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 28, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight...

CO: Big talk on big tech. In Ottawa, international politicians have gathered to grill tech giants -- but one NDP Member of Parliament says it's time to stop asking questions and start taking action against surveillance capitalism.

JD: What not to expect when you don't expect to be expecting. An Ontario couple sues a Toronto hospital because she says she didn't get the tubal ligation she wanted, and then she got pregnant.

CO: Sometimes riding a bike isn't as easy as riding a bike. The founder of a charity ride is back behind the handlebars again -- one year after a deadly collision killed one of his fellow riders.

JD: The case for the prosecutions. Sweden's interior minister says it's time for a new international criminal court to try the war crimes committed in the name of ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

CO: Oil in the family. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's climate change plan involves 20 years of embracing Canadian oil, and rejecting foreign imports -- and the Conservatives are piping up in support.

JD: And going down the tubes. Elon Musk reveals that his long-awaited 'Hyperloop' is an amazing underground tube cars go through which looks sort of exactly like a tunnel. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that guesses they wanted a high-tech pipe with all the bells and whistles -- and just got the shaft.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Cyclists ride in their friend's memory 1 year after deadly charity bikeathon

Data Privacy

Guest: Charlie Angus

JD: Boy! There's not as much "poking" on Facebook as there used to be. But today in Ottawa, there was a lot of poking at it. CEO Mark Zuckerberg blew off a subpoena to appear before an international committee of lawmakers who are studying ways to protect the public from tech giants. Instead, Facebook's Public Policy Director Neil Potts was there -- taking questions from an increasingly frustrated Damian Collins. The U.K. Conservative Member of Parliament wanted to know why Facebook is still sharing a doctored video that falsely portrays U.S. Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi as being somehow impaired -- a video that others have taken down. Here's some of their back and forth.

SOUNDCLIP

NEIL POTTS: Sir I understand your concerns but I think that your questions are the right ones and shows the complexity of this issue and also shows perhaps that the approach that we're taking is working. You don't hear people...

DAMIAN COLLINS: Sorry but in all respect -- what it shows is...it shows the simplicity of these issues. The simplicity that another company has followed -- recognizing the same issues -- the simple action to say, 'this is clearly fake, it's clearly distorted, it is there to undermine public seniors -- public figures -- and it just shouldn't have a place on the platform, it shouldn't be part of your community.'

NEIL POTTS: And your opinion is right and I...

JD: That was Facebook's Neil Potts and British Conservative MP Damian Collins at the international grand committee on Big Data, Privacy, and Democracy, today in Ottawa. Mr. Collins was not the only committee member who seemed frustrated by the answers he got from Facebook and its fellow tech giants. Charlie Angus is an NDP Member of Canadian Parliament. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Angus after what you heard today, do you think it's time for Mark Zuckerberg to come and talk to your committee?

CHARLIE ANGUS: I think Facebook is making a very serious mistake. This is a corporate platform that has unprecedented dominance -- in it is the media outlet for many people around the world. It has been accused of being manipulated to upend electoral processes around the world. Serious allegations of mass killings that have resulted. And this is twice now that Mr. Zuckerberg has completely ignored international legislators, and in our case, ignored a summons -- a subpoena -- from the Parliament of Canada which is very very unprecedented. I think it's pushing legislators to take a much harder line with companies like Facebook because of their complete disinterest in the fundamental principles of domestic law and jurisdiction.

CO: What hard line do you think that legislators in Canada should take?

CA: I think the idea of self-regulating and being nice to Facebook and other platforms is not going to cut it anymore. I think we need to be looking at serious obligations. For example the proliferation of hate content, hate speech, on platforms like YouTube and Facebook --we've always had the safe harbor provisions which prevent them from being sued because well they're just the place that it's being posted on. Well when they're refusing to take down false and malicious content, when their algorithms are pushing that content and creating I think a greater breakdown of civic discourse, then they need to be held to a higher level of accountability.

CO: You did hear though from Facebook and Google today. And Facebook says they're open to industry regulation. So what do you make of that?

CA: I think what they would tell our committee is one thing -- what they will tell behind the scenes with their lobbyists to top government officials is completely another. They have no desire to be regulated. They have come to the table with no clear offerings. But I think legislators need to start dealing with this because it's not just the issue of misinformation. What our committee at the international level has really come to see, we're talking about restoring the rights of citizens in a digital realm where every single thing we do is being watched, every place we go is being tracked, our phone messages are using as a you know like a prisoner's electronic bracelet device in this form of surveillance capitalism is having profound impacts on civil discourse and civil society. How do we put the democratic rights of citizens back into the digital realm with these data giants who ignore domestic jurisdiction? That is a huge question I think for 2019 -- for legislators around the world. And clearly Facebook has shown by their disregard of the committee and their disregard of international legislators -- they don't want to be part of that conversation. So I think we're going to have to have that conversation for them.

CO: Doesn't their response though indicate that they know the public is so willing to give up so much of their freedom and to fall into what you call surveillance capitalism in order to have what Facebook and Google are offering them -- that they know that there isn't a great deal of public opposition to this, isn't that part of your problem?

CA: I think the world has been transformed dramatically and certainly some of the international witnesses we have identified 2015-2016 as the weaponization of private information and has really changed the discourse. Three years ago it would've been impossible to imagine international legislators talking about regulating a public space base where people debate. I think citizens around the world certainly the conversation in Canada has moved dramatically in a different direction because we realize that our rights are being systemically undermined and the more we look into it and the more we realize that they pay zilch attention to our privacy rights, it's making people more and more uncomfortable. This is I think the real problem for Facebook and Google is that people have lost that trust. There is no longer that naive 2008-2009 belief of a utopian digital world where these guys are the cool young kids trying new things. They are unprecedented corporate behemoths who are not paying attention to the citizen rights. And citizens I think in Canada are very very aware of that and that's why we're getting so much positive response to these questions that we're asking these giants.

CO: What would you say of the response from the Liberal government? I mean two of your witnesses today said that these companies won't listen until government is willing to start shutting them down. Do you think the Liberal government has the nerve to do that?

CA: Well I think one of the big mistakes the Trudeau government made in 2015 was to think that by really cozying up to the Facebook, Google, Amazon lobby that it would give us a tech advantage -- and we can see that with the deal that they made for Sidewalk Labs in Toronto. I think the Trudeau government is realizing that they backed the wrong horse --that people actually want stronger action. But having these sort of general codes of principles doesn't really protect citizens -- not when the fundamental question is the business model that allows such unprecedented personal surveillance. So what we need is government to recognize it. Simply asking Facebook to sign on to statements of principle, it's not going to protect citizens in 2019. I think a standard model around the world would be the best interests of all citizens and digital tech. But without these companies wanting to play ball with this, you're going to see probably some very strong legislation coming in various jurisdictions.

CO: What's your greatest concern as we head to the election in the fall?

CA: I think what we really learn from the 2016 American election and the Brexit vote is that the weaponization of data by third party mercenaries -- data mercenaries -- to actually micro-target down to individual voters, to play on their fears, to push fears of racism and immigration, can flip votes. And it's not going to be noticed on the national level -- it's going to be noticed 10 votes in this poll, 20 votes in that poll, 100 votes here and there... that can turn an election. And that's the power of the misuse of data and that's the real threat to democratic accountability.

CO: Mr. Angus we'll leave it there. Thank you.

CA: Thank you so much.

JD: Charlie Angus is an NDP MP and a member of an international Big Data committee. We reached Mr. Angus in Ottawa. And tomorrow morning on CBC Radio One "The Current" is going to put questions to Facebook Canada's Head of Public Policy, Kevin Chan.

[Music]

Ride Crash Anniversary

Guest: Gord Townley

JD: Each year, cyclists travel around Lake Ontario for the annual 7 days in May ride -- raising money for pancreatic cancer. Founder Gord Townley began the fundraiser in honour of his late mom. But this year, Mr. Townley and the other riders are paying tribute to another friend that they have lost -- Jeff Vervaeke, who was killed after a collision during last year's ride. We reached Gord Townley near Henderson Harbor, New York.

CO: Gord I know it was on Sunday that you passed the site of last year's crash. What was that moment like for you?

GORD TOWNLEY: It was something we were obviously very conscious of -- we were nervous of. We also had fond memories of a very nice man. And obviously tentative of the area because of the way the accident occurred. But some tears were shed, some hugs were given, some jokes were told, and then we'd get back on the bike and ride -- and people had great memories of the man. So I thought that part was very good.

CO: Is there anything to remember Jeff Vervaeke at the site?

GT: With a local cycling group last year we installed a ghost bike about 500 metres west of where the actual accident occurred, and it allows us for a pull over safely off the road and then his ghost bike is set up on the side there.

CO: I just want to remind listeners what was happening when this collision occurred.

GT: One of our riders had hit a hole where they were doing the paving along Bath Road just west of Kingston and he fell and he hit his head. There were cyclists that were with him including a retired fire captain so he took control of the scene, moved the cyclists onto the side of the road and the guardrail, allowed traffic to move freely. As they were tending to the gentleman, some of our cyclists came riding by. One of the people was tired and wanted a short break -- that would be Jeff Vervaeke. He pulled over to the side of the road right off even the shoulder. And at that point a van came along the road, moved a little bit to the left to give some room to the cyclist that were there, and then a gentleman in a smaller car came up at speed behind and pulled to the right onto the shoulder onto the gravel. According to the two witnesses that were standing there that the car missed fortunately, he came and spun Erin -- that's my daughter -- around and hit her body pretty hard. Bounced off the guardrail, kept going, and then hit Jeff who was about 10 or 15 meters farther down the road in the middle of the windshield. And that's when he applied the brakes so he had Jeff going quite quickly.

CO: And then he went into the ditch.

GT: Then he went across the road into the ditch slowly as the car kept on rolling.

CO: When we spoke last year Jeff Vervaeke was badly injured. He was in hospital. And you couldn't say much, you knew that the family wanted privacy, and so we didn't hear much about who he was. But now you can tell us who Jeff Vervaeke is.

GT: Jeff was an avid cyclists of all types. He worked at a garage as a mechanic. He is the father of one daughter, separated from his first wife but he had a partner that he was living with and she had two daughters so effectively they referred to him as their stepdad. And unfortunately didn't survive the crash which we kind of knew when you and I spoke last year. His injuries were so bad we knew that he wasn't going to survive. But the family had to come to terms of the scenario that he was playing with and let him go which was very tough as you can imagine.

CO: And all of you in that club had to come to terms with that. That must have been really really difficult.

GT: It was challenging. And some of the riders went home. Some of the riders carried on. There was definitely a melancholy over the ride at the end of last year. If there was one blessing we had that it was Jeff's family kept in touch with us while they were at the hospital and the hotels in Kingston and cheered us on and left us warm messages because they felt that Jeff wanted us to finish the ride.

CO: Last year when you were telling us about it you arrived on the site after the collision and there was your daughter she called to you -- on the side of the road. How is she now?

GT: Sorry you just brought up a bit of a memory there. [Chokes up] Sorry. She's generally pretty good. She decided not to join us on the ride this year. She's a family lawyer out in Calgary so she had a lot of healing to do after the injury. Her arm was shattered. Her joints on her elbow had to be reconstructed. She had injuries on her legs and her ribs and into her hip. So she had several months of rehab and pain management. But what she found obviously as a lawyer she has to tend to her clients and she had missed a couple of months so she needed to focus on that. And just the thoughts and the memories that would flood back -- I don't want to use the label PTSD, but she does get vivid memories and images of what happened and it does make it tougher at times. Now I will say though that every day and including at the ghost bike site we FaceTimed Erin so she could talk to some of the cyclist because she knows many of them. It helps everybody -- I think it helps her quite a bit and Shaun, her boyfriend, relive of some of the incident and get over it or help get over it and move forward. But she is keeping in touch and lifting our spirits every day.

CO: Well you all have to get over it and I'm sure it was a very difficult decision even to do the ride this year. So what convinced you that you should get back on your bikes?

GT: We did take some time Carol as you would imagine to assess whether it was worth going forward, if we were putting people in danger. And basically through conversations with the folks that are closest to organizing it and with Pancreatic Cancer Canada Foundation over the years we've become an important fundraiser for them. I think we're actually now their largest independent fundraiser which is good because it's a disease that doesn't get a lot of attention and a lot of research dollars. And we didn't want that to end. And today by the way is one of those cold drizzly wet days as I'm riding around in I talked to different people -- they talk about Jeff actually as motivation. They talk about people with pancreatic cancer and those that have to battle through it, and it keeps them motivated even in these lousy days. So we're trying to give patience hope and so that in the end was what kept us going.

CO: Well I'll let you get back on the road. Safe travels. Gord it is good to talk to you again. Thank you.

GT: Well thank you so much. Really appreciate the support.

JD: Gord Townley is the founder of the 7 Days In May annual charity bike ride. Last year, participants in the ride were hit by a car in an accident that killed one man. We reached Mr. Townley during this year's ride just outside Henderson Harbor, New York. We have more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Elizabeth May: Oil

Guest: Elizabeth May

JD: Better the devil you know. That is the argument Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is making with a proposal to use Canadian oil instead of foreign oil. In her party's climate action plan entitled "Mission Possible" the Greens are proposing to turn off the taps to oil imports. Meanwhile, Canada would move towards a domestic product and find a way to ship that across the country until we wean ourselves off fossil fuels by the year 2050. It is one proposal in an ambitious plan to fight climate change by ensuring all new cars are electric, revamping our electricity grid, and creating an all-party climate war cabinet, among other things. We reached Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. May you have compared your climate action plan to Winston Churchill fighting fascism, and you say Canada needs to be on a war footing. Isn't that a wee bit dramatic?

ELIZABETH MAY: Well I think the situation is very dramatic. We've been told by the world's scientists that if we don't go off fossil fuels by 2050 we are at risk of losing human civilization. So within the lifetime of our own children the society that we know could unravel. If we continue to expand fossil fuel investments we risks extinction. I think the situation is dramatic. We're in a climate emergency and it's time to treat it as a security threat that requires an end to the notion that we can keep using fossil fuels into the far distance while talking meaninglessly about transition.

CO: But what people find quite remarkable about your plan is that this is a plan that will take us to 2050. And you're proposing that not only that we use Canadian oil over the next 20 years, you want to find a way to deliver that oil from coast to coast. So a lot of people who are your traditional allies are saying what's going on with Elizabeth May and the Green Party?

EM: This is not a change in our policy as Greens. We've always said that it doesn't make sense to have these fraught divisive debates about exporting bitumen to other countries while Canada imports. It's nonsensical. It makes a lot of sense to look at where do we get our fossil fuels. And as we phase out of using them all together and rapidly, we can use Canadian fossil fuels exclusively. We're not proposing any additional pipelines. Goodness knows we're not proposing additional fossil fuel infrastructure.

CO: But we have been hearing for some time from those who criticise the Alberta production that oil sands are the most carbon intensive crudes in North America. That's the argument. That's what people are shocked to see that you are supporting Alberta's oil sands when they think that you should be criticizing them.

EM: Well of course we're criticizing. Alberta has a huge potential -- the best in Canada -- for solar energy. A huge geothermal potential -- by the way using some of the abandoned oil wells to produce geothermal. And we should be fixing the east-west electricity grid so that those provinces which are already producing only renewable energy. We need to be able to sell into a province like Alberta that needs to go off fossil fuels. As long as the oil sands don't expand -- and we hold at current levels of production, how do we have people employed in Alberta for longer, how do we make sure Albertans don't feel victimized by climate action. Well as long as we're using it we'll use a declining amount of the bitumen being produced in Alberta. And over time that production of bitumen is shifted solely to feedstock for petrochemical industry and nothing for burning.

CO: The point is is that the crude, the heavy bitumen that comes from the oil sands is carbon intensive. You say it's not going to come to be distributed throughout Canada -- through pipelines -- you're going to put it in rail cars.

EM: No -- I've not said that. There's been an assumption by media that we're talking about shipping bitumen across the country, we have not said that.

CO: How are you going to transport this fuel throughout the country if you're not going to have pipelines? What are you going to do?

EM: Well first of all we're talking about Canadian oil. So for the east coast of Canada we already have oil on the east coast of Canada being produced out of Hibernia and primarily exported. There's existing infrastructure to meet any needs for the declining period in which we're still using fossil fuel...

CO: And that includes railcar? You're saying...

EM: No -- it is existing infrastructure from pipelines that are already under long term contract. So we don't need any new pipelines.

CO: Just the thing is is that you're proposing what you say is necessary to be on a war footing in order to accomplish -- you believe that this has to be something radical in order to accomplish. The argument the Conservatives are giving is that why should Canadians have to do such dramatic things in order to meet these goals when Canada is producing less than 2 percent of the global totals of CO2 emissions -- that other countries are producing so much more. So the argument that you're going to hear from the Conservatives during this campaign is that why should we have to make these sacrifices.

EM: I think saving ourselves from assured destruction isn't a sacrifice. I think it's necessary. I think the Conservatives need to acquaint themselves with the science. And I think the Liberals need to review the science that they claim they are heeding as they continually ignore the reality of a climate emergency. When we say we want to put Canada on a war footing it means also engaging society in the way that my parents' generation were engaged in Victory Gardens and all working together. In Mission Possible one of the first steps is to jettison politics as usual but these issues are far too important to allow the traditional Punch and Judy show partisan politics to get in the way of doing what's needed.

CO: You've heard from Conservative party leader Andrew Scheer who also supports a ban on foreign oil imports -- favouring Canadian oil instead. And Alberta Premier Jason Kenney applauds your proposal on Twitter. He says, "Great to hear Elizabeth May has come around to support the goal of replacing foreign oil with Canadian oil." You seem to have taken some strange bedfellows here.

EM: I don't think they've read our plan. I'll be very happy to find that Andrew Scheer is prepared to sign on to cutting fossil fuels in this country to zero by 2050 -- 60 percent reduction by 2030. At this point we don't have the NDP, the Liberals, or the Conservatives prepared to say what their carbon reduction target is. And if in the period of time in which we're going off fossil fuels we only use Canadian oil on a declining basis -- if the Conservatives are prepared to sign on for that then we have something to talk about.

CO: We'll have to leave it there. Ms. May thank you.

EM: We can do this. Thank you.

JD: Elizabeth May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music]

Keep on Rockin’

JD: If you write a song that tells people to keep on rockin' in the free world, you yourself cannot not keep rockin' in the free world. And to his credit, Neil Young has done that. But even the free world has its limits. Like curfews which present Mr. Young with a choice: stop rockin' in the free world, per local audiences. Or follow his own advice about rockin' and keep on doing it. Well on Saturday, Neil Young and his band The Promise of the Real were at the BottleRock Napa Valley festival -- which has a strict curfew 10:00 p.m. At 9:50 p.m. they began playing Rockin' in the Free World. Just under 10 minutes later, someone ran onstage to warn him. Mr. Young paid no heed. Then at 10 p.m. exactly, organizers turned off the speakers leaving the band with nothing but the stage amps. And still -- well you can guess. Here's what it sounded like from a video shot by a fan.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music playing, crowding cheering and singing along]

JD: Neil Young and the Promise of the Real and friends keeping on Rockin' in the Free World on Saturday in Napa Valley despite the free world's curfew.

[Music]

Part 2: Why this Swedish lawmaker wants to set up a new court for ISIS fighters

Wrongful Pregnancy

Guest: Jen

JD: After the birth of their twins, Jen and her partner Jim decided that they would have a tubal ligation. That was in 2011. But not long after the birth of her twins, Jen was pregnant again. Now the couple are suing Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. They say the hospital should pay them 800,000 dollars for what they call "wrongful pregnancy" because they say the tubal ligation they had asked for never took place. We reached Jen whose identity we are protecting because she has not told her children about the lawsuit in Scarborough, Ontario.

CO: Jen how old were your twins when you found out that you were pregnant again?

JEN: Actually they were just about to turn ten months.

CO: When you discovered you were pregnant, what did you think was going on?

JEN: Well I had an upset stomach and my pants were unexplainably getting tighter -- which wasn't what I was expecting. And I was actually fairly familiar with the symptoms but I didn't think that that could possibly be the explanation. So when I took the pregnancy test and discovered that it was positive, I was honestly just in a state of shock and disbelief for quite a while.

CO: And that's because you thought that you'd had your tubes tied, right?

JEN: That is correct.

CO: This was in 2011 that you thought this procedure had been done. Tell us what your assumptions were in what was going on?

JEN: I had scheduled a C-section for the delivery of my twins. And as we scheduled the C-section we also had a tubal ligation scheduled to be performed at the same time because once they're in there taking out the babies they can access all of the other workings.

CO: Okay. And there was no reason to believe that that hadn't happened.

JEN: No I had no idea that it hadn't happened.

CO: So when you found out that you were pregnant -- this was something obviously unexpected. What was going through your mind at that time?

JEN: Well initially I thought that I defied some insane odds because pregnancy after a tubal ligation is a [inaudible] occurrence and the probability of it goes down as you age. And being 39 I thought that this was just some crazy universal joke that the universe was playing on me. And so I called the doctor. I had been to my obstetrician actually during this twin pregnancy because when we went through the consent form for the tubal ligation they go through all of the risks with you and one of the risks of having a pregnancy after tubal ligation is an ectopic pregnancy which can be quite dangerous. So he advised me to go and have an ultrasound immediately. So that was my initial concern.

CO: And at that time you had no indication that maybe the reason why you're pregnant is because you never had the tubal ligation.

JEN: Didn't occur to me. Not at all.

CO: And obviously didn't occur to your doctor.

JEN: No not at all. He had to go back and look at my chart to see if he could figure out what had gone on.

CO: What did he say? Oops?

JEN: He said I can't find anything in your chart that supports that you had had this procedure done at all and we will have to look a little bit further to confirm that that's the case. But from where it stands right now it doesn't look like the procedure was done.

CO: How far along were you at this point?

JEN: Approximately seven and a half weeks.

CO: You had 10 month old twins. How old was your other daughter?

JEN: My daughter was six at this point.

CO: Okay so you have a handful. And so what did you consider doing at that point?

JEN: Well we considered our options. I mean we had made the decision to limit the size of our family to three at that point. And so after several weeks of kind of struggling with the decision I booked procedure to have an abortion.

CO: But you didn't go through with it.

JEN: No I could not. I tried. I didn't want to be pregnant but I couldn't go through with having an abortion at that point.

CO: So now you have another daughter.

JEN: Yes we do.

CO: And now you are suing Mount Sinai (hospital) and the doctors for wrongful pregnancy.

JEN: That's correct.

CO: What does that mean? What are you suing them about?

JEN: All of the costs that flow from the medical mistake that was made when they didn't perform that tubal ligation.

CO: What would you compare this to? As far as a medical mistake, what would you say is analogous to this?

JEN: Well to me it's analogous to any other medical mistake where there is negligence and liability on the part of the doctors in the hospital and any costs that are a result of that negligence or that mistake are in most other cases of medical malpractice covered.

CO: But I understand you're very happy to have this child.

JEN: Absolutely. We love her very much.

CO: And so people say well you know what this happens and now you've got this other child and it's not the same thing as having a procedure that leaves you unhappy. You have something that has brought some joy into your life. So people would argue that that's not the same thing.

JEN: There is joy. Children bring joy. They also bring stress -- they bring a lot of expenses. We have three other children who we are also raising and providing for. And this is the only reason medical malpractice law in Ontario and Canada as far as I can tell where if medical mistake is made that the person who suffers the consequences of that mistake isn't compensated.

CO: You're asking for 800,000 dollars.

JEN: That is what our lawyers have in the settlement. Yes.

CO: And you hope -- you believe -- that will cover the cost of raising your daughter.

JEN: I believe that that would do more than cover the cost of raising our child. Yes.

CO: The hospital says in its defense that it denies that there was any breach of duty, want of care, or negligence. And the lawyers for the doctors told CTV -- they denied the plaintiffs have suffered any damages. What do you say to that?

JEN: I say that that sounds like they're trying to cover their butts legally. They're very clearly libel.

CO: And so this is something that could set a precedent. Do you see this is possibly a course -- if you are successful -- that hospitals will see others take?

JEN: If we make it to trial and if we have a successful trial then this is absolutely going to be precedent setting and that is one of the reasons that we have pursued this.

CO: Do you see at some point that you will explain all this to your daughter?

JEN: Yes actually I do. I will when she is old enough or when they are all old enough to understand reproductive options and choices then we will have a conversation around how she came to be in this world and our actions that came from that and I'm fairly confident she'll understand.

CO: All right Jen we will leave it there. And we'll be following your case. Thank you so much.

JEN: Thank you so much Carol.

JD: Jen -- whose identity we are protecting -- is suing Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto for wrongful pregnancy. We reached her in Scarborough, Ontario. And we do have more on that story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Caitlan Coleman

JD: For the first time since she left Ottawa, Caitlan Coleman is speaking out about her new life back home in the United States. Ms. Coleman -- who is American -- and her husband Joshua Boyle were held hostage by Taliban linked extremists for five years before being rescued in 2017. Mr. Boyle is now on trial for allegedly assaulting Ms. Coleman after they were rescued from Afghanistan. He has pleaded not guilty to all 19 charges. Caitlan Coleman told the CBC's Judy Trinh about the moment last summer when pregnant and taking care of three small children she heard that she had won temporary custody of their children and was allowed to go home to the United States.

SOUNDCLIP

CAITLAN COLEMAN: I had just gotten an ultrasound and I was literally in the lobby of the ultrasound clinic that I had gone to when my lawyer called me on the phone and said we won. That was her first words to me: we won. And that meant we could cross the border and we could go home. And like I was with my mom -- and my sister and aunt were with the other kids -- and we knew we were going to hear that day so we were waiting for this word. And we got this word and so we called my sister and said pack everything that you can, we're going. Because my lawyer had said when you get this order go right away because when you get the order you can legally cross the border. And you know you should go quickly before Josh's side can start complicating things for you. But I thought that it would be best to get a physical copy of the court order to have for the border because I was concerned that just showing up at the border and telling them what was going on wasn't going to be sufficient. So it's this mad rush of packed stuff in the car, then my mom and my aunt and my sister who all had their stuff back at their hotel and I walked from their hotel to my lawyer's office to pick up this piece of paper in the pouring rain because of course you know nothing's ever simple. And then we get in the car and we drive to the border and we get to the border and they're very civil and welcoming at the border but they do ask me for that piece of paper. They pull us aside in the secondary and they look at the kids passports you know and they ask what's the story and I tell them the story and then they say well can we see the court order. And so I hand them the court order and then the border agent comes back to me and she shakes my hand and she says welcome home. Finally we were free. I was pretty excited and overwhelmed and also just so honoured that she made that gesture to us.

JD: That was former hostage Caitlan Coleman speaking to CBC's Judy Trinh. And you can read more about Ms. Coleman online at cbcnews.ca.

[Music]

Sweden ISIS Court

Guest: Mikael Damberg

JD: Mikael Damberg thinks it's time for a new international criminal court. Mr. Damberg is the Swedish Interior Minister. And he is proposing to establish a court to try the war crimes committed following ISIS's rise to power in much of Syria and Iraq. He says the court should be based in Iraq and that the prosecutions would resemble those that followed the wars in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. But countries around the world have resisted repatriating nationals who have been detained during ISIS's long retreat. And the Trump administration has shown little patience for the idea of the International Criminal Court. We reached Minister Mikael Damberg in Stockholm.

CO: Mr. Damberg why do you think this court is necessary?

MIKAEL DAMBERG: I think it's necessary because it's a moral issue because this is perhaps the worst terrorist organization we've seen in modern history. And I think it's important for the world not just to turn the page but actually to take into account that we have to make these terrorists accountable for their actions and condemn people and hopefully in the region.

CO: You know that the issue always with prosecuting terrorism are accusing people of terrorism. One person's terrorist -- one country's terrorist -- is another country's freedom fighters. And so there are people for instance whom the Turks believe to be terrorists who have been actually cooperating with Canada and United States. Syria certainly believes that all the people who've been fighting against them are terrorists. How will you determine who you think -- and who this court (thinks) -- should consider to be terrorists?

MD: I think it's very important to see that there is an international regulation on for instance war crimes that could be applied in these cases because of processes we've seen with people being publicly executed, children being part of it, the women that has been really in a very serious situation. Of course this is crime that falls against international justice. So for us it's a moral issue to actually say that the world doesn't accept this. The world needs to take action against it in a coordinated way. So that's why we think that an international tribunal or an hybrid solution in the region would be preferable to our national courts.

CO: And I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that the people we have seen, the videos of fighters who beheaded civilians, the treatment of the Yazidi women, the sex slaves -- all of this of just abhorrent and criminal and war crimes to be sure that these people should face justice. I just wonder at some point you do run into the problem of the definition of what it is and the jurisdiction of what it is. This is what happened in the former Yugoslavia. This is what happened in Rwanda. It went into the weeds in a number of ways, didn't it?

MD: Of course. I don't say it's easy to set up an international tribunal. And all the international courts and tribunals that we have seen in the world up to now is different. So everyone has their own circumstances, their own regulations. But I think it's time to actually go forward in this discussion and that's why Sweden will invite an expert meeting in Stockholm in the beginning of June to actually gather all the relevant parties in Europe to see what ways forward do we see together.

CO: In the courts I mentioned -- one for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda -- the rules were that they would seek out what they called the big fish. They would seek out those who had command responsibilities -- those who were principally responsible. And that others should go to other courts – to the countries they came from or to local jurisdictions. Because it would be a huge task to take on all of the fighters who've been part of this war, wouldn't it?

MD: Yes it would be. We don't want to start this discussion by presenting a Swedish model, but actually bringing together all the countries that are now discussing this in a different way. And I feel there is openness now in the region from several parties saying that they are open for discussion for trying to form an international tribunal. Of course I think everyone agrees that you have to start with the leaders in such a process. But there's also possibilities if you would like to also have a national based system that actually condemns people that have been involved in more criminals for instance. So I think we shouldn't start by saying it's impossible to do more than just the leaders, but it would be [inaudible].

CO: And what happens if people accuse the United States of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity?

MD: For Sweden you know I think it's the same with Canada, we always defend the international law on a rule based world. So of course we think that crimes should be prosecuted. But of course now it's a very special situation with the terrorist -- ISIS organization -- that has done terrorist attacks around the world but also brought the devastating death and destruction to the region.

CO: So if there is a war crimes tribunal in the Middle East then you might see people who want to bring charges against the United States, against Russia, against the Syrian government, against Turkey.

MD: As you know perhaps Sweden was a member of the Security Council -- we tried to set up an international mechanism in the region but it was stopped by members of the Security Council -- well give us reasons I would say. So now we're exploring a way of actually moving forward with an international tribunal in the region. And that's why I think it's important to have this discussion among partners that have been involved in foreign fighters and to see if Europe can take a bigger responsibility for this. But of course there will be red lines. One obvious red line for Europe is the death penalty. I don't see that Europe would support an international mechanism if the death penalty is not excluded from the process.

CO: If there is any suggestion that there may be an issue for the U.S. military it's unlikely that you'll get support from the U.S. government. How necessary is it that the United States would be onside for any effort to establish this tribunal?

MD: I think the U.S. has a key role in the region. If the U.S. decides to take their hands off the region that there will be big problems on the ground and with security -- also where the camps are. So of course U.S. is a relevant partner in this. But I'm looking for a way that if some European countries can take a step forward to actually push for an international tribunal I think it would be very relevant to also have a discussion with the US.

CO: Do you have Canada's support?

MD: That we'll see. I think for the world to have a moral point on the issue of what's happening in the region with the terrorist ISIS organization I think it's important to write in the history book that this was nothing that we just turned our head and went away but actually made an international effort to both prosecute and come to accountability.

CO: Mr. Damberg I appreciate speaking with you tonight thank you.

MD: Thank you very much.

JD: Mikael Damberg is Sweden's Interior Minister. We reached him in Stockholm. And we do have more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Hyperloop

JD: Remembered Juicero? It was a revolutionary device the promised instant cold-pressed juice at the press of a button. And then journalists discovered that the machine was simply a 400 dollar box that squeezed bags of juice -- an operation that could just as easily have been done by hand. Enter Elon Musk. It turns out the tech billionaire despite his success can also have a Juicero moment. It started with the promise of a Hyperloop -- an underground vacuum tunnel that would catapult passengers across vast distances. Mr. Musk called it a quote, "cross between a Concorde and a rail gun and an air hockey table." And then Mr. Musk started digging a real test track to demonstrate what could be the predecessor to his futuristic tunnel. And that got people really excited. Except six months ago when he unveiled the track it turned out to be a car mounted on a sled bumping along at about 80 kilometres per hour. Less cool but still somewhat cool. Now no coolness at all: a new video showing the latest version of the futuristic tunnel has removed the sled entirely and now it is simply a car driving through around paved underground hole. Or to put it another way: Elon Musk has invented the tunnel. Asked to explain himself on Twitter Mr. Musk responded, quote, "This is simple and just works." Well it's definitely simple. But it's not working for people who thought they would be kept in the loop.

[Music]

Robert McNamee

JD: As you heard earlier on in the program -- at the top of the program in fact -- there was no end to the frustration in Ottawa this morning. Politicians gathered from around the world to try to get some answers from Facebook, Google, and other tech giants. That frustration was fueled by what the international committee had heard this morning from some of the experts they called on for advice. Those experts included Robert McNamee -- a venture capitalist and early Facebook investor. Mr. McNamee warned lawmakers that the business model of what is being called "surveillance capitalism" is fueling both the manipulation of elections and outbreaks of violence around the world. Mr. McNamee was asked what governments could do when these platforms have become so central to so many lives. Here is his answer.

SOUNDCLIP

ROBERT MCNAMEE: The issue that we're dealing with here is that in the United States or North America roughly 70 percent of all the artificial intelligence professionals are working at Google, Facebook, Microsoft, or Amazon. And to a first approximation they're all working on behavioral manipulation. There are at least a million great applications of artificial intelligence -- behavioral manipulation is not on them. I would argue that it's like creating time release anthrax or cloning human babies. It's just a completely inappropriate and morally repugnant idea. And yet that is what these people are doing. And I would simply observe that it is the threat of shutting them down and the willingness to do it for brief periods of time that creates the leverage to do what I really want to do which is to eliminate the business model of behavioral manipulation and data surveillance. And I don't think this about putting toothpaste back into tubes. This is about formulating toothpaste that doesn't poison people. Okay? I believe this is directly analogous to what happened with the chemical industry in the '50s. The chemical industry used to pour its waste products -- mercury, chromium, and things like that directly into freshwater. They left mine tailings on the side of hills. Petrol stations would pour spent oil into sewers. And there was no consequences. So the chemical she grew like crazy, had incredibly high margins, it was the Internet platform industry of its era. And then one day society woke up and realised that those companies should be responsible for the externalities that they were creating. And that is what I'm talking about here. This is not about stopping progress. This is my world. This is what I do. Okay? I just think we should stop hurting people. We should stop killing people in Myanmar. We should stop killing people in the Philippines. And we should stop destroying democracy everywhere else. We can do way better than that. And it's all about the business model. And I don't want to pretend I have all the solutions. What I know is the people in this room are part of the solution. And our job is to help you get there. So don't view anything I see as a fixed point. View this as something that we're going to work on together. And the three of us are happy to take bullets for all of you. Okay? Because we recognize it's not easy to be a public servant with these issues out there. But do not forget you're not going to be asking your constituents to give up the stuff they love. Okay? The stuff they love existed before this business model -- it'll exist again after this business model.

JD: That was early Facebook investor Robert McNamee testifying before the international grand committee on Big Data, Privacy, and Democracy -- this morning in Ottawa.

[Music]

Part 3: Kawhi Leonard's high school coach rooting for the Raptors all the way from California

Kawhi Leonard Coach

Guest: Tim Sweeney Junior

JD: In two days the Toronto Raptors will play in their first ever NBA Finals against Golden State Warriors. That is exciting for bandwagon-jumpers. But it is even more exciting for people with a serious emotional stake in either team. I don't just mean the fans. We also mean James Lackey -- with whom we spoke yesterday. He coached Warrior's superstar Steph Curry when Mr. Curry was in Grade 8 at Queensway Christian College in Etobicoke, Ontario. And we also meet Tim Sweeney Junior. He coached Raptors superstar and playoff hero Kawhi Leonard when he attended Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, California. Which is where we reached Tim Sweeney.

CO: Coach Sweeney before we talk about anything else let's get one thing clear: who will you be cheering for on Thursday night?

TIM SWEENEY: The Toronto Raptors. It's so exciting to see for Canada and Toronto you know the excitement of them reaching their first NBA final. I can't wait. I can't wait for Thursday night.

CO: It's exciting for everyone here too. But they don't share -- people here -- the experience you had which is that you knew Kawhi Leonard when he was in high school. And I'm just wondering if you can tell us the first time you set eyes on this player.

TS: Well the first time I set eyes on him was at a summer league game and then he transferred over to our high school at King High and came to us between his sophomore and junior year. And the first couple times up and down the court -- the first week of school -- I called my father right away who was a Hall of Fame high school coach and a college coach and said you've got to get to the gym we've got an NBA player. He drove on down, watched a little bit, and he goes you're absolutely right. And I said no dad I think I got it wrong -- this kid's going to be an NBA All Star. And told everybody -- everybody laughed -- and you know it's kind of history now.

CO: But that team that you had -- they all looked pretty good, what was it about Kawhi Leonard that stood out?

TS: The intangibles you know. The defense. His ability to change a game and do things without having to score. I mean he won so many games simply by defense and rebounding and obviously he always scored. But you know that's what makes a great player -- that's what makes a player special.

CO: People have remarked about how cool he is. I mean all through these things where everybody else is in a state of anxiety and emotion watching him play, he is so steady. How would you describe -- what was his personality like?

TS: Well he's always been that quiet introverted young man. And when he gets on the floor it's been all business like. He takes the game very very seriously. His work ethic -- he wants to be the greatest player ever. And just his personality -- ice in his veins. He doesn't get over emotional either way.

CO: There was one occasion though when you saw him deeply emotional and just before he was to play a game he was quite emotional about what had happened to his father. Can you tell us what happened?

TS: Well it was a Friday night. We just got off a big game at home and you know the team released and they were going with their families. And I was sitting at Cactus Cantina with my father and all my coaches having a dinner with our families like we usually did on a Friday night. And I got a phone call halfway through our meal. It was his mother letting us know that Kawhi's father had just been murdered. And you know the next day we had a extremely big game against Dominguez High School -- one of the best teams in the nation. And I called Kawhi in the morning and said I fully anticipate and expect that you know you're probably not going to be there tonight, we're going to be there to support you, give you as much as we can give you in this situation. And you know lo and behold he showed up and he played in the game. And you know once again that's been Kawhi's release you know. And I think that was his first way of really dealing with it. So yeah everybody was there -- it was quite an emotional beginning and ending you know after the game for the young man.

CO: Just awful. He was good in school but had a hard time getting a scholarship. And what was that all about?

TS: There's many factors that came into that. He was being highly recruited and he played the summer and he completely outshined all the stars including Renardo Sidney. And from what we heard is that he went back to his team because he was outshining Renardo -- they started badmouthing him around. And a lot of schools like UCLA and USC and you know the Pac-12 schools kind of backed off him. But San Diego State was always there and they were the first one that recruited him. I knew going out of high school that I figured he would play two years and he'd be NBA bound first round choice and it happened. You know it was a great place for him to go and he turned San Diego State into a powerhouse.

CO: And not just the NBA, but a star. His name is on everyone's lips especially after that fairy-tale buzzer beater because this is a big deal for the Raptors and historically too. What do you think that he does for the team?

TS: Well he's changed the team. And he certainly had a great team last year and then the trade happened with Kawhi and DeMar DeRozan. And you know Kawhi is a superstar. You know he is going to be most likely being talked in the same breath of you know your Jordans, your Kobes, your LeBron James you know you can go on and on. And also being you know arguably the best defender in the world.

CO: I know that your heart is with Kawhi Leonard. But as a strategist of the game -- as a coach -- who's your pick to take the first game.

TS: I will go and I'll lean slightly towards Toronto because they have had four days off now but yet they're fresh and their chemistry is still intact. And one of the big things about having any long layoff like they've had in Golden State is the fact that you know chemistry becomes an issue. It's not their conditioning or anything like that but it is getting back into that flow and if that happens I look at Toronto you know getting by game one in a great and very close game.

CO: All right we'll all be watching. Coach Sweeney I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

TS: Thank you very much. And Go Raptors.

JD: That was Tim Sweeney Junior -- Kawhi Leonard's basketball coach when Kawhi Leonard attended Martin Luther King High School in California. We reached Mr. Sweeney in Riverside, California. And if you would like to see more on this story it is on our website: cbc.ca/aih. Well today the Toronto Raptors held their first practice ahead of the finals. And in a press conference afterwards, point guard Fred VanVleet was extremely businesslike when asked about clinching the upcoming championship.

SOUNDCLIP

FRED VANVLEET: You win, you have a great night, and you enjoy it, and you wake up -- come in yesterday and we work out and we watch film and we move on. So none of us in October and July and June of last year were working out thinking about the conference finals. Obviously it's a great accomplishment and we're happy to be taking that next step but you want to win a championship and you want to win the whole thing. It is not about just making it to the finals -- we're not satisfied, we're not happy to be here, we're really hungry and we want to go out here and have a chance to win it and we've earned it and we deserve it. And now it is just a matter of going out there and having to perform at a high level on a bigger stage. Obviously I feel that there is a general high in the city of Toronto and people just excited for the opportunity and getting over that hump. But as players were not happy or satisfied with what we've done -- we're going out there to take it another step and then we can celebrate and have all the parties you guys want to. But until then you know I want to try to stay pretty locked in.

JD: That was Raptors point guard Fred VanVleet at a press conference today in Toronto.

[Music]

Stay safe

JD: Last night, Fox 45 in Dayton, Ohio, interrupted to "The Bachelorette" for a Tornado warning. And viewers of the reality show scrambled to tweet their thanks to their local television station for telling them a potentially extremely destructive and perhaps deadly weather system was headed toward them. Just kidding. They were so mad about it. One viewer complained, "if a tornado doesn't hit tonight I'm going to be very angry thanks for ruining my Bachelorette time." Another said, "it does not take 45 minutes to say there is a tornado just let me watch [my show]." So here's how Fox 45 meteorologist Jamie Simpson responded.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMIE SIMPSON: Just checking social media -- we have viewers complaining already. "Just go back to the show." No we're not going back to the show folks! This is a dangerous situation! Okay? Think about if this was your neighbourhood. I'm sick and tired of people complaining about this. Our job here is to keep people safe and that is what we're going to do. Some of you complain that this is all about my ego. Stop! Okay just stop right now! It's not. I am done with you people I really am. This is pathetic. It's a dangerous situation here. All right I'm sorry. It just really bothers me that we have people that don't care about other people's safety around here. That's just ridiculous. New tornado warning...

JD: That was meteorologist Jamie Simpson on Fox 45 in Dayton, Ohio, reacting to viewers of The Bachelorette who were put out by his warning that tornadoes were on the way. Twisters that incidentally did indeed hit the area several hours later.

[Music]

UNHCR Refugees

Guest: Mark Manly

JD: As the number of refugees in Mexico rises so does the pressure to resettle them. And now the U.N. is asking Canada to help ease that burden in part by taking in some of the most vulnerable of the refugees. Mark Manly is the Mexico representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We reached Mr. Manly in Mexico City.

CO: Mr. Manly what exactly are you asking Canada to do?

MARK MANLY: Okay so currently we have a massive refugee problem in the Americas including more than 3.7 million Venezuelans have left home in the last four years. And we also have a very large number over 300,000 Central Americans from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Currently we have large numbers of people arriving in Mexico. Many of them can find a solution here. But many of them can't. For example we have people from the LGBT community, women at risk, women who are fleeing from extreme violence at home including from former partners -- and they can't find protection necessarily in Mexico. So if Canada can provide more by way of resettlement that is a lifesaving solution for these people.

CO: So how many refugees of these people who can't find a place to settle there or are not safe to settle in Mexico for the time being -- what kinds of numbers are you talking about here?

MM: So Mexico has gone from being a country which received virtually no refugees a few years ago to a country which now is getting over 5000 claimants per month which is actually more so far this year than Canada has received. So we're talking about a relatively low number of people. Last year Canada actually received 75 resettled refugees from Mexico almost all from Central America. So we're not asking for that much more -- we are asking for a few hundred additional spots. That would really make a difference in saving the lives of people who are at extreme danger here.

CO: As you know the UNHCR always looks to keep refugees geographically close to their homes which helps to enable their return. That would be Mexico or southern United States or United States. So why aren't they safe in those regions?

MM: People go wherever they think they can find safety. So increasingly people have seen that they may not be able to enter the United States. So if they would be looking at Mexico, they've been looking at Costa Rica, they have been looking at Belize. But we've also seen an increase in the numbers of people who are fleeing from Central America. It's also important understand that people are leaving for a variety of reasons. But among those reasons is this extreme violence at the hands of these organized gangs. In some cases those gangs follow people and they actually track some down inside Mexico. So we've been relocating an increasing number of people in recent years. We move them basically from the southern border where they're more exposed to locations in Mexico where there are higher levels of safety and also good employment and education prospects. But even then there's some profiles and particularly transgender women, women who are fleeing from abusive domestic partners, gay men who may find difficulty in integrating Mexico in some cases they cannot find security here. In Canada because it's close by and has such close ties to Mexico and also the countries of origin in Central America is from our perspective an idea of resettlement country.

CO: But as you know the United States is even more close by. And I wonder if Donald Trump's remain in Mexico policy is in part the reason why you need to turn to Canada at this point?

MM: The U.S. remains the most important country of destination for asylum seekers from Central America. In fact the numbers are only going up. But if people believe that they don't have options to access to protection in a given country they will go elsewhere. And that's exactly what we're seeing here.

CO: But there are people being turned away at the U.S. border. They're not people who are coming from these refugee producing areas. Is that right?

MM: There are many people now waiting on the Mexican side of the border to enter the United States. And so what we've been calling for is an expansion and capacity in the U.S. to process those people. And then in parallel under this program announced in January more than 6000 people have been returned from the U.S. to Mexico and are now waiting on this side of the border for their hearing before U.S. immigration courts.

CO: Has UNHCR identified people who you think need to have be resettled from that region, can't stay there safely, and you'd like to see in Canada -- do you have a list, a group, that you could see very quickly moving into a program and coming to Canada?

MM: Yes indeed. So we have a program now whereby we're identifying additional people with protection needs that we don't think can find adequate protection in Mexico. And so the referrals are ongoing. Unfortunately we have a quota and that will be very quickly exhausted.

CO: And you'd like to see that quota increased.

MM: Absolutely.

CO: You know that we are faced with an election in the fall and there has been considerable pushback in Canada since numbers of refugees -- tens of thousands of asylum seekers -- came over the border independently seeking refuge in Canada. And this has put considerable political pressure on the government. Can you see that this is perhaps a delicate time to be making this proposal?

MM: Indeed. But as a humanitarian organization we are focused on the very real need for lifesaving action for people around the world. I mean Canada is a stronger country because of what refugees and immigrants have brought to it. So over the long term it's in Canada's best interests to provide resettlement spots.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Manly thank you.

MM: Thank you.

JD: Mark Manly is a representative from Mexico with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We reached Mr. Manly in Mexico City.

[Music]

Beaton Tulk

JD: Beaton Tulk never wanted to be premier. But he did wind up leading Newfoundland and Labrador anyway in October of 2000 -- filling in after Brian Tobin abruptly left the job to run federally. Generally though Mr. Tulk was content to serve as a Liberal provincial representative and cabinet minister. Maybe because of his brusque manner. Roger Grimes who succeeded him in the Premier's office said quote, "a whole bunch of us used to call him 'Billy goat gruff.' He was larger than life both in stature and style. But anyone who got to know him knew inside there was the biggest pussycat you ever saw." Beaton Tulk died last week. He was 75 years old. Mr. Tulk's gruff side showed when he spoke with Mary Lou Finlay on this program in 1997. He had learned that Ottawa wanted to train frontline employees in his province on how to deal with violence from fishermen when a support program known as TAGS ended.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY LOU FINLAY: Mr. Tulk what is it that you would like Pierre Pettigrew to apologize for?

BEATON TULK: Well on Friday passed we became aware of a memo that was circulated in the Department of HRDC which is the Human Resource Development Canada -- it was referred specifically to TAGS and the expiry of TAGS in May of 1998 and the potential life threatening situations, the possibility of destruction of property, and the danger that the employees of HRDC might be in as a result of it. And calling about tactics to deal with this kind of what can only be termed the language itself, the attitude that was displayed in that memo, as civil unrest. That to me as a Canadian is an insulting way for officials of the Department of HRDC. And I don't by the way believe that Pierre Pettigrew or any minister -- the Federal Minister of Fisheries or the Prime Minister of this country feels that way about Newfoundlanders, Canadians who live in Newfoundland. But it's deeply hurting and deeply insulting to hear and know that there are people in this country -- people employed in the department who believe in that manner. And I think Mr. Pettigrew should disown that kind of thing and work with us to develop a program to take care of a group of people who have seen their very environment, their very eco-system, their very livelihood, their families severely threatened. And not to allow people in the department to carry on in that manner.

MARY LOU FINLAY: Now we have seen scenes of angry fishermen in Newfoundland before I think.

BEATON TULK: Yes...

MARY LOU FINLAY: You've seen them breaking down doors...

BEATON TULK: And I haven't seen them. I'm sorry, no I haven't seen them break down doors. I've seen them apply some pressure on doors but nobody's broken down doors. There's is no physical -- and I think the incident that you're referring to is the one that the Honorable John Crosby...

MARY LOU FINLAY: Yes.

BEATON TULK: But there was no breaking down of doors in that particular case. But you don't deal with people on that basis. You deal with them on the basis of what their needs are. You work with them on their needs. And of course if there is something that happens you deal with it. But you don't train your employees to deal with that. You train your employees to take care of the people, the taxpayers of this country, the people who work in this nation to take care of people -- as opposed to trying to set up some means of controlling them in their desperate situation as a means of manipulating them in their poverty. That's not the way this country is built. And that's not where we think as Canadians.

JD: That was former Newfoundland and Labrador politician Beaton Tulk speaking with Mary Lou Finlay on this program in 1997. Mr. Tulk died last week. He was 75 years old.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 28, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This