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 June 7, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Daemon Fairless

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

DAEMON FAIRLESS: Good evening. I'm Daemon Fairless. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

DF: Tonight...

CO: Eyes on the needles. To help addicts in prison, the Trudeau government is supplying them with clean syringes -- but the federal prison guards' union says that's a serious risk to its members.

DF: When the best defense is a serious offense. A Manitoba man is sentenced to five years in prison after killing the man who broke into his house because a judge says his justified self-defence went too far.

CO: Taking their vital swines. Farmers across Asia are losing hundreds of thousands of pigs to African swine fever -- our guest says it's the worst outbreak of domestic animal disease the world has ever seen.

DF: He gave us a taste of his own medicine. The late Dr. John spent his long career playing the music he loved from the hometown he loved and became an eccentric ambassador for New Orleans in the process.

CO: That sinking feeling. A couple's plans for living in a floating cabin off the coast of Thailand run aground when the Thai navy drags their home ashore, and now they're in extremely serious legal trouble.

DF: And...turns out the opposite of "heartwarming" is "head deworming." Doctors believe the woman had a malignant brain tumor until they operated and discovered to her relief and not relief that it was actually a baby tapeworm. As It Happens. The Friday Edition. Radio that hope she didn't share what was on her mind.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Why this couple could face the death penalty for living in a houseboat off Thailand

Prison Guard

Guest: Jeff Wilkins

DF: Today, Canada's federal prison guards took a giant syringe to Parliament Hill. It was a symbol of their frustrations with a program that's offering clean needles to drug addicts doing federal time. The guards worry that the needles will be used as weapons. And they say there's a better way to reduce the risk of doing drugs inside. Jeff Wilkins is the National President of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Wilkins just first of all for our listeners who haven't spent much time perhaps inside a federal prison, just how widespread is the use of illegal drugs inside institutions?

JEFF WILKINS: Well we don't have high statistics that I can quote you right now. But I can tell you that over 70 percent of inmates come to us as a result of offenses that may intermingle with the use of drugs and alcohol.

CO: Well the issue is addiction and that is what you are up against.

JW: That's correct.

CO: And that is what led to this suggestion of a charter challenge from inmates who find themselves sharing needles because they have no access to clean needles and ending up with all kinds of other health problems, so the Trudeau government faced with that possible charter challenge introduced this idea of having a needle exchange program in prisons. What does your union think of that?

JW: We have been mobilizing against the program. Of course the prison needle exchange program in the way that it looks right now -- an inmate will have access: readily available needle and everything that you need to cook illegal drugs with in their cell. And our position on it is that it's a health care issue and of course our members are the ones that are forced to operationalise this program -- we are the ones that monitor that needle on a daily basis. We are the ones that need to respond to the cell if there's a potential overdose. Every other harm reduction strategy that the employer has in place right now is not on the backs of correctional officers -- I mean it's a health care issue. We've already seen instances where inmates are sharing the needles amongst themselves that are given to them by the Correctional Service Canada because it's not every inmate that has the ability to have it. There's a threat risk assessment done to make sure that the inmate in fact has a substance abuse issue. And we found needles that have been issued to one inmate found in another inmate's cell. So the argument of it being a harm reduction strategy doesn't really exist because the inmates are sharing these needles to begin with. So you ask what our position is -- our position is the needles need to be controlled, they need to be under the direct supervision of a health care professional, and if that is the case then I do believe that it will kind of provide two different goals of one, harm reduction, and two, overdose prevention.

CO: So you're talking about supervised injection sites inside prisons?

JW: The Public Safety Minister attended our general assembly for the union at the beginning of the month and its brand new -- the Correctional Service of Canada has in their hands a license for overdose prevention sites which would mean that just like an inmate going to health care to receive his insulin or his diabetic needle or going to health care to be observed by a nurse for direct observation therapy medications -- you know drugs that we don't allow inside of the jail, they have to be monitored when they take -- that they would go to the health care facility, and if they had illegal drugs that they needed to do that they would be monitored by a nurse. So the government has okay-ed a pilot project right now...

CO: Yes.

JW: And the pilot project is just that -- it's going to be done in health care so...

CO: Do you think that's the solution?

JW: Well I think it's a much safer solution especially for our membership. And again it's not going to be something that is monitored and operationalized by correctional officers -- it's in the proper hands. And also you know when it comes to overdose prevention we've got to remember if there's a needle in the cell on a midnight shift and the inmate overdoses it's us that's responding to that inmate and we're not doctors and we're not nurses, we are trained for first aid response and we do have available now Narcan, but it would be much better if they were overdosing that they would have a health care professional right there.

CO: But they're still bringing their own drugs obtained illegally to the safe injection site if that's the plan.

JW: Well right now that is the plan. I know that the local side of Drumheller is still in consultation with the Correctional Service Canada about how that will be operationalized because of course you know the inmates carrying around illegal drugs in the institution is something that is contraband and something that's subject to charges and seizure and et cetera -- et cetera. So there is some work that's being done on how that will work.

CO: How do you reconcile this contradiction? On the one hand your members are complaining that there's a policy that condones criminal only -- that allowing the drugs to be in the prison systems are illegal. On the another hand finding a way for them to safely inject them. So how do you reconcile that?

JW: It is a very difficult thing to reconcile. I just want to make the statement that when it comes to drugs inside of institutions and it comes to needles inside of institutions and all of that sort of contraband, as correctional officers -- peace officers -- in Canada whose responsibility it is to control the safety, security, of the institution and the public -- it's a difficult position to say that we condone any of this. But as a harm reduction strategy and the push that's coming from the courts and from the government when we analyze how this looks, it is a safer strategy.

CO: But because the drugs that they're getting in are illegal -- they're coming from the criminal elements that are probably operating inside the prisons. Wouldn't the best thing be to actually provide the drugs as well?

JW: Well I mean the Correctional Service of Canada provides many different drugs. You know one of our harm reduction strategies that was implemented quite a few years ago was a methadone program for instance, right. And I can tell you when the methadone program and the very thought of giving inmates synthetic heroin was an idea that most of our members and you know I think Canada in general have to get over. But the purpose of the program is to try to wean somebody off of taking illegal drugs. The purpose fits our mandate to try to you know help inmates to become law abiding citizens.

CO: And doesn't it also make sense to eliminate that criminal middleman who's providing the drugs and make the drugs available to the prisoners -- because if you have to just accept this reality, why not go all the way?

JW: It's a very interesting way of looking at it. I'm quite certain that there's probably some talks on a much higher level that I have not been involved in -- and you know what? Maybe you're absolutely right -- by eliminating the middleman that you might solve a little bit of a problem there. But of course these are decisions that the government would have to make. These are decisions that you know the Canadian taxpayer would have to make.

CO: Very very complex. Mr. Wilkins I appreciate you trying to explain it to us. Thank you.

JW: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

DF: Jeff Wilkins is the National President of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. He's in Ottawa.

[Music]

Swine Fever

Guest: John Deen

DF: It's known as "pig ebola." The highly contagious African swine fever has been spreading through pig herds in China since last summer. More than 1 million pigs have been killed in a desperate attempt to control the disease. But now it's infecting herds in Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea. The rest of Southeast Asia is on high alert. John Deen is a veterinarian and swine fever expert at the University of Minnesota. He recently returned from visiting areas of southern China where swine fever is now rampant. We reached him in Minneapolis.

CO: Professor Deen just how bad is this latest outbreak of African swine fever?

JOHN DEEN: We have a difficult time actually explaining how bad it is. It's affecting about half the pigs in the world in China. Now it's moving beyond the borders to Vietnam and other countries. The word we're using internally is "apocalyptic." It's going to change the way that pork and pigs are viewed in that region and throughout the world.

CO: People have said -- others who have been working with this -- say they have never seen anything like this in agriculture.

JD: I've been involved in pig production all my life and I've never seen anything like this either. And the effects on pig populations are just immense.

CO: The fever doesn't harm humans -- what does it do to the pigs?

JD: It causes a high fever, often sudden mortality or hemorrhage in various organs, and often death within 24 to 48 hours.

CO: So it must be quite excruciating.

JD: It is for the pigs -- and I would say as well for those who look after the pigs, seeing it and realizing there is very little they can do to control the disease.

CO: And to control it after -- it's there, but it's so easily spread, isn't it? How does this disease get to so many places so quickly?

JD: It is a tremendously hardy virus. It's been lasting in various materials including pork products for up to a year. It lasts on people's clothes, in trucks that move pigs, and of course within farms as well. So it doesn't move fast but it is relentless in its onslaught.

CO: I know you were in rural China just a month ago. You were able to go into the regions where they are trying to control the spread of swine fever. What did you see there?

JD: I didn't see the disease. I worked with farmers in preventing the disease. And what I saw was real fear, as I spoke with them they'd be glancing at their cell phones watching videos of dead pigs lying in the streets of various villages, rapid discussions on the relative proximity to their own farms, and of frustration in the lack of ability to control the disease by the government and by themselves.

CO: And what are they required to do? What do they see as their obligation to try and prevent the spread of the disease?

JD: Their obligation is to report any increase in mortality that they see in their herds, allow the the federal or state veterinarians to come in and test those pigs -- and then if found positive, the government is supposed to depopulate or take all the pigs away and destroy them to prevent the spread of disease.

CO: We know that in China so far I believe it's about more than one million pigs have been killed already. They expect it could be as many as 200 million animals may eventually be slaughtered. So are the farmers cooperating with these projects?

JD: I think in many cases they are. It's difficult for them because provincial officials are unsure of what they should do and in some cases simply inducing farmers to ship and slaughter those pigs as quickly as possible. And this in turn creates an infected pork supply within the country that can affect other pigs.

CO: So this is to try and stay ahead of the culling because they will lose their livelihood if they don't.

JD: Yes, I think in many cases the farmers are trying to get around it but in many cases the provincial governments are also trying to avoid the liability of paying farmers for their pigs. The main difficulty is not that the farmers are not paid for those pigs that are infected, but their farm is shut down and it is unclear as to when they can start raising pigs again.

CO: When you spoke with these farmers in China -- what's the mood among those communities?

JD: On the most part it is a combination of fear and pessimism. To be honest we have not always provided enough detail to farmers in these countries as to the extent of the disease and methods to control it. And frankly we've never seen an outbreak of this size. There is also a real attachment of Chinese pig farmers to their pigs and frankly of society in general to pork. It's the most consumed meat in China -- it's a central part of many celebrations. And so it's not only an assault upon the financial well-being of the farmer but also upon the community as a whole.

CO: You've said elsewhere that it reminds you of a zombie film.

JD: Exactly. I think of horror films with the onward march of a disease of dead pigs lining streets of the worst case scenario for a farmer. And it's being shown daily on WeChat and the like and it can get very frustrating and frankly depressing.

CO: We're talking about China because you have just been there but also because half of the world's pork comes from China. But it's spreading to other countries, isn't it? The borders are porous -- animals are moving, the people are moving. So how large in areas is likely to spread to?

JD: Pigs are moving across borders -- and it has moved into Vietnam and caused similar devastating effects. It's moved into Mongolia. Cambodia is seeing it now as well. And so that whole region -- especially Southeast Asia -- seems susceptible.

CO: And what about us?

JD: That's the big question. This disease does make leaps across large distances and it appears to mostly occur through infected food products such as smuggled pork through airports.

CO: Okay we'll have to leave it there. Professor Deen we'll be following this story but thank you for speaking with us.

JD: Thanks very much for this opportunity.

DF: John Deen is a Professor of Veterinary Population Medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

[Music]

Seasteading Couple

Guest: Patri Friedman

DF: There's nothing like moving into your first home. Especially when it's built on a floating platform in the ocean. Earlier this year, Chad Elwartowski and Nadia Supranee Thepdet celebrated their first night alone in their seastead -- a floating cabin, 12 nautical miles off the coast of Thailand.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: All right first seastead!

[Pops bottle]

[Yelling in celebration]

VOICE 1: May this seastead be a beacon to freedom lovers everywhere.

VOICE 2: Yes.

DF: Freedom may be an even bigger concern today. While the couple was away, the Thai navy raided their seastead. Officials say they violated the country's national sovereignty -- a crime that could carry the death penalty. Patri Friedman is the chairman of the Seasteading Institute. We reached him in the Los Gatos Mountains in California.

CO: Mr. Friedman just very briefly can you describe for us this floating home where this couple was living?

PATRI FRIEDMAN: Sure. The home that Chad and Nadia were testing out is what's called a spar-platform which means it consists of a tall concrete pillar and then on top a platform that has living space, kitchens, bathrooms, etc.

CO: And where were they living? Where was it situated?

PF: It was anchored 13 miles off the coast of Thailand -- just outside Thailand's territorial waters.

CO: Why did they want to live there?

PF: Well Chad and Nadia are sea setters meaning they're people who believe that humanity needs to settle the oceans and someday create new countries out there and they were testing out this new kind of structure for doing that.

CO: Uh huh and so this was something that the Thai government didn't see eye to eye with them about.

PF: That's right. So from Chad and Nadia's perspective they were just trying out a new kind of ocean structure -- the Thai government thought that they were trying to claim sovereignty and has said that their actions were treasonous and that they're searching for them. But you know fortunately Chad and Nadia just having tested out a new kind of houseboat have managed to remain in hiding.

CO: Well how large is this structure?

PF: The living area consisted of one large room in an octagonal shape and then the pillar was about 50 feet tall. And it's what we call a "single family seastead" -- a structure just big enough for one family to live on the ocean.

CO: But if you can compare it to something -- is it bigger than a boat?

PF: Part of the idea of a single family seastead is that it won't move as well as a boat in terms of going from place to place, but it will be much more stable in the waves. And so the room inside is a large open room rather than like a tiny sloped room like you'd have in a boat. But think about it like a studio apartment.

CO: So the Thai government says that basically that they regarded it as a hazard to shipping and they regarded it as a violation of the country's sovereignty. Don't they have a right to say that they don't want that structure there?

PF: I absolutely think that Thai government has a right to say they don't want the structure there, but they did a lot more than that. Without any warning they said that Chad and Nadia just for having floated this new kind of structure offshore were being charged with treason -- a capital crime -- and started hunting them down. And you know that's just nuts. I absolutely support their right to say where floating structures are off their coast but you know not to say that just building a new type of house is treason.

CO: Do you think that the Thai government wants to send a message to anyone else who might want to do this kind of seasteading?

PF: Absolutely. I mean I think that there's a lot of political sensitivity in the region due to the South China Sea and actions of China. And so it's quite understandable that the Thai government is sensitive. But I wish that they'd understand that Chad and Nadia were not trying to claim any territory. They were just testing out a new kind of house boat.

CO: Okay. And this house boat -- this structure -- that Chad Elwartowski was living in with his partner they didn't design or pay for it. So who actually was in charge of this boat?

PF: That's a mystery. So it was designed and built by a company called Ocean Builders -- that wants to make a business of making these single family seasteads. And Chad and Nadia were the first couple willing to try it out and live on it.

CO: Whoever installed it where they did -- did you know if they had any contact with the Thai government?

PF: As I understood it they did contact the Thai government and asked for permission -- but a government is a big thing that has many different branches and I think they ask for permission and they received it not from the right part of the government. I think that they asked like a marine department charged with regulating boats and the Thai Royal Navy which enforces Thailand's national sovereignty are who came after them.

CO: If they are apprehended -- if it's treason they're charged with they could face the death penalty, is that right?

PF: That's right. Treason is a capital crime -- and it's the death penalty or life in prison. And since Chad is an American citizen, as long as he stays out of Thailand he should be safe. But Nadia being a Thai citizen facing these charges, she needs to either get the Thai government to drop these charges or to find asylum.

CO: Have you been in contact with them since they've gone into hiding?

PF: A little bit. For quite a while they were not talking to anyone, but you know more recently I've have exchanged a few words with them. They're obviously very scared about the situation and you know shocked that just trying out this new structure led to these treason charges and they're just scared of being apprehended -- given the reputation of Thai prisons.

CO: I know you're a head of an institute that promotes this seasteading as this concept of creating -- I guess -- even sovereign nations on the water. So what does this case mean? Is this a setback for your movement?

PF: Well our approach for the last five years has been focused on working with countries through formal agreements. And so this is a reminder to us of why we are doing things that way. So we were really excited that Ocean Builders just built this platform and Chad and Nadia were living on it, but it's not our preferred legal strategy.

CO: But what's the point? What is it that you want to do differently by building these independent nations on the water?

PF: We think it's really important that people be able to try out new forms of government in new places. I mean it's not right that people who live in a country should have their form of government changed on top of them. But at the same time it's also not right to have there be no places where we can try out new systems of law. So the Seasteading Institute seeks to help people create these floating cities so they can try out new forms of government.

CO: Do you think that that's what Chad Elwartowski was doing? That was his motive for being in the seastead?

PF: I think that Chad and Nadia's ultimate goal was to help create new countries on the ocean. But all they were trying to do off Thailand was to test out this new engineering design.

CO: All right we'll leave it there. Mr. Friedman thank you.

PF: All right. Thank you so much.

DF: Patrick Friedman is the chairman of the Seasteading Institute -- a nonprofit dedicated to creating floating ocean cities. We reached him in the Los Gatos Mountains in California. And we've posted more on that story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Hydroxyapitite Nanocrystals

DF: Now, Quote/Unquote. I wouldn't say this to its face, but the dragonfish is about the most terrifying thing I've ever seen. It lives deep in the ocean. And it can stay there. Empirically, dragonfish are fascinating. They range between 15 and 26 centimetres in length -- so about six to 10 inches. But they can consume surprisingly large prey due to their ability to open their mouths as wide as 120 degrees. I know, the worst. Plus which they look like a sketch H.R. Giger burned for being "too scary." Dragonfish also have a lure near their mouths -- a bioluminescent thing on their bottom jaw that scientists believe is supposed to attract prey. That's sneaky. But even sneakier is that their teeth are transparent so they don't glow in the light of that disgusting jaw-lure and give them away. Recently scientists put those teeth under an electron microscope. They found regular tooth stuff. But they also found that that outer layer is made up of something that's called -- unfortunately for me -- "hydroxyapitite nanocrystals." Now I didn't know this, but things are transparent when light goes through them without being scattered. And these hydroxyapitite nanocrystals hardly scatter or reflect light at all. So the dragonfish can just sit there with their hideous mouths open like jerks. And creatures will swim over to investigate their tricky jaw-lures and not see all those invisible teeth until it's too late. Obviously, the researchers have a respect for these horrible wonders of the deep. But when discussing that tooth-trap, co-author Marc Meyers of U.C. San Diego didn't imagine himself as a dragonfish. He imagined himself as its prey. Quote, "I would see a mysterious light source towards which I would be attracted. Suddenly I would be trapped and pierced." Unquote.

[Music]

Part 2: Brain surgeons went looking for a tumour — but found a tapeworm instead

Famine Ship

Guest: Viveka Melki

DF: During Ireland's Great Famine in 1847, Canada was one of the many countries Irish immigrants hoped to call home. But the journey over was often treacherous. And a new announcement from Parks Canada today has confirmed what many have long suspected. A few years ago, Parks Canada launched an investigation into whether human remains found in Quebec's Gaspe region may have belonged to Irish immigrants. Today, it confirmed that the bones were indeed from immigrants onboard the Carricks of Whitehaven -- an Irish ship that sank off the Gaspe coast on its way to Quebec City more than 170 years ago. Quebec filmmaker Viveka Melki has produced a documentary about the shipwreck. We reached her in Caibarien, Cuba -- where she's working on a new documentary.

CO: Viveka I know you have spoken many times with descendants of those who survived this shipwreck. What is it going to mean for them now that Parks Canada has confirmed that these are the bodies of those who are on that ship?

VIVEKA MELKI: I think it's going to bring some peace and some closure to them. I think for many years the village lore was that grave existed. They knew that the grave was there and when the bones came ashore they wanted some closure and they wanted the bones to be at least protected from the coastal erosion.

CO: And how is it that Parks Canada can be sure -- how have they confirmed that these are the remains of those Irish people who were coming to Canada?

VM: Well I think when it comes to history and rebuilding history you have to put a whole bunch of elements together. So we were doing DNA testing on the bones. We combined it with some archives that I have found from a priest called Michael Dowling who had said he was on the beach that night. I found the coastal erosion -- the moon that night, the waves, the winds. We combined all of that into a report that we then worked with Parks Canada on -- and a very good archaeologist called Martin Perron who was the person in charge of the dig. And that's how we can know that the grave existed and know that they came from the Carricks.

CO: It's interesting. Part of the science as I understand it is that because they could do analysis on the bones -- look at the health of the people who were there that you can see that they came from that potato famine and they came from a diet that was poor. There was signs of the malnutrition that -- well -- drove them out of Ireland to begin with. So it's interesting that that was also part of the confirmation, isn't it?

VM: Yeah absolutely. You know the diet of people can tell us so much as down to region. What was also amazing in the part that we had in the story was there was a violin on the ship -- that a child's cabin had -- belonging to his family. I mean we were able to do testing on that violin to know exactly which forest the wood was cut from. So it's not that we're doing anything that is you know more advanced to 20 years ago. It's in fact that we have the technology to do certain things and to test certain specimens -- and when we we are doing a dig that affected the story because we were able to use technology of the day to find that history.

CO: When this ship was -- it was in the mouth of the St. Lawrence in the Gulf on its way, it got caught in a storm, and then crashed on the rocks. It's believed that somewhere between 120-150 people died. How many bodies were actually found -- had to have been buried in the plots where they were exhuming them?

VM: Well the ships list that I found in Southampton -- it came from Southampton -- have listed 147 passengers. Most of them were single or widowed and had about five children with them. The tragedy of the Carricks of course is that there were so many children on the boats who couldn't swim when the ship goes down 200 metres from shore and the temperature of the water is a degree. So that's really what kills them. It was drowning and it was the cold because they could have made it to shore but there's no full moon that night. And so that doesn't help. A whole bunch of elements come together to make that tragedy occur. There's 147 on the ships lists -- but you have to always imagine that there would have been stowaways. So we don't exactly know how many were on the ship. We know that 80 were buried. That is what the priest Michael Dowling writes in his obituary that 80 bodies are buried on the beach.

CO: I want to ask you about this obituary for this priest you found -- this is a remarkable discovery in your research. Who was this priest and what did you learn from his obituary?

VM: Well Michael Dowling is a Catholic priest. He has come to Canada. He's working on the Gaspe coast. We know that the ship goes down at 4 a.m. and he travels 20 minutes to the beach -- he is the first person who is on the beach that night the villagers know the ship is going down. He's 32 years old, and it's his first time being a priest, it traumatizes him for life. He never recovered. In fact he never practiced his mass again. There's an obituary that I find in the basement of a church and the obituary must be arms-length and 80 percent of it is about that shipwreck that night. He died at the age of 80 plus. So I think it's his own obituary. This is actually our last chance to make a final statement. So I asked the Archbishop of Quebec City to open the vaults and I find out that the person [inaudible] who has written that obituary is in fact a lawyer who is by his bed that night. And so he's giving him last rites and so that's why that obituary is not actually the obituary it's a last statement of that event. And so we take that thing to Parks Canada and together we agree that that dig should continue and that's when we find the grave.

CO: And that was in the obituary that you learned that this was possibly a mass grave. So these people were not buried as individuals -- and I hate to be gruesome about this, but the remains are commingled, aren't they?

VM: It's a mass grave and it's one of the most moving things I've ever seen. When we opened the grave and I find that the skeletons are holding the children -- it's one of the most shocking things I have ever seen and it's astonishing but frankly it was just so moving and it felt to me like we had done some justice to that story. But they are. They buried them holding their children because they came for a better life and they end up buried in this grave. And it's an absolute tragedy for the community and for the families that never knew where their attendants were from.

CO: Do you have any idea what these people were escaping from as they left Ireland -- what they were leaving behind?

VM: I think they were leaving the same thing that people today are leaving -- they were leaving famine and violence from landlords and hunger for their children and hope to own something and have their own piece of land without being slaves to somebody else. They were fleeing the same things that are fleeing today. And I think that's why it is such an important story. We have to remember that we are a country that's filled with resilient people and that resilience -- well it cost people their lives. And it still does today of course.

CO: Viveka it's an extraordinary story. And I appreciate your perseverance in finding out the the background and what happened to those people. And thank you for speaking with us.

VM: Thank you very much.

DF: That was Viveka Melki, director and screenwriter behind the documentary film "Carricks." We reached her in Caibarien, Cuba.

[Music]

Messages From Listeners

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: How are we doing? You okay?

VOICE 2: Harry you all right? How's that Harry?

VOICE 3: That was super.

VOICE 2: Better than the last time you jumped there?

DF: That's the sound of 95-year-old Harry Read touching down onto the fields of Normandy earlier this week. Last night, the military veteran told us how he marked the 75th anniversary of D-Day with a tandem parachute jump -- re-enacting a jump he first did on June 6th, 1944, with the British 6th Airborne Division. After that interview, we heard from many of you. On Facebook, Barb Ballantyne wrote, quote, "How incredible! Hats off to both men and much gratitude for their dedication and bravery." Ross Williams added, quote, "Just think that even at 95 years old he had a significantly higher chance of landing safely in 2019 than he did in 1944." And Krista Hanna-Thompson wrote, quote, "Wow. No fear on their faces -- just sheer pleasure. After what they've been through, I bet not much scares them. We're so lucky to have some of these amazing vets still around. We're even more lucky that they served in the first place." Thank you to everyone who wrote. You can listen to our full interview with Harry Read and see a video of his parachute jump on our website: cbc.ca/aih. And to contact us about anything you hear on the program, find us on Twitter and Facebook both @CBCAsItHappens. Our email is aih@cbc.ca -- and we always love to hear your voice, so give us a call at 416-205-5687.

[Music]

Tapeworm Patient

Guest: Jonathan Rasouli

DF: All the evidence suggested that the lesion in Rachel Palma's brain was a tumor. And that, unfortunately, it was likely cancerous. But when the surgical team opened up her brain, they found something unexpected. Extremely unexpected. Jonathan Rasouli is the Chief Resident of Neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. He was one of the surgeons in the room at the time. We reached Dr. Rasouli in New York.

CO: Dr. Rasouli when your patient Rachel Palma first came to see you she had some pretty alarming symptoms, didn't she? Can you tell us what she was complaining about?

JONATHAN RASOULI: We were first introduced to Ms. Palma about a year ago and she was referred to our clinic by her own personal doctor based on the results of an MRI that she obtained of her brain that was very troubling to both her and him. And what prompted that MRI was this slow progression of numbness on the right side of Ms. Palma's face as well as numbness and weakness in Ms. Palma's right hand.

CO: And she was having symptoms -- like she was dropping a coffee mug, that she locked herself at her house, she was confused -- all these things. Then when you saw that image of that lesion -- what did you think that you were looking at?

JR: Based on our previous experiences looking at similar MRI scans and patients who were similar to Ms. Palma's history and clinical presentation -- we were pretty confident at the time that what we were looking at was potentially a brain tumor.

CO: Now you told your patient -- you told Rachel Palma -- that. I'm sure that was really disturbing news.

JR: Yeah. I mean you can imagine -- she had just recently been proposed to by her fiancé, they were looking to move in together in a new home in upstate New York. And you can just imagine getting the news that your symptoms may be due to a brain tumor. It was just devastating to her. It was definitely a tough pill to swallow.

CO: Okay so you're in the operating room -- you're in there with your team and your patient -- what did you find once you finally opened up her brain?

JR: We used our instruments to essentially dissect very carefully through the brain tissue to get down to the lesion. As we were developing a plane around the lesion itself, Dr. Shrivastava and I were very quickly realizing that what we were dealing with was clearly unlike any brain tumor we have ever seen before. And then once we had better exposure of the lesion we very quickly realized that it probably was not even a tumor to begin with.

CO: What was it?

JR: Probably the best way I can describe the way it looked like in surgery was that it was this very hard, firm, encapsulated lesion that basically looked like a quail egg. It was virtually the same size, same shape, and same firmness as a quail egg that you would buy in a store. So we took it away from the surgical field and underneath the microscope we cut into the lesion. And once we cut into it, a baby tapeworm came out.

CO: A baby tapeworm came out of the lesion.

JR: A baby tapeworm -- yup.

CO: A living thing? A parasite?

JR: Exactly yeah. A parasite.

CO: Okay. How did you react?

JR: You know you would think that something like this someone would react in shock and horror but once we realized what we were dealing with, the reaction was actually one of joy and excitement because we were thinking that we were potentially extracting a malignant brain tumor from Ms. Palma's brain -- but in fact, we were able to take out a parasite. So you can imagine the excellent implications on her prognosis as a result. So we were very very happy.

CO: Okay. So she doesn't have brain cancer. I'm sure she's quite relieved.

JR: Yes very much so.

CO: Okay. But how does a tapeworm get into somebodies brain?

JR: It's weird, right. It's weird and it's shocking. But basically what Ms. Palma had is something called neurocysticercosis. It is a tapeworm that is found in pork that if you accidentally ingest through eating raw or poorly cooked pork meat -- or if tapeworm eggs are found and raw fruits and vegetables are not washed very well, these larva or eggs can hatch and they can essentially migrate their way all throughout the body. And because the brain has such a robust blood supply, one of the favorite places for that baby to go is the brain.

CO: Does that mean that she ate some raw pork and she got a tapeworm in her head?

JR: Yeah -- so you know we still don't exactly know how this happened for her. The main risk factor is anybody who has essentially recently traveled outside the country and may have been exposed to or consumed raw fruits and vegetables outside of the United States and Canada and essentially all the countries in Europe. And she had not done that. She basically has been living in upstate New York for essentially most of her life and no recent history of travel. And she did not have anybody who could potentially be in close contact with her who was a carrier of either tapeworm or baby tapeworm eggs. So we're still kind of scratching our heads as to how she developed this.

CO: How did she react? What did she say to you when you told her you don't have brain cancer -- you had a tapeworm in your head?

JR: Her eyes widened and she couldn't believe it. But as you can imagine she was very very happy to hear that she does not have cancer.

CO: But now people who have been diagnosed with brain cancer -- what are the chances that they can go to their doctor tomorrow and say can you check to make sure I don't have a tapeworm in my head?

JR: Right. So I'll have to say that this entity or this pathology that Rachel had is very rare especially in the context of her lack of risk factors. She had -- as I mentioned before -- no recent history of travel, no sick contacts, or significant contact with somebody who could potentially be a carrier. So I would say 99 out of 100 times or maybe even more than that if a lesion is highly suggestive of cancer it usually ends up being the case.

CO: Okay. So the moral of the story: wash your hands, cook your food, wash your fruits and vegetables.

JR: Exactly.

CO: All right Dr. Rasouli thank you.

JR: Thank you so much Carol. Have a good day.

DF: Jonathan Rasouli is the Chief Resident of Neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. That's where we reached him. And you can find more on that story including the brain scan -- and if you dare: a photo of the baby tapeworm itself -- cbc.ca/aih. If you want -- if you don't, I totally understand.

[Music]

Dr. John

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Gris-Gris Gumbo Ya Ya by Dr. John]

DF: The first lines from the first song on the first album, and already has made a name for himself. His name was Mac Rebennack, but as you heard "they" call him Dr. John. A kind of Bayou wizard in huge feathered headdress and voodoo beads. And you believed him immediately. Over the decades that followed he became a hugely influential musician, an ambassador for his home city of New Orleans, and the larger than life figure. Mr. Rebennack became the Dr. John he invented. Dr. John died yesterday. He was 77 years old. Funny thing though at first Dr. John didn't intend to be Dr. John himself. He invented the character for his friend, musician, Ronnie Barron to play. But Mr. Barron couldn't do it. So Mac Rebennack stepped in to bring his own creation to life. And he stepped all the way in. That first album "Gris-Gris" was a weird, swampy, psychedelic New Orleans record. His record label didn't like it. Ahmet Ertegun of Atlantic Records didn't even want to put it out. According to Dr. John's memoir, Mr. Ertegun complained, "How do we market this boogaloo crap?" Well he couldn't. The album tanked. But he kept working. And four years later in 1972 he released "Dr. John's Gumbo" -- an album of covers of New Orleans classics. That was an instant classic itself. His next album "In the Right Place" was even a hit. He never really charted again. But he played to sold out crowds, won a total of six Grammys, and made another 30 plus albums. Although he always said he made most of his money from side gigs like this.

SOUNDCLIP

[Jingle for Popeyes]

DF: And the theme from the '90s sitcom "Blossom."

SOUNDCLIP

["Blossom Theme"]

DF: And the theme to Curious George.

SOUNDCLIP

["Curious George Theme"]

DF: That stuff paid the bills. But it didn't detract from his legacy. First of all because his voice was instantly recognizable. Second because he'd become as much a legend of New Orleans music as Allen Toussaint, Professor Longhair, and The Meters. And he'd also become that character he made up back in the late 60s the nearly-supernatural Dr. John.

[Music]

Part 3: Environmental group warned of lead risk from Notre-Dame fire weeks before authorities

ABC Raid

Guest: David McBride

DF: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation -- or ABC -- is Australia's public broadcasting counterpart to us, the CBC. And earlier this week, the organisation's independence seemingly came under siege. The Australian federal police turned up on the doorstep of the broadcaster's Sydney headquarters to carry out a raid -- demanding ABC hand over thousands of documents. Many of the items they sought related to investigative reporting only made possible by the actions of David McBride. He's a former legal advisor to Australia's special forces in Afghanistan who's been charged with leaking classified documents. We reached him in Canberra, Australia.

CO: Mr. McBride did you ever think you'd see a day when the Australian federal police would raid Australia's public broadcaster?

DAVID MCBRIDE: No. Times are changing as they say. I've had a lot of surprise the last couple of years.

CO: When did they seize? What did the police take from ABC?

DM: Well that's a good question. It was an unusual, very modern, kind of warrant where they had the right to access computers and delete things on them. So I guess that says something interesting in that they weren't trying to gather evidence for a court case. Rather they were trying to delete things which they didn't want people to read in the future.

CO: Well wait a second so the police were not seizing things in this warrant, they were erasing them?

DM: They had the right to do that. I think that was probably -- yes -- the real purpose was not to seize anything but to erase things.

CO: You are named in this warrant -- on page two along -- with the two ABC journalists and their director of news. It's stated that you are believed to have been the source of the information that led to this. Were you trying to keep your identity as the whistleblower out of the public eye?

DM: No. I had made that quite clear. The ABC published a lot of documents that I gave them in 2016. I gave them in 2016 -- they published them in 2017. At that point it was only a matter of time before I was arrested because there was many hundreds of documents and the only common link was myself.

CO: You're facing lengthy jail time for this though, aren't you?

DM: About 60 years. Yeah. So the rest of my life -- I am in my 50s now. However I decided once I was arrested that I wasn't going to waste anybody's time about whether or not I've given the documents. Rather I said yes I did do it. But the reason I did it was I felt justified because the government has acted so illegally.

CO: Now what ABC did with the hundreds of documents that you provided was they made a series called 'the Afghan Files" which has some quite shocking allegations. Can you tell us what has been reported at this point?

DM: The key things they reported on was to say some time in Afghanistan one of our special forces patrols in the mountains had shot a shepherd boy by mistake thinking he was Taliban and they didn't report it. The Afghan files were mainly reports of investigations by independent Australian investigators who by and large said this is an unfortunate incident. However there's no cause for criminal charges.

CO: But we should point out this is about the special forces -- Afghan special forces. This is the Afghan mission as we had one in southern Afghanistan. This was yours in that very same close region. They reported that there are 10 incidents of special forces killing unarmed men and children. Is that true?

DM: Yeah that's true. However they didn't mean to kill them. It was usually what they called [inaudible] where we would fire artillery or shoot into a house and kill a father who might have been armed with a weapon but we'd also killed a child. They're obviously sad. However what I believed was the biggest story was the fact that the leadership -- the generals -- and I believe also the politicians, had performed some illegal operations and then tried to cover them up. And I believe that's the purpose of these latest raids. The police have realised that there is much more to the Afghan files than was first revealed.

CO: What is it you felt that was the public's right to know in this case?

DM: I was very much an insider in that I was a major in the army and special forces with a good career and so I didn't go straight to the press. First I wrote an internal complaint and it was very subtly worded to say, 'are you sure we don't want to rethink this policy?' I think it's a sign of guilty conscience instead of my complaint being upheld I suddenly became a target. My career was ruined. I took it to the police and the police said to me they didn't have any jurisdiction over the military. And so it was only after about two years of agitating that I finally went to the ABC. This is my allegation is they devised a plan whereby we would put soldiers in harm's way deliberately and as a result the politicians would increase their popularity. The senior generals and the politicians would have liked me to turn a blind eye to what I saw there.

CO: It's of note for many news organizations inside of Australia and inside that this is not the only case of the police going after whistleblowers. And then another journalist who is being investigated. What's going on in Australia?

DM: I think we have gone a step too far. The polls show public satisfaction with democracy in Australia is at an all-time low. There is something they call national security legislation which really means the government has a right to silence any critics. It's legislation that was obviously passed in the wake of 9/11 and it's meant to target groups like al-Qaeda. But now it's being used on journalists and whistleblowers like myself.

CO: Are you charged under this national security legislation that was put in place?

DM: Yeah -- I am being prosecuted as a result and it means that the court case, my court case, is going to be a secure court case with no journalists or witnesses of any kind will be allowed into the room. So we've got the situation now in Australia we are doing what we used to be highly critical of in nations such as China and Russia where we are prosecuting political opponents as if they are spies.

CO: Mr. McBride we will be following this story and your case. And I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

DM: Thank you.

DF: That was David McBride -- a former military lawyer with the Australian Armed Forces. We reached him in Canberra.

[Music]

Sport is a universal language

DF: It's been said that sport is a universal language. And when it comes to the Toronto Raptors that may be especially true. Tonight, when the team takes on the Golden State Warriors in Game 4 of the NBA Finals, they'll have fans cheering from them across Canada. And given the diversity of Canada -- and especially Toronto -- those cheers won't just represent the North but the entire world. With that in mind CBC's Joana Draghici asked fans to play tribute to the home team and their homelands.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Hi my name is Abiha.

VOICE 2: My name is Murtazah. [Both speaking] And we speak Urdu. [Speaking in Urdu].

VOICE 3: Hi my name is George. I'm from Bulgaria. [Speaking in Bulgarian].

[People speaking in different languages]

VOICE 4: My name is Imran. I'm from India. [Speaking in Hindi]

VOICE 5: My name is Kata -- and I want to say in Serbian. [Speaking in Serbian].

[People speaking in different languages]

VOICE 6: Hi this is Stella. This is in my native tongue Konkani. [Speaking in Konkani]

VOICE 7: This is Ian from Philippines -- a true Raptors fan. [Speaking in Filipino].

DF: Man! That's why I love this town. Some of the many cheers and languages you might hear tonight as the Toronto Raptors play the Golden State Warriors in Game 4 of the NBA Finals.

[Music]

Break-In Conviction

Guest: Matt Gould

DF: On September 2nd, 2016, Dakota Pratt awoke to what he described as, quote, "the feeling of being stabbed." A 21-year-old man with a knife had entered his home on Birdtail Sioux First Nation, northwest of Brandon, Manitoba. Mr. Pratt fought the attacker, and eventually stabbed him 13 times -- the last of which was fatal. Yesterday, a judge acknowledged that Mr. Pratt had been the victim of an unprovoked assault and was in a struggle for his life, but sentenced him to five years in prison for manslaughter. Matt Gould was the defense lawyer for Dakota Pratt. We reached him in Winnipeg.

CO: Mr. Gould how unusual is it for a judge to say that self-defence is justified but still sentence a person to five years in prison?

MATT GOULD: Well it depends on what you mean by self-defence is justified of course. We have a situation where the law says that an individual can respond in a way that is reasonable in the circumstances. So from a defense lawyer's perspective self-defence would be something that is accepted as reasonable in the circumstances. So what I would take that to mean is that a reaction from Mr. Pratt in these circumstances was understandable and a reaction was justified. I think the jury and the judge disagreed with the defense in terms of what level of response was appropriate or what actually happened.

CO: But we know that the judge and the jury both agreed that your client was trying to defend himself from a knife attack but they said that your client -- Dakota Pratt -- went beyond what was reasonable to defend himself. Was that true?

MG: That's right. Their response has to be reasonable in the circumstances.

CO: So what happened? So let's just talk about what happened -- so the man who ended up dead, what was he doing in your client's home?

MG: He was attacking him. He came there to attack him and he said he came there to kill him.

CO: Can you describe that attack?

MG: Yes. We have Dakota Pratt sleeping in a basement room. The lights are off and the room is dark. Dakota Pratt is sound asleep and he wakes up to being stabbed in the head. The first cut gets him out of the bed. Keep in mind this is an individual who is sound asleep so in the haze of trying to figure out what's happening because he's in a dark room that's when he is told by this individual who later became the victim, "I'm going to f-ing kill you." Although of course he didn't use the word "f-ing." After that we have another stab that required at least four staples in Mr. Pratt's head to close. So we have an altercation. You know Mr. Pratt and this individual struggle in this dark room. They end up at the bottom of the stairs just outside the bedroom. Now this is where there are differing versions of what the jury may have accepted. So to this moment we don't know exactly what version of events the jury accepted or did not accept. What we do know is that the jury coming back as manslaughter did not accept that his response was reasonable in the circumstances. Now the position put forward by Mr. Pratt who testified is that they fell down together, that they stood up and started going up towards the stairs. We had a police statement from Mr. Pratt that he had reached out and grab this person when he got up.

CO: But he got the knife as well, right?

MG: Well no -- what Mr. Pratt testified to is that he grabbed that individual and the response from this individual was to turn around and continue this attack. And that goes up the stairs and out onto the front porch where Mr. Pratt testified he believed fully that he was going to be stabbed and killed. The only option that he has is to grab the knife away from this individual. And the way that he does that because he has no other option is he has to grab the knife by the blade. And then he described in detail which he was cross-examined on about how this individual kept coming at him and that he pushed them away and stabbed him when he had to. And this individual kept coming at him until he finally went down as the result of a stab wound which killed that person.

CO: Isn't that true that your client stabbed Mr. (Vincent) Bunn 13 times and then kicked him?

MG: Well is it or isn't it? It is somewhat true. And let me be clear about exactly what I mean by...

CO: But were there 13 stab wounds in Mr. Bunn? Was he stabbed 13 times or not?

MG: Well he was cut multiple times. There was one fatal stab wound which the autopsy doctor confirmed. Other than that one fatal stab wound none of the other injuries even combined would have caused death. So he was cut -- absolutely. There was only one single fatal wound and that was the description from Mr. Pratt because the position he put forward was that his actions stopped when he stopped getting attacked. And that of course was the result of that one fatal stab wound.

CO: But doesn't that cross the line from self-defence to manslaughter?

MG: Well the jury thought so yeah. Or I mean it depends -- this is the issue with Canada because we don't know exactly what they accepted or what they didn't. If you're asking my opinion on it, absolutely not. If I'm woken up and I'm stabbed in the head and I'm told I'm going to be killed and then someone keeps coming at me and coming at me and coming at me, then I would do whatever it took for it to stop that person before I got killed. But to be clear, the jury did not agree with it.

CO: You were asking for a three year sentence. Why did you think that would be appropriate?

MG: Well so the jury decided Mr. Pratt was guilty of manslaughter. Once you're in this manslaughter range there are lots of exceptions but typically speaking you are talking about 8 to 12 years. But this is not a typical case. We have that self-defence action which may have gone a step too far or which the jury likely determined went beyond what they believe was reasonable and that from my perspective left Mr. Pratt in a situation where he should be the absolute lowest range for manslaughter which is about at that three year...

CO: He's going to do five years though -- so he will not be going home.

MG: He will not be going home. No.

CO: We'll have to leave it there Mr. Gould but thank you.

MG: Understood. Thank you.

DF: Matt Gould was the defense lawyer for Dakota Pratt. We reached him in Winnipeg.

[Music]

Notre Dame Lead

Guest: Jacky Bonnemains

DF: Days after the Notre-Dame Cathedral caught fire in Paris, the environmental NGO Robin des Bois -- or Robin Hood -- declared the area a polluted site. The group issued a statement saying that tons of lead had melted from the roof and steeple. And added in no uncertain terms that, quote, "the Cathedral has now become filled with toxic waste." At that time French authorities advised those living in the local area to wipe dust off any surfaces. But they added that the threat of lead exposure was limited to an area off limits to the public. Now local health authorities are advising all children and pregnant women in the vicinity of the cathedral to get their lead levels tested. The call comes after abnormally high levels of lead were detected in a child. Jacky Bonnemains is the head of the NGO Robin de Bois. We reached him in Paris.

CO: Mr. Bonnemains what did you think when you heard that this child had been found with these abnormally high levels of lead?

JACKY BONNEMAINS: Unfortunately we were not surprised because while the cathedral was burning at least 300 tons of lead in the roof of the cathedral but also in the spire of the cathedral were [melted] and turned into particles, dust, soot, which were scattered around in the area and also in the Seine river.

CO: But can you be sure that this child with the lead levels that it came from the fire -- have they actually confirmed that that is the source of the lead?

JB: An environmental inquiry in the flat is underway. We are not sure because other sources of lead can for instance be old paint or pipes. But this quarter is not known to be dangerous for the health of the people. So it is presumed that the burning is responsible of this high level. But we are not absolutely sure for the moment.

CO: I know that your organization Robin de Bois -- you have been warning about this since the fire. Now it seems the health authorities in Paris are taking this very seriously. What are they advising that people in the area around Notre Dame Cathedral - -what are they telling them to do?

JB: Firstly we were all alone to call the inhabitants to clean the flats with the wet rags, to clean the windows, to wash the tapestries and the toys of the children. And now these warnings are more and more published by the authorities. But there is no -- for instances -- no poster in front of each building that could be affected by the dust. There is no visible information in French or in English. There is English people or the French people living in the area and they are not informed of the risk.

CO: But you know that it takes very small amounts of lead in small children and babies -- (it) can have very bad consequences. This has been now about six weeks since the fire. Does it seem a bit late to be telling people to wash the toys and wash the floors and surfaces?

JB: It's late of course. But this problem will last for a long time. There are big quantities of dust which are against the walls of the cathedral in the scaffolding which was circling the spire. And as long as the cathedral is not cleaned the area will be exposed to the dust.

CO: You mentioned about that it is not just in the air. These particles were airborne during the fire but now they are possibly in the soil, in the river Seine. Are there concerns about any concentration of lead perhaps in fish that people might get or in their gardens or any other place where there might be a concentration of lead from that fire?

JB: The toxic plume was drifting in the west of Paris and above the Seine river -- and the fallout of the plume are surely now in some public gardens and also of course in the river bed. And fish and birds are also under the threat of the contamination.

CO: What about the people doing repairs on the cathedral -- and over the years that they will be doing that -- are they exposed to levels of lead that are dangerous?

JB: At the beginning they were absolutely without mandatory equipment and they were exposed to the inhalation of the dust. Now since a few days, part of the workers are equipped and protected. But around the cathedral we have seen the sweepers of the city of Paris continue their work without protection and it was really a shame to see this. It was the most spectacular sign of a lack of information for all of people including the workers in the streets.

CO: All right Mr. Bonnemains I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

JB: Thank you. Bye.

DF: That was Jacky Bonnemains, head of the environmental NGo Robin de Bois. We reached him in Paris.

[Music]

Baby Shark

DF: This week the American children's network, Nickelodeon, announced a new show for pre-schoolers. The network's executive vice president of animation issued an extremely enthusiastic statement about this forthcoming artistic coup. See if you can fill in the blank in the sentence, quote, "At the heart of any popular piece of content is terrific character and we have a great opportunity to further explore the world of BLANK, and follow this family through some great animated adventures." You'll never guess what the blank is. In fact you don't even want me to give you a hint. Trust me. Really you don't. But then I did bring it up, so here. And I apologize in advance.

SOUNDCLIP

[Baby Shark Music]

DF: I also apologize now. That of course and regrettably is "Baby Shark." A very popular -- very -- okay! Okay! Enough. Turn it off for the love of God. Very...a great song. I just happened to have heard enough of it. The original video for Baby Shark has nearly 2.9-billion views on YouTube. So admittedly trying to capitalize on its massive horrifying success is kind of a no-brainer. It's just that -- well first it's a stretch to say Baby Shark is a "terrific character." All we know is that Baby Shark has parents and grandparent sharks and that they hunt and they run away or we run away. The language gets really ambiguous there. And it's the end. Not a ton of what you'd call character development. But I guess that'll come in the series based on the song that repeats the word "do" literally 108 times. Although I'll believe it when I see it -- which honestly I won't because if I see it I'll have to hear it again. And I think I'm pretty much done. [Singing] Done-done-duh-done-duh-done. Nope.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 7, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This