18, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: Obstructive criticism. U.S. President Donald Trump has spent weeks insisting the Mueller report exonerates him completely. But the redacted version released today directly contradicts those claims.

JD: No lingering doubts. The whole population of an isolated Newfoundland Island is leaving for the mainland — except for one couple who have vowed to stay and fend for themselves.

CO: The keys to leave the kingdom. A woman who helped draw Rahaf Mohammed flee Saudi Arabia for a new life in Canada is now helping two sisters in a similar, but so far, less publicized plight.

JD: Land of make you believe. A nurse fighting the Ebola outbreak in Congo says widespread mistrust forced the country's president to tell his citizens that despite their doubts, the disease is all too real.

CO: He got it done toot sweet. As a glum the European Parliament wraps up its last session before a break, a Slovenian Member of Parliament who whips out his harmonica, and blows everyone away.

JD: And… super fresh off the boat. A week after we noticed the rugged, sexy new version of Captain High Liner, the company reveals why it turned the grizzled sailor into a beefcake… fishcake.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Thursday edition. Radio the knows he always brought in a major catch. But now, he is one.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Mueller report, Saudi sisters

Mueller report

Guest: Mark Zaid

JD: When President Donald Trump learned that Robert Mueller had been appointed to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. election, he said, quote, "This is the end of my presidency." And he added, "I'm doomed." Except he used a less poetic word for "doomed", and it began with an F. Well, it didn’t turn out to be the case. But it is one of many interesting and troubling details revealed today, with the release of the Special Counsel's report. Here is part of what Mr. Trump said at an event for wounded veterans, after the release of the report.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: No collusion. No obstruction.

[Sound: Much rejoicing]

DT: There never was, by the way. And there never will be. And we do have to get to the bottom of these things I will say. And this should never happen to another president again. This hoax should never happen to another president again.

JD: President Trump speaking after the release of Robert Mueller's report this morning. The president and his attorney general, William Barr, painted the report as a full exoneration. Explicitly, it is not that. And, after reading through it, people are pointing to incidents outlined by Mr. Mueller where the president tried to stop or undermine his investigation. And to the Special Counsel's assertion that he was, quote, "Unable to conclude that no criminal conduct occurred", when it came to obstructing justice. Mark Zaid is a lawyer who specializes in national security files. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

CO: Mr. Zaid, I hope you can help us explain this, but why didn't Robert Mueller find that President Trump had obstructed justice?

MARK ZAID: Well, it's interesting because what he did find is that he couldn't exonerate the president. In many ways, and this is not necessarily favourable to the president or his family, but that they couldn't decide whether or not there was any intent of the president to obstruct justice. Meaning was he smart enough to have been doing this on purpose from a criminal standpoint? Which is a much higher standard of proof than say the political standpoint, where obviously many Americans and maybe around the world believe that, in fact, the president did obstruct justice.

CO: So then why did he feel his hands were tied? He obviously goes to a number of things — this list — that indicates that there were the firing of Mr. Comey. There are other subordinates who are intimidated and threatened to fire Mr. Mueller. There were a number of things that he suggests could amount to obstruction of justice. So what tied his hands as far as charging Mr. Trump?

MZ: Sure. And the Special Counsel's Office looked at 10 items of possible obstruction, some of which we did not entirely know in detail. Like, for example, that he wanted his then-White House Chief Counsel Don McGahn to fire the special counsel. And Don McGahn, to his ethical, legal credit, declined to do so. But a lot of it has to do within some ways I'll credit the Trump legal team. They prevented the president of the United States from sitting down for an interview with the Special Counsel's Office, and instead provided written responses, which as you know any sane person would believe was written by the lawyers and edited by the lawyers and scrutinized by the lawyers so that they did nothing to allow the special counsel to go down a criminal path. And that was sufficient for the special counsel to say we can't say one way or another whether or not there was obstruction. And that differs though from what the Attorney General Bill Barr was saying publicly, which is somewhat troubling. And should be considered that way not only by the American people, but I know will be by the U.S. Congress — at least the Democrats.

CO: This is sometimes a bit like trying to interpret the Dead Sea Scrolls. So I mean I’m glad you’re here because there are things that seems so carefully worded in this report of Mr. Mueller's. In fact, he says that if he shouldn't face prosecution, that they would say so and they did not. What was behind that?

MZ: Yes. And, in fact, one of the things that Bill Barr — the attorney general — said this morning was that — and this is going to be controversial — the notion that the special counsel did not take into consideration that there is a DOJ Justice Department policy that says you can't indict a sitting president. Attorney General Barr said that that was emphatically considered by Robert Mueller's team and disregarded, meaning it did not interfere with their decision making. And apparently, if you read the report you know 400-plus pages long, it doesn't say that at all. It says that it actually was a factor. And, of course, you know we've been using, and the media in particular been using this word “collusion”. Conspiracy is the real legal term. With that, as with obstruction, the standard of criminality being you know beyond a reasonable doubt. They just felt they couldn't get there.

CO: When we first had the report released, and there was just a brief summary that the U.S. Attorney General William Barr put out basically saying that President Trump had been exonerated. That there was nothing to see here, move along everybody. And now, it's as we try to move through these 400-plus pages saying all kinds of other things that don't quite say that — including what the attorney general had to say today in a press conference. But I just want to play a bit of that press conference with Attorney General William Barr responding to what he had to say about Mr. Trump.

SOUNDCLIP

WILLIAM BARR: President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion. And as the special counsel's report acknowledges there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.

CO: OK. That was Attorney General William Barr today, speaking quite defensively of Mr. Trump. Some of the reporters and other pundits later on pointed out that it sounded as though he was Mr. Trump's own personal lawyer. What did you make of that?

MZ: You played the part of that press conference that made me cringe the most. The section that you played right there is very concerning because maybe it's going to be helpful for me. Because when I represent federal government employees, particularly in the law enforcement and intelligence communities, which is what I do, I'm going to now tell the investigators in these agencies and the prosecutors. Well, you're upsetting my client. You're really stressing my clients out as you investigate them and interfering with their work and their personal life. That that means you should somehow back off or exonerate my client. Because that's just absurd.

CO: Ok, all that being said and done, and now we have this report. We can take a look. There's so much in there as you point out. Every time I turn around, someone's found something else. But what does it all add up to? I mean in the end, it's like is this just the dust settles, everyone moves on, and well that's interesting. Does this lead to anything?

MZ: Well, I'll tell you one of the most fascinating points in the report to me is what we learned today is that there were 14 referrals of the special counsel — criminal referrals — to different U.S. attorneys offices in the United States. And before today, we only knew publicly of two of those referrals. So there are a dozen criminal referrals pertaining to the special counsel's investigation that we don't know yet what is going to happen.

CO: Just very, very quickly, what are the chances that this amounts to a case for impeachment?

MZ: So the reality is because the Senate is controlled still by the Republicans, we are not in a 1973-74 situation where the Republicans turned against President Nixon. So while the House Democrats will raise concerns and complaints until the cows come home as the saying goes. The reality is the fate of President Donald Trump is not going to be decided until November of 2020.

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

MZ: Anytime Carol.

CO: Take care.

MZ: Alright. Thanks so much.

JD: Mark Zaid is a lawyer in Washington, DC, and that's where we reached him. And here's what Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said when he was asked whether Congress would pursue impeachment.

SOUNDCLIP

JERRY NADFLER: That's one possibility. There are others. We obviously have to get to the bottom of what happened and take whatever action that seems necessary at that time.

REPORTER: If you choose to go toward impeachment, how important would this report be? Do you think this provides a road map?

JN: Well, it's too early to talk about that, you know? Because we will have to go follow the evidence where it leads, and I don't know exactly where it will lead. If I did know, I wouldn’t need all this information. I think from the structure of the report, although I'm a little tentative because I've only skimmed it. We haven't had a very long. I think it was probably written with the intent of providing Congress a road map as other reports have in the past. But with a lot of heavy redactions and others, Attorney General Barr seems to be trying to frustrate that intent.

JD: Jerry Nadler is the Democratic head of the House Judiciary Committee. He was speaking to reporters this afternoon.

[Music: A long pulse]

Wynne on no female premiers

JD: When Albertans went to the polls this week, they didn't just vote out Rachel Notley. They voted out Canada's last female premier. It's a stark contrast to 2013, when almost half of the provinces and territories in this country were run by women. One of whom was Kathleen Wynne, whose Liberal government was voted out of office in Ontario last year. Earlier today, Ms. Wynne spoke to the CBC about the disappearance of women from the ranks of Canada's premiers.

SOUNDCLIP

KATHLEEN WYNNE: Well, I know for sure that not just at the table with the premiers, but at any political table, if there's a critical mass, so about 30 per cent of women, then the subjects are different. It's just a reality that different issues are talked about. And when I was at that table in 2013 and there were six of us, we talked, for example, about Indigenous relations, and particularly supporting the call for a national inquiry on missing and murdered Indigenous women. I'm not sure that would have happened if it had just been men at the table. I don't know that, but I do know that at that table it was women who were leading the discussion. So I think that we lose a whole lot of life experience when we don't have half the population represented at the table. I think that women in leadership roles deal with a different set of issues, you know? I think that you only have to look at our social media feeds to see the different levels of harshness, you know? The language that's used, that's just a reality. And the other reality is that people just do not expect women to be in the role of Prime Minister or Premier. You know, it's just not what we're used to. And so because of that, there's a bit of a double take. And I think that that causes some sort of disconnect for some people. I think the only way through that is to encourage more women to be involved, and to make it more the norm that having women are there. But I'm distressed. I'm distressed that we have no women at that table. I think it's a real loss.

JD: Kathleen Wynne is the former Liberal premier of Ontario. Again, after Tuesday's provincial election in Alberta, there will soon be no women premiers in Canada.

[Music: Ambient]

Saudi sisters

Guest: guest

JD: If you followed Rahaf Mohamed's journey to Canada, this week's plea from two Saudi sisters would have sounded very familiar. You'll remember that Ms. Mohamed was the young woman who fled her family in Saudi Arabia, despite enormous risks to her safety — and was eventually offered asylum in Canada. Now, two Saudi sisters, Maha and Wafa al-Subaie, are stuck in Georgia, in the Caucasus region. Here's the message they sent out to the world this week on Twitter.

SOUNDCLIP

SISTER ONE: we are two Saudi sisters who fled from Saudi. And now we are trapped in Georgia because the Saudi government has suspend our passports. Our family and the government are following us here in Georgia. If we go back to Saudi, we will be killed. We want to apply for asylum in any safe country. Please help us.

JD: When Rahaf Mohamed was seeking asylum in January, we spoke to a woman here in Canada who was helping her, through a secret network of other women who've since left the Kingdom. That same woman — whose identity and location we're protecting for her safety — is now trying her best to help the sisters Maha and Wafa. We reached her earlier today.

CO: The story of these two Saudi sisters, Maha and Wafa, how much does it remind you of what Rahaf Mohamed went through?

GUEST: It's kind of the same thing to me, from my point of view. I never knew them before. It's just some girls who reach out for me. They told me well, you did help Rahaf. How about you can help those? I'm not very sure. It all depends on the audience — on the other people's support. If they want to support or not. It's not actually up to me. I just try to spread their voice.

CO: But as far as these two young women, we know when we spoke with you last about Rahaf is that you and some other Saudi women — other women around the world — are trying to help Saudi women who are trying to escape these difficult and potentially violent situations. How did they find you? How did these two Saudi sisters manage to connect with you?

GUEST: They are in another group. Now, I don't know that group. I'm not in any group anymore. But the groups that already stay in touch with me, they just talk to me and told me there is a new case. There's still girls, they’re sisters, we are sure they're not lying, they're getting abused, and especially that they are from a small village. The people around them in that village are extremists, strict — more than when it's in a bigger city.

CO: So there's no place to turn for support for these young women?

GUEST: Yes.

CO: What kind of abuse are they facing? Why are they afraid to stay at home?

GUEST: So Maha, she was married. And she got divorced. And when she got divorced, their family kind of felt ashamed of her because her husband said that she betrayed him. And this is a lie. He said that just for her reputation to be ruined, and as a revenge of her. And then everything turned down for her. Like they started abusing her for the smallest thing, and they locked her at the home. This is when Wafa start to stand up for her sister — the bigger one — and try to support her. And she started to get abused too. They beat them both of them — even they got difficulties to go to the university and finish their education.

CO: We know that it's impossible for women in Saudi Arabia to travel without permission from male guardians — even to get passports. So how were they able to get the documents that got them out of the country?

GUEST: If you get your male guardian’s phone, and you just know how to open it, then you can reset the password actually by the code.

CO: uh huh. Is that what they did?

GUEST: Yes. And then they just get into his account, and into an app that connects them to the passport issuer in Saudi Arabia. Then they can just order the passport to be issued and delivered to the house.

CO: Well, you said that they just have to do that. It sounds pretty risky. This is their father's phone that they got into, changed the password.

GUEST: Yes, yes.

CO: How risky was that for them to do that?

GUEST: It is very risky because even after you would do your order, in 20 minutes or 30 minutes, there is a message coming to his phone. You have to erase it. Because if you didn't, he was going to find out. And you're going to hope that he is not going to get onto the app account. Because if he checks the app account and saw that there is a passport coming to be delivered then you are doomed.

CO: Yikes! But they put managed to pull it off. They got the passports delivered, and then they left. Why did they go to Georgia?

GUEST: Because they didn't want to risk to issue a visa because it will take some more time. And he is going to find out through his account that there is passports for those two.

CO: Oh, and Saudis can go to Georgia without a visa?

GUST: Yes. That's why they chose Georgia. And also, that is like it's not an Arabic country, so it's easier for them to go there.

CO: We just heard at the beginning one of their voices talking about please help us. We are now out of Saudi Arabia. We're very worried. What has happened since they arrived in Georgia? Have they tried to get some help from the refugee agencies?

GUEST: Well, they went to the embassies. One of them was the French embassy. They tried to ask for refugee or asylum there. And this is when they knew that there is some people or men chasing them, asking for them. Because the France embassy told them that there is some people who came and asked actually for them.

CO: Some Saudi people?

GUEST: Yes.

CO: Possibly her family.

GUEST: Possibly their family, or the Saudi government. They didn't actually know at that time.

CO: And they also found out that their passports had been revoked. That the Saudi authorities had canceled them, is that right?

GUEST: That was when they applied to Australian visa online, and they got a message that their passport is not valid.

CO: We should point out that these young women are 28 and 25 years old.

GUEST: Yeah, they're not minors. They're like adults. They should have their freedom to move and travel and do whatever in their life.

CO: But so at this point, are they getting support? They've gone to the United Nations I understand, asked for some protection. What is the UN saying to them?

GUEST: They're trying to insist on them to apply for refugee in Georgia for asylum in Georgia. But they're saying that they don't need to take them into protection and transfer them to another country. They're saying Georgia is safe.

CO: These women being stuck without passports they can't get out. But everyone else can get in looking for them.

GUEST: Yes.

CO: Oh boy! And so as far as what's happening, I mean the UNHCR is able what they do quite often — they did with Rahaf’s case — is that they take her into protection, they hide them, they find a safe place for them to go. And Rahaf Mohamed, the woman we spoke about last, ended up in Canada. Are you making efforts to try and see if these sisters can come here?

GUEST: I mean any other country should be safe. Australia, Canada, UK, Ireland, whatever. I'm not really concerning about which country. It’s just I want a safe country that is like a little bit difficult for Saudis to get there.

CO: And that's not Georgia at this point.

GUEST: [slight laugh] Yes.

CO: I want to ask this one last question about you, and we don't identify you now as we didn't before because of your own fears for your safety. And we know how much you and other women who work with you have done to help those Saudis who are trying to escape to safety — Saudi women and girls. Why is it so important to you? Why do you take such risks in order to help women you don't even know?

GUEST: I have shared this same pain before. I understand what's happening to them. And I am one of the girls who tried to go out just to continue her study, and never sell it that there is something called freedom. When I first time landed in Canada, and then when I started realizing that I can do stuff by myself. Maybe I don't need a man to do everything for me, and decide for me. It was shocking for me tasting this freedom. And I actually want all other girls to know that they are capable of doing things without needing a man. They can decide. They are very powerful. But they don't know it yet.

CO: I have to say you are a very strong woman, and you're an inspiration to many others. And I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

GUEST: Thank you.

CO: Take care of yourself.

GUEST: Yeah, you too. Bye.

JD: That is a Saudi Arabian woman living in Canada whose identity and location we are protecting for her safety. She is trying to help two Saudi sisters, who fled their family and are now stuck in limbo in Georgia.

[Music: The #AIH segment ending theme]

Jeff leaving

JD: Well, we're at the part of the show where we usually tell you what's coming up in the next hour or so. Tonight, however, we have some news about what's coming up in more of a big-picture sense here on "As It Happens" — and for me personally. Carol, take it away.

CO: What, me? I’m the one who has to do this?

JD: Well, you are. Yeah, you're supposed to say the next part. But I can do it. No, I can do it if you want.

CO: You’re the one who… this is your idea. This is your plan. And you take it away.

JD: You know what? It seems like you're a little upset. We can do this later. Would that be better if we do it later?

CO: Nope. It’s that time.

JD: Okay, obviously this is still a little... fresh for Carol. So I'll just say it: I'm pleased, and sad, to announce that, after eight-years-plus in this studio, I'm moving to another studio, in my home province of Nova Scotia. So after May 31^st, which my last day on this great program, I'll be the new host of "Mainstreet" — the CBC afternoon show in Halifax.

CO: Why do they get you?

JD: Well, they’re really the only ones who really wanted me.

CO: [laugh] Man, you know you should have told me.

JD: I shouldn’t have to tell you, Carol Off.

CO: You went down there, you were hanging out, you told me you were just in Halifax because it had a really good Mark’s Work Warehouse.

JD: And you couldn’t pick up a hint, could you?

CO: You said you were shopping!

JD: I was, and I got this belt with a big buckle on it.

CO: And then what?

JD: And then after, of course, after I got the belt, I was walking around, looking at the buckle and stuff, and I happened to stumble past CBC down in Halifax, on Mumford Road, and I saw the "Help Wanted" sign.

CO: You want me to buy this?

JD: That’s the truth. It’s exactly how it went down.

CO: You want our listeners to buy this?

JD: Yes! Yes!

CO: It ain’t going to happen. There’s too much skepticism here. Listen, all I can say is I’m very sad. And I’m not even going to look at you because I’ll cry.

JD: You’ve never looked at me!

CO: [laugh] That’s true!

JD: You have never once in eight years looked at me!

CO: Look at you, I’ve never… you’re right. That’s what you look like. That’s so interesting.

JD: That’s what everyone says.

CO: It’s just about time I did that. Anyway, another six weeks that you’ll be around.

JD: For you to just sit and stare, and stare.

CO: [laugh] And abuse you. And make you uncomfortable. And make you regret it. And make you change your mind, maybe?

JD: CO, I will miss you.

CO: I am very happy for you. And I can well imagine how you’d want to be in Nova Scotia, especially in the spring. [laugh] I’m happy for you. I’m sad for us. And the Thursday edition will continue.

[Music: Ending theme]

Part two: Newfoundland resettlement, sanctuary cities

Newfoundland resettlement

Guest: Georgina Parsons

JD: The population of Little Bay Islands, Newfoundland is just 71 people — fewer in the winter. But soon, however, it's going to be a little quieter there; because the population is going to drop to two. In February, the community voted to leave the isolated island outport, and relocate. And the latest provincial budget includes tens of millions of dollars to help residents move. One couple, however, Georgina and Mike Parsons, have decided they’re going to stay put — making do without a ferry to the mainland, or stores, or a power plant. We reached Georgina Parsons on Little Bay Islands, Newfoundland.

CO: Georgina, can you imagine that one day you will say goodbye to your friends and neighbours, and they will leave, and you will stay to live on Little Bay Islands by yourself and with your husband?

GORGINA PARSONS: I can. I've been a long time thinking about this. So I can think about it. But you know it's gonna be an emotional day for everybody — myself and those that are leaving.

CO: And how do you picture yourself doing that? Do you actually see yourself there — you and you and your husband there all alone?

GP: Oh yes, we do. And it's something we've both dreamed about for a while, you know? But now, since as you know the government gave the announcement earlier this week, it's actually a reality, you know? We’ve got to start putting our plans into motion.

CO: And this comes from the vote that took place in the community in February; the plan to resettle — that's what they could vote on. All these outports were able to do that and decide. And so everybody else decided that they're going to go. Why did you and your husband Mike decide you didn't want to leave?

GP: Well, we're a little bit unique. So we were living in Ontario at the time. We're just coming here in the summers. And we knew resettlement was looming. So we kind of made a plan to move back to Newfoundland. We're both going to retire here anyway. When all this was happening, we wanted to come back and be part of the community while it still existed. So we came home, and we've been home now two years. So we knew coming down that we would never vote, and we didn't want to. Because you know we didn't live here full time. So you know just the permanent residents should decide the fate of the community, you know?

CO: The people who have decided to go, and did vote for it, why is that? They've lived there for generations some of them. Why would they want to go?

GP: I think the main reason now is most of the population that are here year round they're getting older. Some of them have medical issues. So you know when you're in your 40s your 50s, and your living here, and you know you're dealing with the ferry and the ice coming in, you're not as nervous. But say my father-in-law next door, he's 75, and he's got a few you know serious health issues. So he's nervous now. In the winter, the ice might come, and he might need to go to the doctor. So that's a big part of it. And in the past 10 years, I would say, the store closed. And the only source is employment, the fish plant closed. So it's just I think it's just the time, you know? This opportunity is available to help them move. And they're thinking ok, well I'm getting older; soon I’ll need to go anyway. Now I can get some financial assistance to do this. There's no more services anymore.

CO: OK. But when they go, I mean the whole point of why the government is offering this money is that it's cheaper for them to give that than to run services to outports like yours.

GP: That’s right.

CO: And so you’re going to lose what — the ferry, no ferry to the mainland, no power plant, no services, right?

GP: That's right, yeah.

CO: How are you going to do that?

GP: We've been thinking about this for a long time. We plan to live off the grid. So when we think about how we're going to you know how say we don't want to power a full house, so we're looking at solar, we'll have some generators, but we're going to try to not have any like freezer or fridge goods. We just want to minimalize. So what do we need versus what do we want? And we're excited about this adventure, ok? So right now, I pretty much every day I have a salad with my lunch. You know fresh vegetables. I have fruit in the morning. Well, I'm not gonna be able to get that now.

CO: Well, how will you get off the island when you do want to go? What's going to be available to you?

GP: We have our own 42-foot long liner. And a long liner for those who don't know is traditionally a fishing boat. Now, even from mid-October now when we're here, we prefer to go in our own speedboat to get groceries and gas and supplies as opposed to take ferry. So we'll jump in our speed boat, take about a half hour ride on the ocean, we'll pull up to a wharf, and tie up. We'll get our gas and groceries and supplies, come right on back home.

CO: There is the isolation though, isn't there, Georgina? You are going to be alone. Well, I'm sure you love Mike. But that’s going to be just the two of you.

GP: Oh yeah! It takes a certain type of individual to even attempt this. And it's been a dream of my husband's a long, long time just to live somewhere remote in isolation. And he always thought he would do it alone. And then he met me, of course, and started talking about you know telling me his dream about this. And I'm like I could do that.

CO: At the same time, I mean I know it's some years away for both of you, but you see all the older people who are leaving Little Bay Islands because it's too hard. And so there may come a time when it's too hard for you too I guess, eh?

GP: Exactly. And I mean we might try this for a year and say ok, this isn't for us, or this is for us; we might love it. And we know that we’re going into this just excited and trying it out and see what happens.

CO: Again, there is that moment when all the others are gonna be saying goodbye. Not just that you're going to see them go, but they're going to say goodbye to their homes. That's going to be a verypainful time, isn't it?

GP: It is. Actually, one of my best friends here has only lived in this community her entire life. So can you imagine how she is going to feel leaving here?

CO: No, I can't imagine.

GP: And my father-in-law, he grew up on a neighbouring island — the one we share the ferry with, Long Island. Moved here when he got married, same thing, and raised his children here, and has never lived anywhere else.

CO: All the stories of the people who have left the outports are it's always sad.

GP: It's very, very sad. And I really do think it's just a sign of the times. And again, our age and community, and they have no services. And you know they're worried. I totally, and my husband as well, we came home, we remained neutral. We never you know if somebody wanted to go, we supported them. If somebody wanted to stay, we supported them. And we can see both sides.

CO: Now, what if people listening to this get inspired and say I'm gonna go and join Georgina Parsons on that island? Are you are they welcome?

GP: [laugh] I'd say go try another island. [both laugh] That would defeat the purpose of trying to live in isolation. With that joke all said now, I do expect a lot of our friends are going to come back in the summer still. So other people love it just as much as us, and they plan to come here for a couple of weeks or a few months in the summertime, so I would imagine in the first couple of years, you'll see some activity. So we'll be here waiting and excited to see those people when they do return.

CO: And then be happy to see them go at the end?

GP: [laughs] Probably.

CO: [laugh] Oh, Georgina! Best of luck to you out there, and we will leave you in peace. Thank you so much.

GP: You're very welcome. Have a nice day.

CO: You too. Bye.

GP: Bye now.

JD: We reached Georgina Parsons on Little Bay Islands, Newfoundland.

[Music: World music]

Harmonica MEP

JD: With Brexit looming, it's been a tough couple of months at the European Parliament. So it's safe to say that MEPs were looking forward to a well-deserved break. Today marked the last session before the current European Parliament wraps up. And before his colleagues left to scream into their pillows, one Slovenian MEP wanted to end things on a high note — several high notes, in fact. Here is Lojze Peterle with a closing address to his colleagues, and a literal trick up his sleeve, at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

SOUNDCLIP

LOJZE PETERLE: Dear colleagues, these are our last decisions in this mandate. And I would like to thank you for five years unity and diversity. It is our responsibility to keep Europe together, and let’s rebuild Notre Dame, and happy Easter.

[Music: “Ode to Joy” on a harmonica]

JD: The "Ode To Joy" — the European Union's official anthem — as performed by Slovenian MEP Lojze Peterle on his harmonica today.

[Music: Percussive]

Sanctuary cities

Guest: Ted Wheeler

JD: During his tenure, US President Donald Trump has offered several suggestions for improving border security, including building a wall and closing the southern border. Now, he's publicly discussing a new plan; threatening cities in his own country. According to his administration, officials are considering re-locating undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers to sanctuary cities across the country. That hasn't gone over well with the mayors of those cities. Nevertheless, they'll welcome newcomers with open arms. Ted Wheeler is the mayor of one of these cities: Portland, Oregon, and that is where we reached him.

CO: Mayor Wheeler, what do you make of President Trump's suggestion that immigration officials might relocate undocumented people or border crossers and move them into sanctuary cities like yours?

TED WHEELER: Well, I don't think very highly of it, of course. There's a real ugliness playing out here with the president's consideration of purposely stranding immigrants in sanctuary cities. I think this ugliness comes from the lack of value he has for human lives and dignity. To think about separating people from their families, bussing them across the US, and then unceremoniously stranding them in jurisdictions that the president believes are hostile to his politics. I think speaks to this administration's depravity.

CO: But if you're a sanctuary city, I mean I guess is he putting the two things together, saying well if you want to give sanctuary, these people are here, and you can provide them with the sanctuary that they're seeking?

TW: Absolutely, we'll do what we have done for decades in this city. We’ll continue to welcome immigrants and refugees. But to place this unnecessary burden on people who are already struggling, people who are already traumatized. I think it's cruel. But if the president makes good on this threat, we will welcome these folks with open arms.

CO: Just for people who don't know what a sanctuary city or state is, can you describe how that functions?

TW: Yeah, from a legal perspective, what it means is in our state, local jurisdictions are not required, in fact, they are barred from providing any sort of legal assistance or any law enforcement assistance to federal agencies for individuals who are simply being sought for their immigration status. And that's the legal perspective. But there's a moral perspective as well. This movement in our state started nearly 30 years ago, when we had refugees coming from Central America. And that was in large measure of people who were working hard to escape war. They were looking at facing human rights violations or corruptions. And so it was a religious movement originally. And since then, it's been reinterpreted to mean different things legally. But the bottom line for us is we support people of all stripes, regardless of who they are or what their background is. And we value humanity.

CO: It seems that people of Portland take this quite seriously. I understand you hosted an Occupy ICE protest. I mean you didn't, but it actually happened, temporarily shutting down a federal building where ICE officers worked. What was that all about?

TW: Well, this was in response to a different proposal by the same president. And the proposal at the time was to separate families — including small children from their families at the border. And potentially detain them in different areas. And not only do we think it was highly ineffective immigration strategy, we thought it was cruel. And we thought it was immoral and unconscionable. And many people in this community wanted to make a strong stand against ICE and those policies. So there was an Occupy movement at one of our facilities here in the city of Portland.

CO: But you also have people who disagree with this, don't you? I mean there's a group I understand called the Oregonians for Immigration Reform, who say the sanctuary cities put the rights of illegal immigrants above legal residents. That's a quote. And that you should be taking care of your own people first. What do you say to that?

TW: Well, first of all, I think it's a fallacious argument. And by the time somebody is here in our community, they're already part of the community, and their problems become our collective problems. So we don't go down the street ask people for their papers and decide whether or not we're going to give them access to basic human dignity based on their papers or their immigration status. Once they're here, we treat people alike. And you know what they're really talking about is the lack of an immigration strategy. And we have I think disagreements on that particular point, but I will never backtrack on our sanctuary status. It's something that I believe in very strongly. I believe the vast majority of people in this community support it. And it is a hill that I'm prepared to die on, continuing to support it.

CO: There were already a lot of undocumented people in the United States, and now there are more crossing over looking for sanctuary, looking for another life. If President Trump actually followed through on this, and began to start sending the thousands of people who are coming into your country looking for sanctuary, if he starts to bus them to Portland, can you accommodate that?

TW: Well, you know I don't know exactly how many people we're talking about because it’s theoretical. But we have a deep community of support here. It's not just the government, but we have a private sector that values diversity in immigration, and in fact, relies on it for economic prosperity. We have a deep faith community. And we have a community that's overwhelmingly already saying that if the Trump administration makes good on this promise, we will welcome those immigrants and those refugees with open arms.

CO: But you know there could be a tipping point, right? I mean the same thing in Canada, people are very accepting. But there's a point after which they say no, this is too much.

TW: If as a nation, if we're serious about addressing immigration as a policy, there's no easy answers. It's not as easy as plopping down a wall and calling it a day and saying it's good. We have to do the hard work that respects our American values of supporting humanitarian aid and dignity. But we have to do it in the countries that are already struggling with corruption or warfare or a lack of economic partnerships or human rights violations. This administration is grasping for almost sound bite solutions to problems that could take years if not decades to solve.

CO: Just finally, I mean we know that that President Trump often floats these things just to stir things up, just to get people's dander up. I mean is it possible that he's just doing this to push your buttons?

TW: Is it possible? Sure, it's possible. I mean even his own team seems to be frustrated at the speed which with he stirs the pot and creates condemnation frankly for his administration. This proposal's already been globally panned, along with other proposals that he's ultimately had to backtrack from — including separating families with children at the border. And I wish he'd put his iPhone down, and I wish he'd stop tweeting, and instead work with people in the global community who understand this immigration issue, but also value diversity.

CO: Alright, well we'll see if we can get that message about his iPhone into the White House. We'll work on that, Mayor Wheeler. It’s good to talk to you. Thank you.

TW: You bet. Thank you. I appreciate the time.

CO: Bye.

JD: Ted Wheeler is the mayor of Portland, Oregon.

[Music: Indie rock]

Captain High Liner makeover

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A wicked storm from the west]

CAPTAIN HIGH LINER: Ever been to sea, Billy?

BILLY: No, Captain High Liner

JD: That's how we first met him; Captain High Liner — a rugged old sea captain-turned-commercial pitchman. So grandfatherly that people routinely visited him in his isolated lighthouse to eat seafood, despite the constant, violent thunderstorms. In those High Liner commercials, we met a man whose beard was as hard to tame as his love of frozen fish. But if one looked beneath the surface, there were hints over the years that there were other sides to the Captain.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A roster being loud]

CHL: What’s a crusty old sea captain doing down here on the farm? Feeding my chickens, of course! It seems folks love their chicken almost as much as I love my fish. So I put out some delicious chicken for you. There's chicken nuggets, chicken strips, everybody's favorite chicken burgers, and chicken cutlets with Swiss cheese and ham.

JD: Chicken? Obviously, the captain was as restless as the waves that battered the rocky shore outside his lighthouse henhouse. Since the TV commercials stopped, we've only seen the familiar captain, in his hat and turtleneck, on High Liner packaging. And then, as we reported last week, his picture changed. This new guy had the same face, but no hat, open-collared shirt, hipster beard, a lush mop of hair. This captain was so much sexier that, suddenly, Canadians wanted to be his first mate. So we asked High Liner to get in touch. For a week, we heard nothing. And then, a seagull arrived, with a press release in its beak. And in that release, Craig Murray, Senior Vice President of Marketing and Innovation at High Liner, says, quote, "He is the same trustworthy Captain, but now people see him in a new light. His look fits our 'young at heart' personality." But Mr. Murray stresses, quote, "...it was never about creating a new Captain, or changing him too much. We wanted people to see what was always there." Unquote. So it's like those romantic movies where someone takes her glasses off and everyone suddenly realizes she's unbelievably beautiful. A kind of "He's All That" of corporate re-branding. Well, whatever the motivation, Captain High Liner was once the equivalent of his own reliable, barnacle-covered fishing vessel. And now, boy howdy! He's a dreamboat.

[Music: Bluegrass swing]

Part three: Congo ebola, Legal Aid cuts

Fredericton joggers

JD: Sandy MacNeill of Fredericton, New Brunswick, has taken a lot of CPR training over the years. Luckily, he's never had call to use it. But then, the other day, while Mr. MacNeill was on holiday in Indian Shores, Florida, a panicked stranger ran up, asked for help. A jogger had collapsed from a heart attack. He had no pulse. Mr. MacNeill called 9-1-1, and then he put his CPR skills to work. Well, the jogger survived. And was able to return to his home, which is also in Fredericton, New Brunswick. So needless to say, "Information Morning" in Fredericton spoke with both men — Sandy MacNeill, and the man he helped save, Tom Reddon. Here's part of that conversation — picking up the story when Mr. Reddon woke up after two days in hospital.

SOUNDCLIP

TOM REDDON: I asked my wife, who was with me, you know what am I doing here? And she says well, you went into cardiac arrest. And I go I did? And you know they'd operate on me. They put two stents in my coronary arteries. I don't remember anything about that.

COLLEEN KITTS COGUEN: How did it feel when you were told somebody had saved your life?

TR: Well, the whole fact that I'm in the hospital, and I had suffered a cardiac arrest, and that you know they performed CPR on me, it’s kind surreal. Even now, it's still hard to fathom that that happened. For my type of arrest, you know the success rate is not very high. So to have somebody there to immediately call 9-1-1, to do CPR, and to have a hospital close by, I'm very lucky.

CKG: Sandy, as you're hearing Tom speak, how do you feel?

SANDY MACNEILL: Well, I mean obviously I was really happy that I was there, and had the training in the past to be able to help.

CKG: Did you go see Tom in the hospital, or how did you reconnect afterwards?

SM: So we met this past Sunday. Of course, me for the second time, and Tom essentially for the first time, and yeah. I guess again, the positive power of social media.

CKG: Is that how you found out you were from the same hometown?

SM: Actually, while we were there, and after the fire truck showed up, the person I was walking with offered to help call the people that needed to be notified. And my first inkling was when they gave a phone number with the area code 506.

CKG: Oh wow! This is an amazing story.

TR: And I'll say you know thanks the Sandy as well. And it's a great honour to meet him the other night, on Sunday. And it's very emotional for me just you know to first see him.

CKG: I bet it was emotional, yeah.

TR: Yeah. And we got along famously well. And I think we'll get together when we get back to Fredericton over a craft beer or two, and talk about life and stuff.

CKG: And Sandy, when you meet them, you're gonna make sure you those CPR skills are still sharp, right?

[all laugh]

SM: Yeah, I think maybe we should all meet at a CPR course.

CKG: There you go.

JD: Sandy MacNeill and Tom Reddon, both of whom are from Fredericton — and both of whom were in Indian Shores, Florida, when Mr. MacNeill helped save Mr. Reddon’s life. They were speaking with the CBC's Colleen Kitts Goguen.

[Music: Electronica]

Congo ebola

Guest: Trish Newport

JD: Yesterday — in the midst of an outbreak that has already killed more than 800 people — the president of Congo felt it necessary to make an official announcement: Ebola is real. A hundred new cases were confirmed just last week. But the disease is spreading in an area of the country where there are dozens of armed militias, and a history of mass killings. Health authorities are struggling to convince people about the dangers of an unfamiliar disease, and the promise of a new vaccine. Trish Newport is all-too familiar with the realities of ebola. She's a nurse with the Medecins Sans Frontiers team that's fighting the outbreak. We reached Ms. Newport in Kinshasa, Congo.

CO: Ms. Newport, from what you have seen, how dangerous is this outbreak of Ebola in northeastern Congo?

TRISH NEWPORT: Well, in the past few weeks, we have seen a huge increase in the number of cases of Ebola. Two weeks ago, there were 65 confirmed cases. And last week, there were 110 confirmed cases. So that's a significant increase. Some of our biggest worries about that aren't just about the numbers though. About 40 per cent of all the new confirmed cases are still-community deaths. And that means that people either are dying at home, or they're dying in health care facilities, but not in Ebola treatment facilities.

CO: And why aren't they going to the Ebola treatment centres?

TN: Some people, many people now are refusing to go to the treatment facilities. They see them as really far away. People are afraid of them. Some people don't believe Ebola exists. And then the other problem is in health care facilities still, sometimes people are not identifying that these are possible Ebola cases. You know Ebola looks like a lot of other illnesses like malaria, like typhoid. So they're often kept in health care facilities being treated for those things. And the problem is that as long as they're in the health care facilities there's the risk of transmission to many other patients.

CO: The provinces where this is concentrated are these are names people will remember from horrible violent events of war. North Kivu and Ituri, where we have covered the stories of what happened, the armed conflict, the mass killings, what residue is there of that? Is that part of it? Is it because everything was just so brutal? Is that is there still the effect of that that's preventing people from trusting the authorities?

TN: Certainly, history has a huge part of it. I mean history has a huge impact on all of our beliefs, right? And so there's a genuine mistrust by a lot of people towards the government. It’s an extremely complex area. There's a mistrust even of the army, of police. And so then it's the Ministry of Health. So it's the government that's managing this response. And so the population, not only there's the question of whether Ebola actually exists, but there's also a real hesitancy to believe the government by a lot of people. And that creates a lot of problems as well.

CO: Is that skepticism even among the health care practitioners?

TN: It has been. What we're seeing recently is a change. When there's suddenly such a huge increase in the number of cases. What we see is now community leaders starting to express the belief that Ebola exists, and asking their population to believe that it exists, and to go to health care facilities, or the Ebola treatment facilities when they're getting sick. But it's taken a long time. From the very start, the community hasn't really been engaged in the Ebola response. It's one thing to go share information with the community, but community engagement is a different thing. It's about asking the community how they want the Ebola response to be, and having them involved in making key decisions. And as long as that's not happening, people will continue to not fully believe and not be fully invested in Ebola response.

CO: But weren't these the lessons learned from the outbreak in West Africa? Isn't that part of many things that led to an epic failure by World Health Organization and others that didn't engage those local people? That didn't coordinate with those who could have been so effective — and eventually were effective — after the outbreak was out of control?

TN: I agree with you. And when you look at all of the documents about lessons learned from West Africa, a lot of those things you look at it now, and you look at all of the problems we've had in the past eight months of this outbreak. And a lot of them can just be reflected in these documents of the problems that they had in West Africa as well. So right now is a time that we really need to be making a change. And we need to be having more decentralized care, which means instead of having these huge Ebola treatment centres that people have other options so that they can be treated within their communities. Because what's happening right now is obviously not working if the number of cases is going up so much.

CO: Now, of course, what people will remember is that there was much excitement about a Canadian-designed vaccine that came out of labs in Winnipeg. And that this might be a major tool in fighting Ebola. This is a major change since what we saw in West Africa. What effect has that vaccine had?

TN: It's been a major change, and we see really positive things here in the field from the vaccination. And I think if we didn't have the vaccination, we would have a much, much bigger outbreak, and it would be much more similar to West Africa. So there's definitely huge positive effects from the vaccine. But the vaccine is still not licensed. So it has to be used under a research protocol. And the research protocol calls for a strategy called a ringing strategy. It means when someone is confirmed for having Ebola, you identify all of the contacts, you vaccinate all of them, but then you identify all of the contacts contacts, and you vaccinate all of them. So you're making a ring around the person that got sick with Ebola as a way to make this sort of ring of protection or a belt of protection. But the problem is to be able to do that effectively, you need to be able to identify who all the contacts are. So right now, if you have 75 per cent of all the new confirmed cases were never identified as contacts, it means none of them ever had the chance to get vaccinated. And no one in close contact with them ever had a chance to get vaccinated. So we have all of these great new tools, right? That we never had in West Africa. We have treatments. We have vaccines. But the problem is being able to access the population, having the community engaged, and having them understand and be a part of this response.

CO: Just finally, one of the most egregious failures on the part of World Health Organization in West Africa in 2014 and ‘15 was that the WHO stopped short of calling that Ebola outbreak a global emergency. Yet, we're seeing the same thing — they will not call this an international health emergency either, even though this region borders on Uganda, Rwanda, and South Sudan. Does that seem to be a problem for you?

TN: Well, they considered calling the public health emergency in October, and they decided not to call it because it hadn't spread across borders. It seemed to contain just in North Kivu and Ituri. So we can't predict that it will not cross the border or when it will cross the border. What we can say is we know the numbers are going up and that there's always the risk of going over the border. But whether you call it a public health emergency of international consequence or whether you say that it's not, what we need to do is we need to change how we're approaching this ebola outbreak.

CO: Ms. Newport, I know you have a lot of work to do there, so I'll let you go. And I appreciate you talking to us. Thank you.

TN: Thank you, Carol.

CO: Bye-bye

JD: Trish Newport is a nurse who's working as part of the MSF team fighting the ebola outbreak in north-eastern Congo. We reached her in Kinshasa.

[Music: Sombre piano]

Penticton vigil

JD: Last night, people in Penticton, British Columbia, came together to mourn the victims of this week's shooting there. On Monday, two men and two women were killed during a shooting spree across the city. Retired city worker John Brittain has been charged in the murders. Shaelyn Maxted attended the vigil with her mom. She spoke with CBC Kelowna reporter Dominika Lirette about why it was important for her to show up.

SOUNDCLIP

SHAELYN MAXTED: The people where the situation took place was down the street from where my house was. And we have spoken with them a few times, and we just felt that we needed to show our support to them. And it's a good thing that so many people are here today as well.

DOMINIKA LIRETTE: Did you know them at all?

SM: I didn't know them by name or by relation. It was simply a hey, neighbour kind of thing. But it affects the community we’re in, and down the street is very close for sure.

DL: How are things in your neighbourhood now? How are you doing?

SM: I definitely feel like there's a shift, like people are more conscious or thinking about something more. And it's definitely gone a different level for us.

DL: And how are you feeling yourself right now?

SM: I feel kind of sad like my heart has dropped quite a bit from it. Because I have seen the people who live there, and I know for a fact that they were good people, and the fact that this has happened is not good at all.

JD: That was Shaelyn Maxted, who lives with her family on the street where three of the shootings in Penticton happened, speaking with CBC Kelowna.

[Music: Sombre guitar]

Rent-A-Bunny

JD: Meghan Wolfe is an Albertan animal lover who wants to give you a rabbit for Easter. And then take it back. Ms. Wolfe is tired of seeing unloved rabbits end up at sanctuaries like hers, or sold off on Kijiji. And so she's devised a program for people who think they want a cuddly bunny for a pet — but may not be fully aware of what that entails. Here is Meghan Wolfe explaining her rabbit rental plan to the CBC's Monty Kruger — just in time for the Easter Weekend.

SOUNDCLIP

MEGHAN WOLFE: Well, the initiative that I've started is rent-a-pet. Because I'd like to educate the public and give children and families the exposure of learning about rabbits as a pet. And it's just a three-day rental, and gives you kind of an idea of what they're all about. Then after three days during the Easter week, they can just come and bring it back. And that way they're not stuck with a 10-year commitment. I really want them to understand that they are not the Easter bunny that we portray. They're high-maintenance, exotic animals. And they are a lot of work, the peeing, the droppings that is a lot of work. They will make a big mess. They burrow, they dig, they chew every wire in your house. They may scratch or bite children. It's very difficult just to impulsively buy what you think is a cute, cuddly Easter Bunny, and then realize it's just too much in the end. When that happens, they end up in rescue agencies, here at my husbandry, and worst case scenario: euthanized.

JD: That was Meghan Wolfe, from Miss Meg's Rabbitry and Husbandry in Carstairs, speaking to CBC video producer Monty Kruger.

[Music: Nylon guitar]

Legal Aid cuts

Guest: Maureen Silcoff

JD: Ontario has cut off legal aid for almost all refugee and immigration cases. The province's Progressive Conservative government announced that it was making the change in last week's budget. But at first, immigration and refugee lawyers didn't realize that the cuts would take effect this week. Maureen Silcoff is the chair of the litigation committee of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Ms. Silcoff, what changes for refugees under these new rules in Ontario?

MAUREEN SILCOFF: Well, we're quite shocked to see what's changed because the province abruptly ended the program with a few exceptions. There was really no consultation about stopping to pay for refugee and immigration cases. So what used to be covered under the program is that refugee cases involved a series of steps. There were forms. There was preparation of evidence. There was a hearing. There were appeals. and other immigration types of cases like if someone is detained for immigration purposes, for example, because of the province's directions, Legal Aid has no money to use from them anymore. And now, it restricts coverage to only refugee form preparation. So that cuts out most of the types of matters that used to be covered.

CO: So what's at stake then for the refugees?

MS: Well, for refugees, it could even be their lives that are at stake. Because we know that a refugee is someone who fears persecution in their home country. They’re coming to Canada to seek protection. And now, if they can't properly use the refugee determination system to assert their claims, the consequences are really immeasurable. It's important I think also to put this in the broader context. Although the refugee program is essentially decimated, the province's decision cuts the Legal Aid budget by 30 per cent in an overall way. So there's also services that are affected, such as family law services, someone who has custody or child protection issues. Criminal law is something that Legal Aid also generally covers. So we see that refugees are hard hit. But there is a growing chorus of others condemning these cuts. So this is a problem that it is really widespread, and affects access to justice.

CO: Now why can't a refugee manage on his or her own? Why can't they go before the board and say look, this is my story, this is where I come from, this is what I'm fleeing, this is how I regard myself as someone who needs asylum. Why can't that work?

MS: Well, because refugees come here, they're vulnerable. They often don't have English skills. Many people arrive traumatized because of harm or torture that they've suffered. And they're facing a complex legal system. So when someone seeks refugee protection, it triggers a whole process before a specialized tribunal that assesses their claims. And they need to understand how to present evidence. So it's important that they corroborate what they're saying. So sometimes that involves medical reports, for example. And then they have to understand what to present before the tribunal. The tribunal hears legal submissions. And the person has testified for maybe two, three, four, five, six hours. So it's almost impossible to navigate the system without legal advice.

CO: So they go in there, and they're on their own if they don't have you guys?

MS: Exactly. They would go in, and they'd be on their own. And it just you know it doesn't really make sense because if somebody feels that they really don't have a fair chance, it pushes them to disengage with the legal system. They might lose hope, and they might just decide well, might as stay underground. And that's not something that we want to encourage. And alternatively, if they go through the system without counsel, they could easily be deported and face renewed persecution. So the options are not really great here. You know imagine breaking your leg, and you show up in an emergency room, and you say well Doctor, I think my leg is broken. And the doctor pointed to the operating room, and said Here you go. You're on your own. Perform the surgery. You know, it's essential that all steps are covered because of the high stakes nature of refugee determination.

CO: But I mean the government — the Ford government of Ontario — is saying that refugees are a federal responsibility, which they are. And they made the same claim about housing, and all the other kinds of supports that refugees need when they arrive. So they say it's Justin Trudeau who has to take responsibility for helping them with their legal bills. Isn't there truth to that?

MS: Well, the thing is refugees are a federal matter. But the province has the responsibility for the administration of justice. So it's actually a shared financial responsibility. And traditionally, the province has indeed shared the finances on the refugee matters. In fact, the province has paid about two-thirds of the funding in the past. And the federal government actually stepped up in its latest budget. It indicated it would continue to fund refugee matters, and has offered increased funding. So what's happened, as a result, the province basically without consultation — and without much notice — simply said well, it's not our responsibility anymore, and it's finished. And that's not fair, doesn't make sense, and has a chilling effect on refugees who are going through the process.

CO: You have an online petition, and you want people to sign up. Why should they care?

MS: Well, because this is not only a refugee issue. This is an access to justice issue. When people are engaged with the legal system, they have a right to have a fair shot at it. And it's also important to understand that when someone has faced persecution back home, and they have the wherewithal to pick themselves up and to restart their lives in Canada — specifically in Ontario. They bring with them a whole skill set that really benefits society, and that's something that we want to encourage because people will indeed become productive members in Ontario. That's something that should be recognized, and people should care about, and should care about giving people a fair start.

CO: We’ll leave it there. Ms. Silcoff, I appreciate speaking with you.

MS: Thank you very much.

JD: Maureen Silcoff is the chair of the litigation committee of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. She's in Toronto.

[Music: Industrial]

Quebec sex hotline

JD: Of all the uninspiring tasks in this modern world, calling the government for help with your taxes has got to be close to the top of most people's lists anyway .So when Jean-Francois Dorais called the Revenu Quebec helpline written on his partner's alimony statements, this was definitely not what he expected to hear.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Welcome to America's hottest talk line. Guys, hot ladies are waiting to talk to you. Press 1 now. Ladies, to talk to interesting and exciting guys free, press 2 to connect free now. Guys, press 1 now. Ladies, press 2 now.

JD: Revenu Quebec has now apologized, and says the number was an old one that had been, indeed, reassigned to the sex hotline, and should never have appeared on the statements.

[Music: Bluegrass swing]

Pickle sandwich

JD: The eighteenth-century British statesman John Montagu was corrupt and incompetent. But he does get credit for a miracle. A miracle that was named after him: Mr. Montagu — who was the Fourth Earl of Sandwich. Let's be clear: he didn't invent it. As the story goes, he was such a dedicated gambler, and so phenomenally lazy, that he wouldn't leave his game of cards for even a second. Not even to eat. So he asked a servant to get him some cold beef between slices of toast — so his precious earl-y hands wouldn't get his cards all greasy. That was the breakthrough: a handheld snack that didn't mess up your hands. And in that context, this new sandwich breakthrough is definitely interesting, but it fails that key test. The breakthrough is courtesy of the New Jersey restaurant Elsie's — a sandwich joint that would have baffled the Earl himself. Because there are all the fillings you could want. But there's no bread at all. Instead, those fillings come between two slices of... a giant pickle. Well, okay. On one hand, pickles are great. And a pickle sandwich has no carbs, if you’re into that kind of thing. But on the other hand, what about your one hand? The hand that usually stays relatively dry while you're playing cards in your earl-ish finery? Or scrolling through Instagram, if you happen to not be an earl? I'm not trying to wreck anything for anyone. It's just that this is does not conform to the original idea of a clean, convenient sandwich — which single-handedly made it possible to eat single-handedly. So go ahead and enjoy it, if it seems like your thing. But spare me the juicy details.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 18, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This