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 May 23, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

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: A measure of peace. One hundred and thirty years after Chief Poundmaker was convicted of treason, Prime Minister Trudeau exonerates him. Our guest says clearing the Cree hero's name also clears a path forward.

JD: To have, not to hold. A Newfoundland man is acquitted of child pornography charges after buying a child-sized sex doll, which he says he purchased only for companionship.

CO: A whole news ball game. Canada's Heritage Minister has put together the team that will be in charge of financial supports for journalism. But some are taking it apart for what they say is political bias.

JD: Kitchen sinking drama. Almost all of celebrity chef Jamie Oliver's restaurants in the UK close, leaving a thousand people out of work — and a fellow restaurateur is disappointed by this Oliver Twist.

CO: An ill-advised pet project. When Virginia woman died, her beloved, healthy dog died too. Not out of grief, but because it was euthanized by order of her late owner’s will.

JD: And… Verve clecko. the singer for The Verve is cracking the champagne today — because the Rolling Stones have changed their minds, and given him the rights to the sample in “Bittersweet Symphony”.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Thursday edition. Radio that guesses in the end, he left no stone unturned.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Poundmaker apology, media bailout, cremated dog burial

Poundmaker apology:

Guest: Milton Tootoosis

JD: The prime minister was in Saskatchewan today, to deliver a message to the Poundmaker Cree Nation — a message they have waited to hear for over 130 years to hear.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I am here today on behalf of the government of Canada to confirm without reservation that Chief Poundmaker is fully exonerated of any crime or wrongdoing.

[Sound applause and drums] [/sc]

JD: That was the Poundmaker Cree Nation's response this afternoon as Prime Minister Trudeau exonerated Chief Poundmaker, the man who founded their nation. In 1885, Chief Poundmaker was accused of inciting violence in the Northwest Rebellion. He was convicted of treason and imprisoned. But Milton Tootoosis has always known the charges weren't true. Headman Tootoosis has been part of the decades-long effort to secure this afternoon's apology. We reached him outside Cut Knife, Saskatchewan.

CO: Milton Tootoosis, what was it like for you to hear the prime minister deliver those words today?

MILTON TOOTOOSIS: It was surreal. Those are words that myself and many other band members, citizens, elders have been waiting for for a long, long time.

CO: And just for people who don't know the story to this it's quite extraordinary, isn't it? The Canadian government had branded Chief Poundmaker a traitor. He was imprisoned for his role in what's called the Northwest Rebellion. Can you just tell us what his role really was during that time?

MT: Well, what the government did at that time was mistakenly identified him as a dangerous man, as a warrior who was behind some of the incidents that took place such as the so-called “Massacre at Frog Lake”. There was some looting that went on. The so-called “Siege of Fort Battleford”. And a few other settlers were murdered, etcetera. They basically tagged him as the guy behind it all. And it was insane they he did that without getting the facts together. But at the end of the day, through our research, we found out why that happened.

CO: And tell us why. What was the encounter? Why were they at that location at that time?

MT: Well, there was a growing force of First Nations in this region, particularly in the Battlefords, that were being I guess invited to participate with the Metis, and Louis Riel, Gabriel Dumount, and so on. But the chiefs have always said here, and our elders always remind us, that they had made a solemn, sacred promise when they entered into treaty in 1976 not to take up arms against the Queen. In exchange for sharing 121,000 square miles of land and territory alone in exchange for some benefits. They agreed at least not to take up arms against the queen ever.

CO: But there's also very serious issues going on with the Cree at the time, wasn't there? I mean that they had arrived they're looking to get what they were promised in that treaty. You said they honored the treaty, but they were faced with the buffalo population had collapsed, there was impending starvation, they needed help with agriculture, with rations — all the things that had been promised to them if they had agreed to the treaty. That's what they had arrived at that location to seek, wasn't it?

MT: They were starving, indeed, which is you know somewhat unbelievable that that actually happened, but it did happen. And so yeah they were getting restless, they wanted to negotiate and get the rations. You know, things just kind of went sideways. And they got attacked here eventually. Colonel Lauder took it into his own hands I should say to attack our people. Our people survived. They won that battle. And Chief Poundmaker stopped the warriors from creating more bloodshed and casualties and deaths by stopping the warriors from attacking Colonel Lauder, who was retreating and in real big trouble.

CO: Chief Poundmaker though was labeled a traitor. What happened to him?

MT: Well, he got charged for treason-felony, and he was incarcerated. He got released early. Apparently, he fell ill while he was in prison. Shortly after he came home, they say he walked home to his homeland here on Poundmaker’s Reserve — his reserve. And then shortly after that, he traveled to Blackfoot Crossing, the homeland of his adopted father, Chief Crowfoot, to visit him. And that's where he ended up dying.

CO: The story of Chief poundmaker is one of a man of great promise. Many people believe he would have been a very significant figure in history had he not died. What what's the significance of what happened to chief Poundmaker?

MT: From our perspective, he was a great visionary. He was an incredible orator. He was a diplomat and a peacemaker. He'd be like equivalent to the Dali Lama. The values he represented are values that Canadians today purport to represent to the international world. And you know at the end of the day, Chief Poundmaker was painted as a traitor, as an enemy of the Crown. And that is what I read growing up as a kid in the history books. As I grew older, as a young adult, I started realizing that wait a minute that is not what he was. And thanks to the teachings of our elders, and the oral history that we’ve maintained, they were able to educate us as to who Poundmaker really was, and what actually happened that was not reported by a very biased journalism network back in the 1880’s.

CO: And now do you believe that chief Poundmaker will become a name, and this will become a story that not just people in the Cree Nation know, but people in Canada know?

MT: I think Poundmaker will go down in history. He should be recognized as a national leader, similar to the so-called “Founding Fathers of Canada”. I think we've opened the door for other conversations that First Nations leaders need to have about their leaders. Maybe the Matis will have discussions about Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont. I'd like to add that we can only imagine if the Canadians in society that have typically biased opinions about our people. If that treaty had been fulfilled, had the treaty been honoured, had there been no Indian Act, no Indian residential schools, no Sixty’s Scoop — all those things. Had they not happened, we should be the wealthiest and the healthiest people in this country. But, unfortunately, we're not. And this is the work where we as leaders are tasked with the incredible challenge to overcome some of the trauma and policies that have hurt our culture, our community, and our livelihood. And because of the livelihood that was stalled systematically by the colonial government of the day, we're still trying to work our way out of that mess. It's been over 130 years. It's a tremendous task that we are trying to help to rebuild the First Nation — our First Nation. We're just getting started.

CO: Headman Tootoosis, I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

MT: Well, thanks for having me on your program.

CO: Bye-bye.

JD: Milton Tootoosis is a headman with the Poundmaker Cree Nation. We reached him near Cut Knife, Saskatchewan. And here’s a bit of a drum performance that followed the prime minister’s apology today.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: A Cree drum circle]

Media bailout

Guest: Pablo Rodriguez

JD: Who knew that giving away money would be so hard? Yesterday, the Heritage Minister named the groups who'll be part of the advisory panel for the government's 600 million-dollar journalism fund. The idea is to keep those decisions at arm's length, to avoid any possibility of bias. The announcement, however, has been met with criticism. And some of it is coming from journalists whose paycheques may soon depend on the fund. They're worried that some of the groups named to the advisory panel have a political bias — groups like the union Unifor, a union whose leaders have declared themselves as, quote, "the resistance" to the Conservatives in the next election. Pablo Rodriguez is Canada's Heritage Minister. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Minister Rodriguez, I don't know if you had a chance to read Chris Selley at the National Post today, who says that you're putting Unifor on this panel is like putting the fox in charge of the chickens. How do you respond?

PABLO RODRIGUEZ: Well, we chose different organizations that represent journalists and different media across the country. With different regions being represented, both official languages, the ethnic press. We wanted to make sure that it was representative of the industry. And that's the reason why they're all there.

CO: But why Unifor?

PB: It represents thousands of employees from the news sector.

CO: But it also represents a very, very strong bias, doesn't it? Because Unifor has made it quite clear that they call themselves the resistance, they have put out publicity, I'm sure you've seen there their publicity. “The resistance”, “Welcome to Andrew Scheer’s worst nightmare”. If you want to have a panel that appears to be unbiased, how does that help you?

PR: This this is Andrew Scheer’s opinion.

CO: Oh, excuse me! No, no, this is not Andrew Scheer’s opinion. I'm looking at a picture — this is the Unifor Canada's picture — it's on publicity. The union, the resistance, welcome to Andrew Scheer’s worst nightmare.

PR: We’re talking here about professionals, which is the case of all the groups that are on this list. And the reason why we wanted to intervene is because professional journalism is one of the pillars of democracy. And the Conservatives may think that well, you know what? We shouldn't do anything and let them all die. On the contrary, we're saying no, we have to be there to support them with one clear principle: to respect the freedom and independence of the press.

CO: That's not the issue here. The issue is you said you were going to put together a panel — advisory panel — to decide who is going to get the funds — 600-million dollars’ worth of support to the media in this country. And that you would have an unbiased and an independent panel.

PR: Yes, which is the case.

CO: But you have Unifor.

PR: Which is the case. I mean Mr. Scheer may think otherwise. He may think that we don't have to do anything, but it's not the case. We disagree with him.

CO: Mr. Rodriguez, have you not seen the publicity that Unifor is putting out? They’re calling themselves the resistance, and saying welcome to Andrew Scheer’s worst nightmare. Have you not seen that?

PR: I know what you're talking about, but this is saying what the Conservatives are saying that journalists can be bought. And we totally disagree with that perception. What the Conservatives are saying that Unifor or any journalists can be bought by this program, which is not the case. And I think it's an insult to to professional journalism that build their career on integrity, on independence, and on professionalism.

CO: We're talking about the people on the panel. We’re not talking about the journalists who might be benefiting from these funds. We saw that Unifor was quite partisan during the 2015 election campaign — that they put attack ads against Stephen Harper's Conservatives, which surely helped you get elected. So again, we're back to this problem of an appearance of bias. That if you were giving this position to Unifor — to the union — to decide who is going to get this funding when it's an organisation that has clearly come out going against your political enemies. That's a problem, isn't it?

PR: This is repeating what Andrew Scheer is saying. And again, I have to disagree with you. Because if you look at the role the associations are playing, the role of journalists are playing, they're there to ask the tough questions — just exactly that what you're doing. And also, this proves my point is that we need that type of journalism of tough questions. And maybe the Conservatives don't want to hear those questions, but I think they’re absolutely necessary in our democracy. So that's why the panel is in place. That's why we're moving forward.

CO: But you've asked these this panel to help decide who is a proper journalist, and what's a proper news outlet, and who is worthy of these funds. And you've put on the panel that gets to decide that an organization that has a very, very strong, very partisan political statement.

PR: But you keep repeating the same thing.

CO: Because I'm not getting a very good answer from you.

PR: But I am answering your question. And I'm saying that it's a panel with different people there from different sides of the industry all representing professional journalists. So it's saying that oaky, we're putting people there that will cheat. And because of that, the government will be able to buy journalists, which in my case it's an insult to journalists.

CO: I guess what I'm trying to get to is that you want people to trust this fund. And Canadians want journalism they can trust. They want to believe that it's unbiased. But the critics of your fund have always raised the alarm about any possible bias. That's why you wanted to have an independent panel. But haven't you just walked into that trap?

PR: No. These panels represent people from all sides of industry. It represents workers, print journalists, it represents the owners, represents francophones, Anglophones, different regions, the ethnic media. It represents everybody. That's why it's important that they are there and they discuss among themselves. They make the decision. They appoint neutral people that will manage a program that is absolutely necessary for professional and independent and fair journalism.

CO: And you don't think that there is a bias here, or a perception of bias if you have as one of your panel members, and I know I'm asking you this once again. But I apologize for that, but I still haven't got a clear answer. Do you not think that there’s a problem with bias difference.

PR: I did answer your question…

[crosstalk]

CO: You don't think that there's any bias on the part of Unifor? Unifor doesn't have a political agenda?

PR: No, you're saying that all…

[crosstalk]

CO: Does Unifor have a political agenda, sir?

PR: You’re saying that the journalists they represent have their own agenda.

CO: No, no, no, I'm not saying that. I'm sorry sir, I'm not. The panel you put together has Unifor as one of its members. And the question is that an organization that is clearly partisan, and anti-conservative — they’ve made that very clear — we're asking if that's an appropriate party to have on this panel?

PR: We're saying that we need people from all walks of life. In this case, that people that represent the workers, the employers, the regions, the official languages, and all of that to be represented there to make sure that this panel represents all of them, and that it takes neutral decisions on professional journalism. Because we need professional journalism in our society. You're there to ask the tough questions. Again, it’s exactly what you're doing. And this is what we need.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Minister Rodriguez, thank you.

PR: Thank you.

JD: Pablo Rodriguez is Canada's Heritage Minister. We reached him in Montreal. In a statement on Twitter, Unifor said, quote, "As Canada's largest media union, we are pleased to be part of the process to choose independent panelists who will do important work to #savelocalnews." Unquote.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Cremated dog

Guest: Larry Spiaggi

JD: "Emma" was a healthy Shih Tzu mix who spent a couple of weeks in an animal shelter in Chesterfield, Virginia, after her owner passed away. Then, instead of being given a new home, Emma was redeemed by the executor of the dead woman's estate — to be euthanized, and sent to a centre for pet cremation in nearby Richmond. Because in her will, Emma's late owner said she wanted her dog to be laid to rest alongside her. And by law, the animal shelter had to oblige. Larry Spiaggi is a funeral home owner, and the President of the Virginia Funeral Directors Association. We reached Mr. Spiaggi in Harrisburg, Virginia.

CO: Larry, what did you think when you heard that Emma — this perfectly healthy Shih Tzu mix had been put down by the wishes of the owner?

LARRY SPIAGGI: It’s pretty upsetting to put a healthy dog down for no good reason. It's difficult to handle.

CO: And so this woman was cremated at your funeral home — the woman who owned Emma, this dog — this Shih Tzu. Did you know that that was her wishes that she wanted the dog to die with her?

LS: No, we didn't put two and two together. We had been contacted about the story just as an expert, as a funeral director about our opinion and stuff. And we never even knew the lady's name, until today. We found out about it this morning. Another reporter gave us the person's name. And when I was talking to my staff, they told me that we had handled that service. We cremated, and we gave the cremated remains to the gentleman handling the estate. And they evidently had this dog being cremated parallel. But we weren't involved in it. We didn't know anything about it.

CO: In some of the other interviews about this, the animal shelter where Emma — the Shih Tzu — was staying since the owner died, they said this was a lovely dog. They could easily have found a home for this dog. This was a young, healthy animal. DO pets have no rights? I mean is there anyone who can step in and say no, you can't kill your dog?

LS: You know from what I've read, according to the law, is that an animal is your personal property. And you can do with it as you choose to. I know that there's talk of trying to change that. But you know that's going to have to be done legislatively.

CO: Have you had the same experience? Has anyone ever asked you to have their healthy, living dogs put down and buried with the owners?

LS: We have had that in the past. About 20-plus years ago, I had a lady that was a friend of mine, that had preplanned her funeral. And she told me that that's what she was going to do. And she lived several years after we had made those arrangements. And I would see her on occasion, and we would talk about it. I would ask her if she's changed her mind. And she hadn’t. And I would always ask how the dog was doing because, honestly, I was hoping that the dog would pass away from natural causes before anything would happen to her. But when she did pass away, you know we were involved in going to the house to get her. And I met the dog at that time. And this was a little rat terrier about you know eight pounds, and he was very, very possessive of her. Even prior to her death, her grandkids nor her children could even touch the dog. So you know as I left the house, I knew they were going to have this dog put down. And I was still in distress about it, but I also thought about what life that dog was going to have without her being there. You know you're in this quandary was that the right thing or was it not. In that situation, you know you just have to deal with what the family decides to do. But I don't think I could ever do it.

CO: Why do you think people do? Why do you think in their wishes before they die, they ask that their pets or dogs be put down and buried with them? If you love your pet, you think you want the pet to be okay. Why do you think you do that?

LS: Well, some people think well, that the dog or the animal won't be taking care of and loved the way I do it. And I think in this lady's instance, she didn't have any family. So the dog was going to have to be you know probably put up for adoption or something. I guess you know she was thinking well, would it ever find a home the same as hers. It is sort of sad. And I will tell you this, my wife and I, we don't have children, so our dogs are our surrogates, you know? They work with us, and they're at home with us, and to the extreme of what we're talking about, we have an endowment. We have a trust set up that will take care of those dogs after we die. So that's an extreme too. I think people would look at me as being sort of a little nuts about that, you know?

CO: I think a lot of people would look at you and understand. So I think this goes two ways. But just finally, I mean now that this woman she's been cremated, and the dog's been committed. Can they actually be buried together?

LS: In the state of Virginia it says no. If it's in a for-profit cemetery, a pet cannot be interred in the same grave space, niche, or moslem crypt as a human being. Now if it's a private cemetery, like we're a pretty rural area, we have a lot of people that have their own cemeteries on their farms. You know they can do what they wish to do. And, of course, our veterans cemeteries, that's absolutely forbidden.

CO: So do you know if this woman was able to be buried with the remains of her pet?

LS: I have no idea. What we were contracted to do was just cremate and return the cremated remains. In the state of Virginia, cremation is final disposition. Like if they take them and bury them, we don't have to document that. If they take them home and set them on a shelf, we don't document that. So it's possibility that they both were scattered together at a favourite park. I have no idea.

CO: Well Larry, I'm sure we're going to hear from people who are listening to this interview and have a lot to say about it. But I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

LS: No problem. Appreciate it.

JD: Larry Spiaggi is a funeral home owner and the President of the Virginia Funeral Directors Association. We reached Mr. Spiaggi in Harrisburg, Virginia.

[Music: “Bigger Than Us” by Michael Rice

UK Eurovision

[Music: Bluegrass swing]

Part two: Sex doll case, Jamie Oliver restaurants

Sex doll case

Guest: Bob Buckingham

JD: Kenneth Harrisson has spent 6 years facing charges of child pornography after purchasing a sex doll online. Today, the St. John's man was acquitted. Mr. Harrisson, who testified during the trial, says he bought the doll to replace his son, who died as an infant — and that he never intended to have sex with it. Bob Buckingham is the lawyer for Kenneth Harrisson. We reached him in St. John's.

CO: Mr. Buckingham, why would someone buy a doll like this, which has been described as a child sex doll, why would they buy it if they didn't intend to have sex with it?

BOB BUCKINGHAM: There are a lot of reasons why people may buy these dolls. First of all, with respect to this particular case, my client did not buy a child sex doll. He bought a sex doll from a website that has a company based in Japan.

CO: But didn't your client testify he actually Googled “sex doll” in order to find this this object to buy?

BB: He did. He did Google “sex doll”. And he also said the reason he went to that site and used that word because he tried other avenues before that to get a doll. He wanted to have companionship. He'd gone through loss of a child when he was young, and had tremendous feelings of loss and loneliness all over the years since then. And he wanted companionship. My guy is a bit of a loner, who doesn't have a great social life, and that's why he wanted some companionship.

CO: Can you describe what this doll looks like?

BB: It's a piece of foam, which has never been assembled. It has a separate head, which has never been put onto it. It's essentially a piece of foam that makeup can be put on it, and it can be dressed up in various and sundry clothing, wigs, and other type of paraphernalia.

CO: What would it look like assembled?

BB: Well, we don't know because there's no evidence that the doll he received was like any of the dolls on the website.

CO: He never put together this piece of foam?

BB: No, he didn't. First of all, he Googled in “sex doll”, and then it came to an image. And he liked that image. He followed that image to a page that brought him to Harumi Designs. He liked that particular doll. And that's what he ordered. And so it was sent to him unassembled. And when he looked at it and gave evidence in court, he said that's not the doll that I ordered.

CO: Okay, so whatever it was that he received, what did he intend to get? Why did he choose this specific doll?

BB: He was looking for an item that he could dress up in clothing, his own clothing that he had, so that it would look like what his son would look like now some 26 years later since after his son died as a child.

CO: So he wanted the doll to represent or tto be a companion to replace a child that died as an infant, who would be now a grown up person if he had survived?

BB: That's correct.

CO: Was the doll male or female?

BB: The doll was female.

CO: Okay, so was that what he ordered?

BB: He ordered a female doll, yes.

CO: Okay, how do you add all this up?

BB: I don't add it up. That's not my job to add it up. He was charged with possessing child pornography. And so he's provided an explanation as to the particular doll he ordered. The judge found that some of the explanation was incredible. And in some ways, it sounds illogical. But you know people respond different ways to the tragedy of loss and how they deal with it. And sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. And this is what we have in this particular case.

CO: So even though Judge Mark Pike said he believed the doll was child pornography, and he said as you pointed out that the explanation was incredible. Why do you think you found your client not guilty?

BB: Oh, because the Crown could not prove that he had knowledge of what the object was. The doll was delivered to him in a controlled delivery by the police. The package was never opened. And he was arrested before the package was opened. And then when it came down to the facts of looking at what was ordered, the fact that the package was not opened, the fact that he said the object that he received was not the object that he ordered, the explanation he gave with respect to how he came to finding the doll, the fact that he ordered that doll in his own name — there was no nothing surreptitious about it. And then he said he did not order a child doll, and the judge said the Crown hadn't proven that he had knowledge that it was child pornography.

CO: Okay, So the doll that he thought he was getting would look like an adult, not look like a child?

BB: He ordered an adult doll.

CO: But a child doll arrived, we think?

BB: Well, that's what Canada Border Services is saying. That's what the police here are saying. That's what the Crown prosecuted. And that's what the judge found. Unfortunately for the general public, because the judge has said it's child pornography, no one's ever going to see it. Frankly, I think it would have a hard time proving that it was child pornography. But that's what the judge found.

CO: This has been going on for six years. So what effect has this had on your client?

BB: It's had a devastating effect. He's had to live with this. His life has been under an international public microscope for the last six years. He's found it very stressful. He's found it very difficult. And you know it's been rough on him. It's incredible that he's gotten through this without having a major breakdown.

CO: What's he going to do now that he's been acquitted?

BB: He's going to get a job in his trade, and hopefully continue on with his life. He’s worked throughout the period of time that he has been under this scrutiny. And that's taken effect on him as well. He's just going to get on get on with his life, and try to put this behind him. You know the stress, the strain, how would you feel if every time you turned around, there's somebody looking at you, and your picture is in the paper, and there was a there was a nefarious inference that you were a pedophile? He’s had to shoulder this. It's just been awful what has happened because of this.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Mr. Buckingham, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

BB: Thanks for calling, and thanks for your interest.

JD: Bob Buckingham is the lawyer for Kenneth Harrisson, who was acquitted of charges of child pornography today, after purchasing a sex doll online. We reached Mr. Buckingham in St. John's.

[Music: Electronic chirps]

Mike Colle coffee cups

JD: Oh, those millenials. Always on the go. They don't even sit down for coffee anymore. You see them on the sidewalk, walking and holding their coffee cups — even sipping from those cups — all at the same time. It is dizzying, and frankly, it is deplorable. And Toronto city councillor Mike Colle agrees. He wants his city to end the epidemic of, quote, "these people wandering the streets with these coffee cups." Unquote. In fact, he wants Toronto's young people to do as the Romans do. Here's Councillor Colle making his pitch at an Infrastructure and Environment Committee meeting today, at Toronto City Hall.

SOUNDCLIP

MIKE COLLE: One of my things is that I think we've got a break people of this habit of walking up and down our streets with coffee cups. You know I think it's really an epidemic of these people wandering our streets with these coffee cups. Can we get them… encourage them to use the Italian model, whereby you cannot get a takeaway plastic cup or whatever it is. You drink your coffee where you buy your coffee. You stand up, you have your coffee, you chat with people, then you go hands free outside on the street without that in your hand. You don't see Italians walking around with plastic cups in Toronto or anywhere. They drink their coffee at home. They drink it at the bar — coffee bar. Can we do maybe an educational program for millennials basically who walk up and down our streets littering with these coffee cups?

JD: Toronto city councillor Mike Colle, complaining about millenials and their coffee cups today at a committee meeting.

[Music: Classic rock]

Gilda Radner correction

JD: Mistakes are bound to happen on live TV. It's likely that no one knows that better than the cast and crew of Saturday Night Live — a show we talked about here on As It Happens earlier this week:

SOUNDCLIP

ANNOUCNER: Live from New York City, It's Saturday Night Live. Yes, live, outrageous, insane, and hip. Saturday Night is the first new variety show designed for the frozen dinner generation.

JD: Okay, so those with sharp ears — certainly sharper that ours — like our CBC colleague Ron McKeen noted that was the voice of, as we said on Monday, our own Alan Maitland. But that was indeed the voice of former CBC host Russ Germain. I'd like to use the fact that we go live to air as an excuse for that flub. That’s thin. That’s flimsy. It was a mistake we should have caught. We'd also like to think that perhaps the SNL star we paid tribute to in that piece, Gilda Radner, would forgive the error. Because in her ‘77 interview with Barbara Frum, she was charming and gracious. And, if you'd like to hear that conversation — including the part where Barbara claims Ms. Radner as a Canadian — we've put it up on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih. See how smooth that was?

[Music: Ambient]

Jamie Oliver restaurants

Guest: Jamie Barber

JD: British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is getting roasted this week — after it was announced that his eponymous restaurant group has gone into administration. And his now-former staff are feeling burned. Twenty-two of the 25 restaurants in his stable — many of them part of the Jamie's Italian chain — have closed across the UK, leaving a thousand employees out of work. Mr. Oliver built a multi-million dollar empire, of course, on television shows, cookbooks, and kitchenware. And He had pumped four million pounds of his own cash into the eateries this year. But, sadly, it wasn't enough. Jamie Barber is a fellow British restaurateur, who has offered help to the staff laid off as a result of the closure of Jamie Oliver's restaurants. We reached Mr. Barber in London.

CO: Jamie, how big of a blow is this for the Jamie Oliver food empire?

JAMIE BARBER: Well, in terms of the food empire, I'm not sure I know the answer to that. But in terms of the industry, it's I think it's a sad day. I think it's a sad day for the staff and for the suppliers and for the industry in general. Because I think Jamie’s Italian was a great trailblazer. And I think they really upped the standard of the way that people dine in the UK. And yeah, I think it's a great pity.

CO: But what do you think went wrong?

JB: The dining market in the UK has been under stress now for the last two years or so. And it's a bit of a perfect storm as to what's happening here. Because there's been a lot of competition, at the same time, there's been some consumer weakness — consumer spending weakness after Brexit. So sales generally in the whole sector have come down. And at the same time, we've had some really big cost pressures that have come through, which means that it's just been a lot more expensive to operate these restaurants than it had been previously. And I think Jamie's wasn't the first, and isn’t gonna be the last, of the casualties that we've seen over the last couple of years.

CO: Do you think it had anything to do with the quality of his food?

JB: I don't think so actually because I think that Jamie’s as a brand did a lot to improve and up to the standards of food in the casual dining sector in the UK. There was a lot of authentic cooking. They used to make pasta from scratch. And I think the standard of the food for the price point was extremely high. However, they used a lot of great ingredients. They were very, very hot on animal welfare. And those kinds of things come at a cost.

CO: But they had some… well, he had some pretty crushing reviews, didn't he? I’m just thinking of the one Marina O’Loughlin in the Sunday Times just last year. And I'll just read a piece of this. Tagliatelle with truffles is appalling. A honking, salty, swamp of a sauce. Brown and dusty with nutmeg — tiny chunks, not shavings of tasteless black truffle lurk around like mousse poos in soup. Ouch! I mean that is not nice, is it?

JB: It’s not nice, but if you wind the clock back, you know Jamie started on the scene ten years ago. And I think even ten years ago if we in the UK were talking about that an average consumer in the UK would go out on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday night and be having fresh-made pasta with black truffle and shaved nutmeg, these are kind of ingredients that these didn’t really exist. You know there was a time in the UK where the UK was like a joke when it came to dining. And now people are making comments about whether or not the truffle or the nutmeg on the pasta was of good enough quality.

CO: [laughs] It’s true.

JB: And it is people like Jamie that have upped that standard that we all now take for granted.

CO: But people were saying that many nights during the week that the Oliver restaurants didn't have that many clients. Do you think that there was just too much choice? Or people weren't going out as much or what?

JB: I think there's certainly a lot more choice than they used to be. I think that midweek for the whole of the sector has been more difficult because I think it's a lot easier now with I don't know if it's the same in Canada, but certainly in the UK, there's a lot of options to have food delivered to your home. So I think you know that the delivered area — that delivered sales area — has had a big chunk out of the midweek dining choice.

CO: You also mentioned how Jamie Oliver has had… well, he's been trying to have an impact on how people eat and food choices — especially junk food and kids. So did we actually have the impact that he was trying to have?

JB: Listen, I think it's absolutely certain that he has because people are still talking about it. You know 10 years ago, 15 years ago, people were not talking about the things that Jamie was talking about. People were not talking about the sugar content of fizzy drinks. They weren't talking about animal welfare. They weren't talking about plastic straws. And all of these causes or issues are things that Jamie has managed to use his profile to bring to public attention. I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for really being able to fight the causes that other people haven't had the profile to fight.

CO: These restaurants — all the ones that are in trouble now because he’s gone into administration as you call it in the UK — but his operations elsewhere — including in Canada — are still functioning. So do you think he can come back from this?

JB: Listen, he's a very resourceful guy. I don't know whether the international restaurants are flourishing. I hope they are. But I think that he's always still able to inject his flair and skill to make those restaurants interesting and innovative. Because certainly in the UK, I think you need to innovate twice as often and twice as hard.

CO: And just finally, the employees, 1,000 people out of work. And I understand you've offered to help them. What are you able to do?

JB: Jamie's had a large number of very well-trained staff both in terms of the kitchens and in terms of the front of house. We've got a small group of restaurants in the UK — we have 15 restaurants. But we're always on the lookout for great, talented individuals. And we have been approached by people, and we've tried to house them as easily as we can. But there’s certainly always an appetite for talent.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Jamie, thank you.

JB: That's a great pleasure.

CO: Goodnight.

JD: Jamie Barber is a British restaurateur and CEO. We reached him in London.

[Music: Plucked guitar]

“Bittersweet Symphony’

JD: I think it's fair to say that the relationship between the Rolling Stones and the Verve has, for years, been a tad bit bitter. But now, it's downright sweet. The Verve's Richard Ashcroft has announced that the bands have finally settled their longrunning copyright dispute over the Verve's '90s mega-hit "Bittersweet Symphony." At issue was, of course, the song's signature string riff, which was sampled from an orchestral recording of "The Last Time" by the Stones. Now, when Mr. Ashcroft lost a lawsuit over the sample, he had to give up his royalties, and share his songwriting credit with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. At the time he said, quote, "This is the best song Jagger and Richards have written in 20 years." Unquote. Well now that the duo has granted him all future royalties, he's singing a different tune. In a statement, he said, quote, "This remarkable and life-affirming turn of events was made possible by a kind and magnanimous gesture from Mick and Keith." Unquote. Well, he may not be a million different people from one day to the next. But clearly, he's at least two different ones.

[Music: World music]

Part three: Indian election, Indigenous med students

Hidden cameras

JD: Home is supposed to a private place where one can feel safe. But for a Montreal woman, who the CBC is only identifying as "Melissa", that illusion was shattered in December. She discovered cameras hidden all over her house that she lived in with her children and her then-boyfriend of nearly a decade. And they were recording her every move. Her ex-boyfriend is now awaiting trial on charges of voyeurism, possession of child pornography, and production of child pornography. And Melissa says she and her children should be eligible for financial help from the province. But that the crimes committed against them don't make the list. Here she is telling her story to CBC reporter Sarah Leavitt.

SOUNDCLIP

MELISSA: I got called at work by my son, who was panicked. And he wouldn't tell me what was wrong. And he asked me to go to his girlfriend's house, so he could tell me there. And when I got there, they showed me videos that had been taken in our bathroom of everything — just people brushing their teeth, using the toilet, showering. So that was very surprising. And since there was a minor involved, and because I really didn't know what you do with this, we went to the police station. And later that night, they arrested him.

SARAH LEAVITT: How did your son say he found out about this?

M: What happened is it was his girlfriend; she was trying to plug in a straightener, and there was a charger plugged in in the bathroom. And when she unplugged it, it made a sound. And when she looked at it, she noticed that there was a space in the back. And she looked, and there was an SD card. And then I found another charger in the kitchen with a hidden camera. And then the next morning, when I woke up, I realized there might still be cameras in the house. And I was very paranoid. And so I looked through our office, through the bureau, and I found nine other devices.

SL: And do you mind if I ask if you know what was on those recordings? Was there anything you know obviously in the bathroom and stuff, but that it was personal?

M: It was personal. But then we also found a USB key that had edited videos on it that were labeled — either they were of me or of my daughter. And they were videos of us dressing or undressing, so naked in some form, and also of us having sex together. And the videos had been recorded since 2010. For many weeks, it was very difficult for me to function at all. Not sleeping, not eating, just not functioning. I really it just felt kind of like the end of the world. And then on top of it, I felt extremely paranoid. I felt afraid. I felt that I didn't know who this person was. I felt I had been lied to — that my family had been used.

JD: That was Melissa — whose identity is covered by a publication ban — speaking with CBC Montreal.

[Music: Ambient]

Indian election

Guest: Jaiveer Shergill

JD: It’s another five years of power for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Much rejoicing]

JD: That’s the sound of people celebrating outside the BJP headquarters in Delhi earlier today. The party won a landslide victory today, giving Prime Minister Modi a historic majority for the second time in a row. It's a crushing defeat to the once-powerful Indian National Congress Party, led by the Gandhis — a political dynasty. Jaiveer Shergill is the spokesperson for the Indian National Congress party. We reached him in Delhi.

CO: Mr. Shergill, just how devastating is this result for the Indian National Congress Party?

JAVIEER SHERGILL: Extremely devastating. Indian National Congress was expecting a glorious summer. But instead, we have faced a heat stroke in which we were not expecting from the electorate. Congress went in with a positive narrative of development on the issues of farmer unemployment, but that campaign faded before the campaign of hyper nationalism. So we need to go on the drawing board.

CO: But is it just hyper nationalism? I know that this is a belief that it's the jingoism — the nationalism — that we've heard during this campaign that was entirely the reason. But is it entirely the reason? I mean Mr. Modi is very, very popular with people in India, isn't he?

JS: Indeed. The numbers speak for themselves. So the larger question, which the Indian democracy is, that is India moving towards a presidential system of electioneering? Traditionally, India has always voted on substantive issues. But this election, it appears to have voted on a personality. But their decision is supreme, and we accept that decision.

CO: You saw your own leader, Rahul Gandhi, not just defeated in his seat, but a seat that the party and his family have held for so long. So what does that tell you?

JS: You know that that defeat, of course, is a shocking defeat. Having said that, we won also three major states — what we call in India that Hindi Heartland, which represents 14 per cent of the Indian population just three months back under the leadership of Mr. Rahul Gandhi. But he has a lot of lessons to be learned from this. Mr. Rahul Gandhi has accepted that. Why we lost to Modi? What repercussions it has across India? Even the factor that why our campaign is our approach not in sync with the India under Mr. Narendra Modi is a question we need to ask ourselves?

CO: And yet, we've seen what happened since Mr. Modi won the last election. That the promises that he had of reforms, of helping the poor, of developing all kinds of programs for the most part haven't materialized. And that wasn't lost on people. People know that a lot of what BJP promised didn't materialize. And that didn't matter to them. They look to Mr. Modi as somebody who is a strong man. Isn't that essentially what it is? They see him as somebody who can deliver. And they couldn't see your party and Mr. Gandhi as someone who would deliver.

JS: Indeed, that is one of the aspects or the sections we need to dissect. One thing, yes, Congress went we the youth and the farm. We went with the politics of them. And Mr Modi was solely selling the issue of Pakistan. So we need to have a real-time assessment that is the current India more concerned about national security and nationalism issue rather than real governance substantive issues?

CO: And we saw that, didn't we, with this attack — the airstrike on Pakistan after the Indian paramilitaries were killed, 40 of them killed. And your party was very critical of the airstrike that didn't seem to achieve anything militarily. But that did seem to appeal to people, didn't it? I mean people want to see this strong response to Pakistan.

JS: One thing I must clarify as a national spokesperson of the party. The Indian National Congress was they were critical of the strike on Pakistan. I think that response was much needed. Indian National Congress was only critical of the politicization of the Indian army by the ruling government. Of using the strikes as a flex tool to attract votes. That was the aspect we were critical of. Number two, I belong to Punjab — Punjab being the border state, has had a very good result today. Out of 13 seats, we have won eight seats, if my information is right. And that issue did not resonate there. But so it's a very subjective issue. That's what we need to do though some areas it had impact, some areas it did not have that impact. And so that exercise we will still do an in-depth analysis.

CO: What does BJP’s success in this election — this landslide success — say about Hindi nationalism?

JS: This voting pattern was less on any religious issue. But this voting pattern was more attracted to Mr. Modi being the message and the messenger itself. And Congress will still continue to safeguard the democracy, still continue to expose BJP’s communal politics. Still continue to question on the issues of corruption. And still make an appeal to the voter going by the Supreme Court that religion and politics cannot be mixed as it will be toxic for any democracy.

CO: You mentioned how Congress Party needs to now examine itself and make some changes. The analysis is that the Congress party doesn't need some tweaking. That it's possible that Congress party has to completely reinvent itself. And others who are saying that Congress Party is no longer relevant — it's lost its usefulness. What do you say to that?

JS: Yes, you're right. Congress Party does not need a band-aid or a first-aid approach. We need a in depth surgery. Secondly, you know I know people take the jibe that Congress is finished. Congress was not finished. We still won three states three months back, when we were written off. Congress is a 134-year-old party. I don't want to sound complacent or make it business as usual that it’s a wheel of fortune which will rotate and Congress will get its chance. No. We need a drastic surgery to be healthy again. And align ourselves like aircraft airlines according to the runway. We need to align ourselves according to the aspirations of people and have a safe landing.

CO: Mr. Shergill, I really appreciate you speaking with us tonight. Thank you.

JS: Appreciate it. Thanks.

JD: Jaiveer Shergill is the spokesperson for the Indian National Congress Party. We reached him in Delhi.

[Music: Jazz]

FOA: China CFCs

JD: Since last year, scientists have been trying to solve a mystery: why the presence of an ozone-destroying chemical that has been banned around the world is on the rise. CFC-11 is one of the chemicals that was banned by the Montreal Protocol, an agreement signed by 148 countries in 1987. And it was going well, which is why scientists were confused by a sudden spike. Well, now it appears they've solved the mystery — or at least part of it. A new study published in Nature has found that most of the CFC-11 is being produced in eastern China — one of the countries that signed onto the Montreal Protocol. Last May, Carol spoke to one of the scientists involved in the study, Stephen Montzka from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Here's part of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

STEPHEN MONTZKA: CFC-11 exists in large quantities around the world. We can't imagine that that's causing all of what we've seen. So, instead, maybe there's some production that's happening, but why and how? We're not sure. I mean there are tons of chemicals produced from the fluoridation and chlorination of methane worldwide — including in East Asia. And you could produce some CFC-11 from that process. It's really hard to imagine that somebody is producing CFC-11 for use in foams today since we thought everybody had phased out that use years ago. Why would somebody want to try and start or go back to using a chemical that they had phased out years ago?

CO: So I'm old enough to remember the Montreal Protocol [laughs], and what an accomplishment that was when the world decided to act together, and banned these CFCs. And so how much changed? What did people do for this this this chemical after they were compelled to ban it?

SM: Well, there's been substitutes in place for a number of years. And so, presumably, those substitutes have been used. The concentration of ozone depleting gases continues to decrease in the atmosphere. It's just decreasing a little less rapidly than we would hope.

CO: We know that the reason why these had to be banned was because of the destruction of the ozone layer. What are the implications for the ozone layer? Is it going to continue to deplete it if you can't slow this down?

SM: I think we've caught this quite early — before it's influenced ozone substantially. The problem would be if it were to continue into the future then we might be dealing with more substantial ozone depletion. We estimate that if these emissions were to be sustained in the future that maybe the ozone recovery would be delayed by approximately a decade.

JD: Stephen Montzka is a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He was speaking to Carol in 2018 about a mysterious rise in a banned chemical that destroys the ozone layer. Mr. Montza contributed to a new study that did trace the production of that chemical to China.

[Music: Ambient]

Ches Crosbie

JD: Election night didn't go the way Ches Crosbie had hoped. And you could kind of hear it. Newfoundland and Labrador's Progressive Conservative leader lost the vote last Thursday. That much was clear. But the party with the most votes — Dwight Ball's Liberals — came up one seat short of a majority, making it unclear how the party would govern. So, instead of acknowledging he'd been beaten, Mr. Crosbie stood before his supporters and said this:

SOUNDCLIP

CHES CROSBIE: We now have a situation of constitutional instability. Where will this end up? It will not end up with Dwight Ball as premier of Newfoundland and one year from now.

[Sound: Applause]

CC: The Ball Liberals are on their way out. The tide is receding. And I am not conceding victory to the Liberals. They will have to struggle for the next months and years to hang on to power.

[Sound: Applause]

JD: Mr. Crosbie took a lot of heat for that speech. But rather than backing down in front of the cameras, he cancelled a planned press conference for the next day. This morning, six days later, he held his first post-election media appearance. Here's part of what he had to say to reporters.

SOUNDCLIP

CC: It was unfortunate. I should have been more gracious. And I should have thanked all of our volunteers, our candidates elected and those who were not elected, and all the people who put their greater efforts into making the campaign as successful as it was. And I should have extended my congratulations to Mr. Ball. I sought to correct that in a statement a day later, and also by calling Mr. Ball at home, and offer my congratulations.

REPORTER: But when you reflected on, forgive me for my bluntness, your rudeness on election night, you're almost a sore leader. Why did it take so long? I mean you know how it all looked. I mean if you reflected upon this, why wouldn't you do this on Monday so we can actually start talking about your new team instead of about your behaviour?

CC: Well, Anthony, I issued a statement the following day. I also communicated with Mr. Ball. I spoke with Alison Coffin, the leader of the NDP Party. There are you know almost 40 candidates to talk to by telephone. There were logistics involved in getting the caucus together today, so all that took that kind of time.

REPORTER: So why did you cancel that press conference on Friday?

CC: I think in the you know the heat and the passion of the moment of the election day, which was Thursday, it was better to have a cooling off period. And we've had that now.

REPOTEER: You told people on Thursday night that you were not conceding to Mr. Ball. Is that what you're doing now?

CC: Well, Anthony, you know technicaly, legally, constitutionally, for Mr. Ball to have a government, he needs to meet the legislature within a reasonably short period of time, and face a vote of confidence.

REPOTER: Yeah, I'm asking about Chess Crosbie and conceding.

CC: And I’m giving you the answer to your question.

REPOTER: No, you're not.

CC: He has not yet done that. And it remains to see to be seen whether he's going to be able to do that.

JD: Ches Crosbie, the Progressive Conservative leader of Newfoundland and Labrador, speaking to the media earlier today.

[Music: Horns]

Indigenous med students

Guest: Marcia Anderson

JD: From the ER to the doctor's office, First Nations, Metis, and Inuit patients in this country experience second-class healthcare, far too often. Today, Canada's medical schools have announced a list of steps to help bridge those gaps. Among the 10 pledges made by the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada — the development of policies to identify and address anti-Indigenous racism — and a promise to admit a school-specific minimum number of indigenous students each year. Marcia Anderson is a Cree-Anishnaabe doctor, and the chair of the Association's Indigenous Health Network. We reached her in Winnipeg.

CO: Doctor Anderson, what does it mean that Canada's 17 medical schools have made this commitment to Indigenous health?

MARCIA ANDERSON: Well, it is incredibly significant. These 10 action statements were developed by a group of leading Indigenous medical educators from across the country. And are a robust framework that will well position the medical schools to contribute to closing the gaps in Indigenous health in this country.

CO: When you talk about the gaps, and before we get into what's being accepted, I also want to ask you about how Indigenous people are in general treated in the health care system in Canada. And I think you have an example of what happened to your own father at one point.

MA: Mm hm. So probably most people would have heard stories of experiences of racism, which can be things from blatant or overt racism to misdiagnosis. Like people who are confused for being intoxicated when they're actually having strokes. Most people would be familiar with the case of Brian Sinclair. In my own family, when I was second-year medical resident, my dad had a heart attack. And he was 49 at the time. He's a visibly First Nations man. And he actually drove himself to the emergency room and had a cardiac arrest. And he was resuscitated. When I got there, he was not sedated — even though he was critically ill. And when I asked the emergency room physician why he wasn't sedated? The emergency room physician looked at me and said we didn't know what he was on.

CO: Oh my gosh!

MA: Yeah, their working diagnosis was that he was intoxicated. My dad doesn't drink. Even if he did drink, there was actually no contraindication to him being sedated and receiving the highest standard of medical care. In fact, he was having a massive heart attack that was not being actively of quickly managed because of this stereotyped and racist assumption.

CO: You mentioned Brian Sinclair, and you're in Winnipeg, and this is the story of a man who was in the emergency room waiting area, left there for hours and hours and hours, until they found that he had died while waiting to get care.

MA: Yes. And in that case too there were stereotypes that led to him being ignored while in the waiting room — and so both of these are examples where racism played a part. And part of the link I would make to the calls to action are the recommendations that we have had accepted is that as a medical student, as a medical resident, as a learner who witnesses this type of racism, who experiences this type of racism in our families and ourselves, it's very hard for us to deal with all of the stress that other medical students deal with — and respond to or recover from these types of traumas.

CO: What were your own experiences with racism as a medical student, and working toward being a doctor?

MA: mm hmm. Well, in addition to what happened with my father, I would say there were daily or almost daily examples of what one might call a racial micro aggressions. There was overt racism like being told I didn't belong here, or I wasn't just qualified, or I got in the easy way. At one point when I was a medical student on my obstetrics rotation, a senior obstetrics resident said that the best thing for Canada would be if Native people stopped reproducing.

CO: Good heavens!

MA: When I moved to Saskatoon to complete my residency, I was asked if I had to jump out of the gang the Indian Posse in order to move there by an attending physician. So it was repeated and regular and serious.

CO: What effect did that have on you to be hit with that every day?

MA: So when I was more junior, it definitely felt like I had to just put my head down and take it. As I progressed through my training, was more of a senior resident, had more supports of other Indigenous students or physicians around me, then I would start to stick up for myself more. I would not tolerate thought. I would complain and require behaviours to be addressed. But that comes at a risk. You risk being known as a troublemaker. It's difficult to go through those processes. It adds on a lot of extra stress and sleepless nights on top of your already busy call and study scheduling. So it really impacted my personal health. And I know for the learners going through today that they face a lot of the same challenges, and it impacts their health as well.

CO: The racism you're describing is really deep though, isn't it? These are very deep prejudices. So how does this joint committee to action on Indigenous health. What is it actually going to do to address that racism?

MA: So in the early years of medical school, when it's predominantly in the classroom environment, a lot of the racism that students experiences from their classmates. And so one of the commitments to action is to actually assess some baseline knowledge of anti-racism or Indigenous studies or cultural safety or related concepts for every student who applies to medical school. We do talk about developing robust policies and procedures within the medical schools with transparent reporting, so that there is a broad organizational cultural shift to address and to interrupt the pervasive anti-Indigenous racism. We talk about robust faculty development, so that our faculty members and attending physicians are clear on what is expected from them in creating a safe learning environment for Indigenous learners. So when you look at the entire suite of recommendations, it really will shift the presence of Indigenous people at a faculty and throughout positions of power within the schools of medicine to influence right from the top, through to the learners and recruiting an increased number of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit learners.

CO: Okay, now you've said a lot there. And it’s impossible to unpack the whole package there. But you've described the kind of prejudice that you and your family has encountered. And you sound optimistic though. Do you feel that this is really going to make a difference?

MA: I feel like we are in the middle of a generational shift. Where we are today is reaching critical masses of Indigenous physicians, academics, other health professionals who are working with us. We've worked hard on building relationships with our non-Indigenous allies. And we know more than we ever have before. We have been strategic in understanding how to leverage other movements that bring in accountability measures to increase the quality of healthcare. So yeah, I am optimistic, and I am looking forward to the 25 years or so of my career to continue contributing to this.

CO: That's really good to hear. Dr. Anderson, thank you.

MA: Thank you.

JD: Dr. Marcia Anderson is the chair of the Indigenous Health Network with the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. We reached Dr. Anderson in Winnipeg.

[Music: instrumental]

New kilo

JD: In an underground vault in Paris, you'll find "Le Grand K". It's what was known as the "International Prototype Kilogram", or IPK. The international standard for the kilogram. But as of this past Monday, its career is over. And if you could get into that vault, and if that IPK could talk, it would tell you its story. And here is what it would say. In a French accent. Which I'm not going to do. "Listen, mon ami," Le Grand K would say. "Back in the day, I was huge. Not literally. Literally, I've always been exactly the same size. But I mean: I was the king. "I'm made out of a platinum alloy. People say I'm about the size of a golf ball -- but I say a golf ball is about the size of me! Ha ha! I don't know what a golf ball is. I live underground. It sounds boring though. "Since 1889, I've been in this subterranean vault in the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris. You wanted to know what a kilogram was, you had to check with me. Or one of the six copies of me used around the world. Inferior copies. "Now, yes, I lost a little weight over the years. About 50 micrograms — just the weight of one of your human eyelashes. But you guys got all freaked out about it. You said you needed a universal value that wouldn't change. "So now you've gone and done it. After 130 years, you've based the mass of a kilo, not on me, but on a fundamental constant: the Planck Constant, which is...well, I don't know, something to do with quantum mechanics. I live in a vault, I don't get this stuff. "Point is: you don't need me anymore. It's just 'see you later, Le Grand K'. So I guess I'll have some free time now to do my favourite things: sit around listening to, and being, heavy metal. But I have to say: I think you're overlooking my mass appeal -- and succumbing to mass hysteria."

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 23 episode transcript

More Stories Like This