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 September 12, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Ali Hassan

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

ALI HASSAN: Good evening, I'm Ali Hassan. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

AH: Tonight:

CO: They can't go any further, and it's gone too far. The U.S. Supreme Court allows the Trump Administration to block asylum-seekers from Central America from entering the U.S. — but our guest won't stop fighting the policy.

AH: The disconnect before he disconnected. Last night, Newfoundland and Labrador's Environment Minister left a voicemail message for someone at the Innu Nation Executive Council — and then said some disturbing things after he thought he'd hung up.

CO: Our stiff upper lips are sealed. The British government reluctantly releases some of its dire predictions for a no-deal Brexit — but a journalist says it's trying to downplay the true extent of the potential pandemonium.

AH: Thinking outside the inbox. Hillary Clinton pays a visit to an art exhibit made up of prints of her much-discussed emails — and the artist is grateful the former presidential candidate got the message he was trying to send.

CO: Wise beyond their fears. David Suzuki is hitting the road with Stephen Lewis and Buffy Sainte-Marie to convince young people to take up the fight against climate change -- and to avoid their parents' mistakes.

AH: And...gut reaction. Ghost crabs may look weird, but no, they're super-weird in every way, including the way they respond to threats: with a growl generated by grinding the teeth in their stomachs.

AH: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio you should also avoid when our stomach's upset.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: SCOTUS asylum ruling, Yellowhammer document, growling crabs

SCOTUS asylum ruling

Guest: Lee Gelernt

AH: It's good news for U.S. President Donald Trump. And, unsurprisingly, he made that clear. When it was announced yesterday that his asylum policy would stand, he called it a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" The Supreme Court's order focused on a policy that was introduced by the Trump administration earlier this year. It's believed it would effectively ban most people from Central America from claiming asylum at the southern U.S. border. For now, the Court says that policy can go forward — while challenges in the courts play out. Lee Gelernt is fighting the policy. He's an attorney with the ACLU. We reached him in New York.

CO: Mr. Gelernt, we know that you are going to challenge this policy in the courts, but what will be the immediate effect on people seeking asylum in the United States?

LEE GELERNT: The immediate effect of the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday is that the ban will be applied to anybody who crosses the southern border by land. It will have a devastating effect. Families and children will be sent back to serious danger. That's why we'll continue challenging this new rule by the administration, and hope to ultimately prevail.

CO: It won't apply to Mexicans who apply for asylum. Who does it apply to?

LG: The rule applies to anybody who transits through a third country and doesn't apply for asylum in that country.

CO: We know that the people mostly who are coming into United States seeking asylum are from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala — they have to go through not only Mexico but other countries in some cases in order to get to United States. Where are the snags? What is the government saying that they must do, and why they're not legitimately able to make an application to the United States?

LG: The government is claiming that if Hondurans or Salvadorans pass through Guatemala or Mexico — which they're going to have to do to come to the U.S. — they need to wait in those countries and apply for asylum there. But they're virtually sitting ducks in those countries. It is extremely dangerous for them to wait there. But on top of that, those countries — Guatemala and Mexico — do not have fully-functioning asylum systems. So even if it wasn't dangerous it would be futile for them to wait around and try and apply for asylum there.

CO: And so this is now going to go into effect right away. We're hearing from the acting director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Kenneth Cuccinelli, who says that this is going to be A.S.A.P. He's going to try and solve the crisis at our southern border. That's a quote. So how many people will be affected by this policy change?

LG: You know it's difficult to know exactly how many, but you know we think probably thousands — and maybe the majority of them being women and children who are fleeing horrendous violence and persecution. We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court allowed it to go into effect immediately, but we're going to continue challenging it and hope that we ultimately prevail. People need to understand that this was a temporary ruling by the Supreme Court and does not end the case.

CO: Can you give us a sense tell people what these people may be fleeing from their countries?

LG: So they're fleeing a variety of different dangers. Many are fleeing gangs that control their cities and neighbourhoods that essentially function like the government — set curfews, tax people, and if people don't obey, they're killed, they recruit they're children. And so we are turning our back on people who have stood up to these gangs and said I am not going to be part of a gang. I want to come to the United States so I don't have to be part of the gang. The administration is criticizing these gangs, but then when people stand up to them, they don't provide a safe haven. We're also seeing many, many women who are subject to domestic violence — horrendous domestic violence. They cannot get any help from police. Some are fleeing just straight political persecution, religious persecution. There are Indigenous groups that are being persecuted in Guatemala. So it really spans the spectrum. But what we want to make clear is that we are not saying everyone will ultimately be entitled to asylum. But there has to be a process, and this new rule by the administration is essentially ending the asylum process at the southern border.

CO: So you're not saying that the people who are trying to get into the United States are all of them entitled to be there, or all of them entitled to this kind of protection. What they're being denied does not opportunity to make their case?

LG: That's exactly right. It's an opportunity to make their case. Some will be able to show that they're entitled to come to the United States. Some will not. But having no process is inconsistent with our country's traditions, and it's flatly inconsistent with the laws our Congress has passed that have been in place for 40 years. Congress has made clear that transiting through another country is not a basis to automatically deny asylum. We believe what the administration has done unilaterally is inconsistent with the laws Congress has passed. And that's why we'll continue to push in the courts in the hope that the courts will say that what the Trump administration is doing is inconsistent with our nation's asylum laws and our traditions and values.

CO: Well, we should point out that Canada has a safe third country agreement with the United States. How is that different?

LG: So that's exactly right, and I'm glad you brought that up. We have not opposed all third safe country agreements. But the difference is that we signed a formal agreement with Canada. So Canada agreed formally to accept our asylum seekers. Canada also provides a safe place for people to apply for asylum and has a fully-functioning asylum system. And so that's what we've said is if the administration's ever going to make people apply for asylum in a third country, it has to first get an agreement that country that they're willing to take these asylum seekers. And the administration has to verify that it's safe for asylum seekers there and that there's a full and fair process in that country. And so that's the difference between what's happening at the northern border with Canada and what the administration is trying to do unilaterally on the southern border.

CO: Just finally, how can you fight this at this point?

LG: I think we're going to fight it on multiple fronts. I think we are going to try and educate the public about what this rule does. We're going to continue fighting in the courts. Because as I said, this is a temporary ruling by the Supreme Court, it doesn't shut the cases down. And you know we hope that Also Congress steps in and says look, we passed the asylum laws. This rule is inconsistent with the laws we passed. It’s inconsistent with America's values and traditions. And we're going to overturn what the administration did, which it would be Congress's right. But for us we as civil rights lawyers will be continuing to fight in court and hopefully will prevail in the end.

CO: We will leave it there, but we will be following this. Mr. Gelernt, thank you.

LG: Thank you for having me.

AH: Lee Gelernt is an attorney who's the deputy director of the ACLU's National Immigrants' Rights Project. We reached him in New York.

[Music: Ambient]

Abortion Conservative

AH: This morning, Andrew Scheer found himself talking about something he didn't want to talk about: one of his candidates, and her position on abortion. The candidate is Rachel Willson. The Conservative leader had scheduled a campaign event in her Toronto-area riding. Then the Liberals' Carolyn Bennett tweeted out an old video showing Ms. Willson talking about advancing pro-life legislation, and erecting a monument to the unborn. When Mr. Scheer and Ms. Willson completed their event, reporters were ready and waiting with some questions.

SOUNDCLIP

REPOTER: Mr. Scheer, your candidate — Ms. Willson — said she thought it was shocking that Canada has no abortion legislation. If she wins here in this riding, and as an MP in your government, what are you going to do if she brings in legislation that would affect abortion rights in any way?

ANDREW SCHEER: So nothing on this issue has changed for our party. We have always made it very clear that we will not support reopening the issue — that a Conservative government will not reopen this issue. And as prime minister, I will oppose, I will vote against any measure that does attempt to do that. We are going to be focused on things that unite Canadians, unite our own team. It's not a surprise that the Liberals are once again trying to push this thing out. The only people who are continually trying to reopen this debate or fear monger on this issue are Liberals. And I'm gonna make a prediction. They're going to continue to do this for 39 days because they are desperate to change the channel on their scandals and corruption. And Ms. Bennett today has put forward a message that is completely false. She is making things up in her attack, and it's not a surprise because her leader has been lying about issues for some time now.

REPORTER: Ms. Willson, you said that you thought it was shocking that Canada doesn't have an abortion law — and you suggested there could be legislative ways to deal with that. If you were elected as an MP in this riding, would you introduce legislation that would affect abortion rights, or would you support someone else's legislation that did?

RACHEL WILLSON: Well, we just heard from our leader, and I absolutely support our leader’s position that we are focused on issues that unite Canadians, and that's what I'm hearing about at the doors, and that's what our party will continue to focus on.

REPORTER: Do you believe you would have a free vote under this Government on abortion?

RW: Well, we are the only party that allows for. We are a big blue tent. We’re the only party that allows for free votes, and so I'm grateful that our leader will allow free votes on issues of moral conscience.

REPORTER: But would you introduce legislation?

RW: I'm planning to focus on issues that I'm hearing about at the door. I've been knocking on doors for a year-and-a-half in this community. We've been building great momentum. And the issues that I'm hearing about are affordability, security, and Justin Trudeau's repeated scandals and corruption.

REPORTER: But do you still care about this issue?

RW: I've never hidden behind the fact that I am pro-life. Justin Trudeau said in 2011 he also is pro-life. But our party is focused on issues that unite Canadians.

AH: That was Conservative candidate Rachel Willson, and Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, in North York, Ontario this morning.

[Music: Ambient]

Yellowhammer document

Guest: Rosamund Urwin

AH: Hard-core Brexiters in the UK insist that leaving the EU with no-deal really won't really be that bad. But now the government of Boris Johnson has been forced to release a document that says a no-deal Brexit, in fact, really is that bad — or worse. It's called Operation Yellowhammer. And it lays out what could happen if the UK leaves crashes out of the EU on October 31st. The government says Yellowhammer is just a worst-case scenario. But Sunday Times journalist Rosamund Urwin says that reading doesn't match up to an earlier draft, which was leaked to her paper. We reached her in Argyll, Scotland.

CO: Rosamund, just give us some of the more striking predictions for a no-deal Brexit in this Operation Yellowhammer document?

ROSAMUND URWIN: So this is the government's own planning assumptions. And what the document sets out is that the UK would face shortages of fuel, food, and medicine. A hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is very likely, according to these documents, if the UK crashes at the EU. And also, a sort of meltdown and all social care services, which are already in a pretty bad way in this country.

CO: Can you give us a bit more of a sense of what a meltdown might be?

RU: Yes, so the meltdown at the ports is to do with the delays that would ensue there. It suggests that there’ll be very bad delays for freight transport. And obviously also would involve passengers struggling to get in and out of the country.

CO: If there's a problem bringing in food — especially perishables — presumably food prices go up, same difficulty getting hold of drugs, etc. who will be most affected by it?

RU: Will, this document does actually state that, perhaps unsurprisingly, it's those with lower incomes that will be worst hit. And I would note that when they talk about vulnerable groups and contingency planning — which is what this document is — they mean that in the widest possible sense. So the elderly, pregnant women, children, it doesn't mean sort of people right at the edge of society in the way that we might tend to think about vulnerable groups. It means a very broad definition of that.

CO: How do the predictions in this document compare to what Boris Johnson's government has been saying about what's going to happen after no-deal Brexit?

RU: That's a very good question [laughing]. Michael Gove, who is in charge of no-deal planning, he said that there will be bumps in the road. But these were obviously rather bigger than bumps some might feel. These are sort of mountains in the road rather than just little bumps. And Boris Johnson has talked about making the best of no-deal. So I sat through far too many of his hustings speeches, and at all of them he really played down the risks to the UK from no-deal. He had this thing he'd said to all of them, which is planes will still fly, there will be clean drinking water, and there will be Mars Bars. But frankly, if your selling point is you can have three things that you already have and you sort of accept as quite a normal thing in a functioning developed world country — Mars Bars, clean water and planes flying, that doesn't feel like the greatest selling point for anything.

CO: [chuckling] Now this document — entitled “Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions” — you were leaked a similar — if not identical — document weeks ago. How does that compare with the one that they've now pried out of their fingers here officially?

RU: You're quite right. My paper — The Sunday Times — in London had a copy of this document a little over about three weeks ago. And we ran it, and it is incredibly similar to the document we ran. But with two major changes, and you're quite right to pick up on the headline on this document. When the document was seen by the Sunday Times, it had the phrase “base scenario” at the top. And actually, the leader of the Scottish National Party and she has come out — Nicola Sturgeon — and said well hang on a minute, the version I have also says “base scenario”. So which is it? The other thing that's different is there's a part that was redacted when the government published this that relates to fuel shortages. And the reason for that, I believe, and this is just sort of from what I've come to understand today, is that there's a fear about people stockpiling fuel in the UK. We've had a couple of instances that I've heard what would now be the last 19 years when we've had fuel shortages that have sort of been self-induced by people stockpiling.

CO: We have spoken with people in the past months, well even more than that, who were stockpiling food. They’re filling their basements with things as though they were preparing for what was like a war effort. So what is this going to do? Now that this is released, how do you think people are going to respond to the possibility of these shortages?

RU: I suspect Canadians are rather better at preparing for disasters than we are in the UK. You've had rather a lot more natural you know problems frankly, natural disasters. There's a sort of perception of our society that we survived the Blitz. You know but that was back in the 1940s. It’s a very, very long time ago. Most of us weren’t alive then, and I would suggest as a society we are less well-prepared than people saying Canada would be.

CO: I think you're right that we people do prepare for disasters of natural causes. But from your point of view of people in the UK, what's it like to get a document talking about preparing for a potential disaster that is self-inflicted?

RU: Well, I’m a reporter, so I’m not supposed to have any opinions on these such things. But I could sort of let you in on what a few other people think there. I would suggest that the fact that the government is spending one hundred million pounds on an advertising campaign that only all it does is remind people that October the 31st is our exit date, that might seem like a terrible waste of money. And on top of that, it does feel a strange situation certainly where the disaster — the potential disaster — obviously we don't know exactly what's going to happen, and that's part of the problem here. But yes, indeed, it is self-inflicted. But, of course, people did not vote for a no-deal Brexit. I think this is something very important to remember. The voters were told in the run up to the 2016 referendum that they would get a deal with the EU; it would be the easiest deal in history. There were all sorts of things that were said like that. I mean it was repeated by the “Leave” campaign that we would get a deal — that there was no risk of us crashing out. What has happened has shown that many of those comments were very foolhardy.

CO: All right. Well we will be continuing to follow this saga, if I may call it that. Thank you for your reporting, Rosamund, and thank you for speaking with us.

RU: Thank you very much.

CO: Take care. Bye-bye.

AH: Rosamund Urwin is a reporter with the Sunday Times. We reached her in Argyll, Scotland. And there's more on that story on the As It Happens website: www.cbc.ca/aih. And meanwhile, Boris Johnson has is responding to accusations that he told a lie — a big one. And that he told it to someone you never lie to: the Queen. This week a Scottish court ruled the UK's Prime Minister had misled the monarch in asking for parliament to be suspended. Today, on the BBC, he responded to that allegation.

SOUNDCLIP

HOST: Did you lie to the Queen when you advised her to prorogue to suspend Parliament?

BORIS JOHNSON: Absolutely not. And, indeed, as I say the High Court in England plainly agrees with us. But the Supreme Court will have to decide. We need a Queen's Speech, we need to get on and do all sorts of things at a national level. Here we are discussing ship building. We're going to bills on education, on health, and parliament will have time — both before and after that crucial summit on October 17^th-18^th to talk about the Brexit deal. I'm very hopeful that we will get a deal as I say at that crucial summit. It will be tough. It will be hard. But I think we can get there. And the crucial thing is if we can't get a deal, I really hope we can, if we can't, then we will be ready to come out on October the 31^st — deal or no deal — and that's what this is all about.

AH: That was the UK's Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaking on the BBC today.

[Music: Indie rock]

Growling crabs

Guest: Maya deVries

AH: Ghost crabs aren't ghosts. But they are ghost-like — partly because of their pale colouring. And partly because — like a vengeful spirit trapped in your walk-in closet — they want you to get out. They can't wail like actual ghosts. But when scientists studied the way ghost crabs communicate when threatened, they did hear something surprising. Professor Maya deVries was part of the team at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography that discovered the ghost crabs' secret, noisy weapon. We reached her in Sea Ranch, California.

CO: Professor deVries, what did you uncover about these unusual sounds that ghost crabs make?

MAYA DEVRIES: Right. So it was really interesting. In the lab, we noticed that they were making the same sounds with another part of their body than their claws. And a lot of crustaceans make these really neat stridulation sounds or grinding sounds that are really important for their behaviour. But we heard it coming from another part of the body, which was very intriguing.

CO: Before we find out what part of their body is doing it, let's hear a bit of the sound that you have recorded of growling crabs.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: I would describe the sound as being similar to a zipper being done up]

CO: Okay, that's the sound. Can you tell us what that is?

MDV: Right. So it sounds like a scraping sound, as you could tell, when two body parts scraped together. And what we found is that it was actually coming from the stomach. So what the animals have is a gastric mill, which is basically what they use to grind food in their stomachs. It's a set of teeth basically in the stomach, and they can chew up food that way. But we learned that they can also make these sounds that sound strikingly similar to the sounds that they make with their claws.

CO: Do all crabs have these grinding mills in their guts?

MDV: Yes, all crustaceans that we know of have these gastric mills or yeah grinding apparatuses. It's pretty crazy.

CO: But did you know of any that actually use the grinding mill in order to make a sound that's nothing to do with digesting food?

MDV: Nope, this is the first example of really any animal making sounds for communication with their stomachs — as far as we know.

CO: When you first identified these sounds, and you could see that they weren't doing it with their claws, what did you think was going on?

MDV: Yeah, it was really neat. The lead author of the study, Jennifer Taylor, had actually brought these animals into the lab for another study. She was going to look at how they behave antagonistically to each other. But then she noticed that they were making this kind of classic sound not with their claws. And she got very curious, and kind of brought the rest of the team in to kind of figure out where the sound was coming from.

CO: What did you do in order to figure it out?

MDV: First, we used a Laser Doppler vibrometry, which is basically vibration-sensing lasers, to be able to pinpoint where in the body the sound is coming from, so that told us that the sound was coming from the body cavity — probably this gastric mill. But we need to see the gastric mill actually moving at the same time that the sound is being produced, and that's actually really tricky to do. In bigger crabs you can stick like an endoscope down there and see the gastric mill moving. But these are really small crabs — kind of the size of your hand — and when they make the sound, they're moving around a lot, so it's pretty hard to do. So we actually teamed up with a group of medical doctors at UC San Diego Medical Center, and we use their radiology technology — so basically X-ray imaging — to be able to make movies of the animals making the sound while they were moving their gastric mouth.

CO: [chuckles] Has anyone ever X-rayed a crab before, as far as you know?

MDV: [chuckles] No, not in this way, certainly with like human medical technology. So this is definitely the first time that they had stuck crabs into this machine before. But it worked, and it was really exciting.

CO: They make this sound when they're threatened, when they're trying to ward off attacks or they're trying to antagonize another species. So what did you do in order to get them to make the sound?

MDV: They actually do it when they're antagonizing other individuals from their same species usually. And so we were actually able to use bodies of dead crabs of the same species, and we actually even also put live crabs in with them, but to really be able to monitor where they were going and kind of guide where the animals were gonna be doing these behaviours, we used robotic Hex Bug toys, and they’re remote-controlled toys. And so we were able to remotely control the antagonizing toy to be able to get the crabs to make the sound.

CO: Okay, I'm trying to picture you in the hospital, with a crab in an X-ray machine device, and you are dangling dead crabs and Hex Bug robots at them. I mean that if anyone had put their head in the door, they would have thought this is really quite extraordinary, I’m sure?

MDV: Yeah. And that's actually exactly what we were doing, and it did look pretty funny. [laughing] We also, of course, had all of our like X-ray protective equipment on. And yeah, it was a pretty wild scene.

CO: What does it mean for you to figure this out?

MDV: This is really amazing because, again, this sound for us crustacean biologists is so common. We hear the crabs making the stridulation sound with their claws all the time. But to hear it when their claws aren't moving was just totally wild. I was pretty blown away.

CO: And so now you've found out their stomachs can communicate?

MDV: Um hmm, yes, that they're communicating with their stomachs. This means that this behaviour that is so important for them for defending territory and fighting with other crab, this actually frees up their claws for them to still be able to make the sound with a different part of their body. But then they can use their claws for doing other things like fighting with crabs and that kind of thing.

CO: What fierce little creatures these are.

MDV: Yeah, it's really neat. And we actually think because so many crustaceans have this gastric mill, it's highly possible that there are a lot of other animals that are doing this, and we just haven't discovered it yet.

CO: Neat! Professor deVries, thank you.

MDV: Yeah. Thank you so much.

CO: Bye-bye.

MDV: Bye.

AH: Professor Maya deVries is a post-doc fellow at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the co-author of a new study on crab communication. It was published this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. We reached Professor deVries in Sea Ranch, California.

[Music: Electronica]

Part two: Labrador voice mail, David Suzuki “Climate First” tour

Labrador voice mail

Guest: Dominic Rich

AH: Members of the Innu Nation in Labrador are furious. And they're accusing a government minister of racism. Perry Trimper is the Minister of the Environment and Municipal Affairs for Newfoundland and Labrador. Last night, he was leaving a message on the phone of an employee with the Innu Nation Executive Council. He thought he'd hung up. But he hadn't. And in a conversation that followed — all of which was recorded — he makes some inappropriate remarks. He says the Innu people feel they have a, quote, "god-given right" to services. And he also accuses members of the Innu Nation of using, quote, "the race card."

SOUNDCLIP

PERRY TRIMPER: The race card comes up all the time. Don’t play me on that.

WOMAN IN THE BACKGROUND: All the time.

PT: They’ll play that all day. Thirty-two years’ worth. They’ll play that all day.

AH: That was Minister Trimper, saying, quote, "The race card comes up all the time. Don't play that on me." Unquote. Minister Trimper was leaving a voicemail message for Dominic Rich, before he made those comments. Mr. Rich works as an executive assistant with the Innu Nation Council. We reached him in Happy Valley Goose Bay.

CO: Mr. Rich, when you heard that voicemail message last night, coming from a government minister, what did you think?

DOMINIC RICH: The first reaction was total shock — a total shock. I could not believe what I was listening to contents of that voicemail. I had to listen two or three — if not four — times to bring myself to the reality what this person was saying on my voicemail.

CO: And we should point out that Perry Trimper — the Minister for the Environment for Newfoundland and Labrador — he was leaving you a message. And then I guess he didn't hang up properly, and so it continued. He was having what appears to be a conversation with somebody in the room, and describing what he thought of the issue that he was that he was calling you about. So that's what we're hearing in that the race card clip, right?

DR: Yes, he didn't hang up, and that's when he continued on with this a candid conversation he had with this other individual. [deep sigh]

CO: We played the part where he says the race card comes up all the time. Don't play that on me. What else did he say that was disturbing to you?

DR: That context what he was saying was very diminishing to concerns — my concerns as a voting member of his district. And the other thing that he said was that a feeling of God given right. People feel that they feel that a God given right.

CO: Just the parts of the tape that we transcribed, what he's saying to somebody else in the room, Innu guy on the phone; he's upset. They're accusing us of having bias. They think it's their God given right to have translations. And he says it's not a God given right for us to provide services, and the race card comes up all the time. I've been 30 years working with those guys. Don't play that on me. That's some of what he has to say in that.

DR: That very disturbing what you just said — those words. And in terms of the bias, we never said anything about bias or mentioned anything about a bias at all. All I wanted for my MHA — who represents me — to remedy the situation in terms of translation, that was it, that's all I asked.

CO: Can you explain what it was? Because this concerns Innu people getting driver's licenses and wanting to have during the written part of the examination someone to help them with translation, which happens in many constituencies. What were you asking from the Government of Newfoundland Labrador in that regard?

DR: For the last over a decade, close to 20 years, I've been translating for financial institutions to the banks when people or the elders want me to translate for them — the bank teller, loans, among other stuff. And not only that, I translate that all in correctional institutions.

CO: But in this specific thing involving the drivers licenses examinations.

DR: I've been doing that for the last 20 years, close to 20 years. And I was told when I first came in there, Mr. Rich, you will not provide a translation under the initial examining test. The person will do on their own. If they fail, then the driver examiner will assist with that person. And if that person still fails, let me remind you that the driver examiner does not speak Innu-aimun, which is my language. And today also it is the International Language Day — just to remind you as well. And the third, that's where we’re coming play to provide the translation. Not just me, but other people too.

CO: Okay, but just so I understand. So what you were told after all these years of translating into Innu for people in these tests, they said that only if they have failed the test twice, after the second time…

DR: Twice!

CO: Then someone can come in. And these are people we should point out that some of them need these licenses for employment.

DR: For employment. Yeah, half of them — or more — need their driver's license to assist them and help them with their employment capacity.

CO: And is that what you wanted to talk to Perry Trimper about when he sent this phone mail?

DR: That was the part of it I was going to talk to him about. But also, I'm not the only one that provides or is able to speak Innu into English. There are other friends and colleagues of mine which can do it. Because of my workload, I could not accommodate because a lot of travel brings to my work. And that's when I wanted to talk to Mr. Trimper to say look, let's put it as it was 15 years ago, and just anybody come walk in and translate for them.

CO: So he says to this person in the room, it's not a God given right for us to provide services. But is it a legal right for you to get this service, as far as you know?

DR: Yes, across Canada, there's two languages: English and French. And when I say I also go to the provincial courts to translate people, the judge usually asks the accused do you need a translator? We have one on our staff.

CO: It’s a legal right.

DR: It’s a legal right. But let's not forget the senior high official person in the House Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador made very strong racist remarks, and that's very disturbing.

CO: You've known him. You've worked with Perry Trimper for years. He's come to so many events. And so how does this change your relationship now with him?

DR: I'm very sure that relationship is going to change.

CO: When others in your community hear this as they are they are now, what effect do you think it's going to have on them?

DR: It's going to have a very tremendous effect. It's not just me. It's collectively as Innu, and I'm just lost with words right now, to be honest with you. And not just to rectify the inequity, I don't know. I'm just lost with words. What can you say someone that you trust so many years, who sat next to you when at the feast, the lowest points of your life, the highest times of your life, years later, you find this what the true nature of that person.

CO: You feel betrayed.

DR: Very strongly. The very thread of being Innu, the very being, and the very core shook me when I listened to this this context. And I'm still in a process right now. I'm still in shock.

CO: Mr. Rich, I appreciate you speaking with us, and we're going to ask some questions of the government. But thank you for speaking with us now.

DR: Thank you kindly. Have a great one.

CO: Bye.

DR: Bye.

AH: Dominic Rich works for the Innu Nation's Executive Council. We reached him in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. After that interview, Minister Perry Trimper responded to the comments he made on that voicemail message. He told CBC, quote, "Regardless if it was recorded or not, I shouldn't have said it." Unquote.

[Music: Ambient]

MAID ruling Gladu

AH: Nicole Gladu says she feels freer today. Along with fellow Montrealer Jean Truchon, Ms. Gladu was fighting for easier access to medical assistance in dying. Yesterday, we spoke with one of her lawyers, after a Quebec court ruled in their favour. The court has given federal and provincial governments six months to change aspects of the law that limit medical assistance to patients whose deaths are, quote, "reasonably foreseeable." Unquote. But it also gave Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon the right to die immediately — should they so choose. Speaking to reporters today, Nicole Gladu said she'll need time to decide how to proceed.

SOUNDCLIP

NICOLE GLADU: I’m digesting the judgment for now. And I will think about it very seriously. And I will also consult with my extraordinary friends. Without them, I couldn’t have to go through. I don't know. It's a politician's answer, but believe me, I don't know. I know that I will take advantage of that in a matter of months. But I don't know exactly. Now, it's becoming really a matter of personal decision. And you know it's up to me, or it's up to Mr. Truchon, or other people like us, to decide if we prefer the quality of life to the quantity of life. And I don't have anything to prove to others or to myself. And if I have you know a partner, children, employees depending on me, maybe I will have another opinion. But now, I am free, and I’m free-ier since yesterday.

AH: Nicole Gladu is a 74-year-old woman living with post-polio syndrome. She says she's still digesting yesterday's Quebec court ruling which makes a medically assisted death possible for her, and potentially, for many others. The ruling gives federal and provincial government six months to update the parts of the law it deemed unconstitional. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says governments will needs to tread carefully -- in order to strike the right balance. Here he is speaking in Vancouver today.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: When it comes to medical assistance in dying, we recognize that this is a deeply personal, extremely important choice that Canadian families often need to go through. That is why I feel that the government's responsibility is to establish the balance in the right way between two very important competing responsibilities — that of protecting our most vulnerable, and at the same time respecting people's rights and choices. Getting that balance right was very much what we've worked on over the past four years with our law on medical assistance in dying. We always knew, however, that there would be a continued evolution and reflection in the courts and in society about the next steps to take. And we welcome the fact that the court has pronounced itself on this. And we look forward to reading very carefully the court judgment to decide what our next steps will be.

AH: That was Justin Trudeau in Vancouver, BC today. He was reacting to a Quebec court ruling that says medical assistance in dying should be more accessible to people living with degenerative illnesses — whose deaths may not necessarily be imminent.

[Music: Ambient]

David Suzuki “Climate First” tour

Guest: David Suzuki

AH: There are bright yellow posters in and around the University of Toronto this evening. They're promoting the launch of a pre-election tour. It features the platinum-certified superstar Buffy Sainte-Marie, and the activists Stephen Lewis, and David Suzuki. All three say their goal is to encourage young people to stop climate change. But they admit that may no longer be achievable in their lifetimes — and that the consequences could be dire for the audiences they're hoping to attract. We reached David Suzuki in Toronto.

CO: David, between Buffy Sainte-Marie, Stephen Lewis, and yourself, it's quite a lineup of stars.

DAVID SUZUKI: Isn’t that great? Isn’t that great?

CO: But you're all senior citizens, sorry to say.

DS: Exactly!

CO: But what’s your appeal to young people?

DS: Exactly. It's the fact that I call us the silverback gorillas and the grizzly mom. I believe we've earned the right to speak as elders, as seniors, and our commonality with youth is that we no longer have a vested interest in the status quo. We don't have to play games to get a job, or a raise, or a promotion. We're not interested in money, or fame, or power. And so we're free now to speak the truth from our hearts. And young people have everything at stake for the big decisions that have to be made in the coming months.

CO: But if there's any demographic who gets it, who understands the imperatives here dealing with climate change and the environment, it has to be young people. So aren't you preaching to the converted?

DS Well, I hope you're right. They certainly have become very active. I think Gretta Thunberg from Sweden has had a galvanizing impact on young people. But you know, their voting record in the past has been very poor. 18 to 22 year olds coming into the voting age are traditionally not a high participation group. But our message is you've got to do more than just get out and vote. That's the most critical thing. But you've got to galvanize your peer group. And you've got to demand of everyone running for office. You've got to say is climate change your number one issue? Because this must not remain a partisan issue. This is an issue as if we are at war. So that's what our message is to young people. It's your future now that is at stake. What is or is not done by the next government is going to have enormous repercussions in your lives.

CO: But you say at the same time your message that you and the others they're bringing to young people across the country is not partisan. You are doing this during a federal election campaign. You're asking young people to ask these questions. But when you look at the policies even those like Elizabeth May of the Green Party, who are saying very similar to you that this is a war, we should be on a war footing for this. When you look at that the platforms with the details of what they're proposing, it doesn't really add up to what young people might want.

DS: Exactly.

CO: So how do you direct them? I mean they have very few options in voting, don’t they?

DS: Exactly. But the problem, the challenge is if we truly have a democracy, they are a group that traditionally has not been the political priority because quite frankly when politicians are elected the first concern is re-election. And children don't vote. And so one call is for young people to galvanize their parents and everybody who cares about them and where we're going to become eco-warriors to demand before the election that this be put up as a number one issue.

CO: But just again, I don't know what young people can do, where they can go with their vote? Because I mean let’s just look through the records here, Elizabeth May, who we said is talking about being in a war, has lost support even over provincial Green parties because she plans to sustain the oilsands. The NDP is saying the right things I guess from your point of view. But at the same time, aren't showing how they're going to do that. And Justin Trudeau has made us all pipeline owners. And Andrew Scheer is campaigning against the carbon tax. Where did these young people put their vote? Where do they go?

DS: They can only act right now to show that climate is their number one issue, to put their concerns before, and to say before the election, look, what you do or do not say about climate is going to determine whether I vote for you. You think the economy is more important. You don't realize that the economic implications of climate change are enormous. So the economy comes before everything else. We're not going to vote, and we don't want our parents to vote for you. This is how they're going to exert the pressure before the election. After the election, of course, we have to continue the sense of the emergency. But it'll be a lot harder to do if we are electing people who are still climate deniers, or who feel that the economy comes before everything else.

CO: I’m wondering about going back to your silverback gorillas who are out there talking to young people; you mentioned how you have no other interests in this. You've lived well. You're not alone in that. We've all lived well our generations. We’ve been wealthy. We have consumed a great deal the planet. And we're now in these senior years, these senior capacities, and we’re saying young people you have to do something about this planet that we have almost destroyed here with our consumption. What does it remind people to say well, it's easy for you to say that. [laughing] I've got student debt, and now you want me to save the planet. What do you say to them?

DS: Carol, you've just sent a spear through my chest. I met three of the girls — well, they were young women — who organized the last big march in Montreal, when there were 150,000 people on the streets a few months ago. And when I had the chance to meet them, quite frankly, I broke down and cried. I cried not out of gratitude, but I cried that these young people who should be developing their life goals and their skills and so on have to be the ones that are driving the demand for action on climate. That my generation and the boomers that followed, we have party like there was no tomorrow. And we didn't think about the repercussions. But what young people are telling us it's time to sober up now, to clean up our mess, and get on with the action of trying to make something of a better future. And generations you know we've always hope for a better world for our children. And yet, we've known for decades now that we're not leaving our children with a better world. That the kind of world I was born into 83 years ago is a radically different world. And that's not being a very responsible parent and grandparent. So yes, and there's a lot of sense of guilt and sadness on my part. But look, we've just got to get on with it. My carbon footprint has been enormous. To make films, I've done a lot of flying. And I regret that. But we've got to get on with the challenge now.

CO: All right. Well, so we'll be watching this silverback gorillas and the grizzly mom as you head out across the country. David, it’s good to talk to you. Thank you.

DS: Great to talk to you. Thanks. Bye.

AH: David Suzuki is a broadcaster and climate activist. We reached him in Toronto, where he's getting ready to launch a pre-election climate tour with Stephen Lewis and Buffy Ste-Marie.

[Music: Indie rock]

Part three: HRC email artist, Victoria hydro poles, California worker bill

HRC email artist

Guest: Kenneth Goldsmith

AH: They were the emails that broke the campaign's back — sent from a private account by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, while she was Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Those emails became a rallying cry for Donald Trump supporters — and Mr. Trump himself, repeatedly. They were convinced those emails could help them defeat the woman they called "Crooked Hillary." And so they did. Now, some 62,000 printed pages of Hillary Clinton's emails are on display as part of an art exhibit at the Venice Bienalle. And this week that exhibit got a visit from, well, HRC herself.

SOUNDCLIP

HILARY CLINTON: It was, and is still, one of the strangest, most absurd events in American political history.

AH: That's former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, reacting to an exhibit of her emails, currently on display at the Venice Biennale in Italy. Poet and artist Kenneth Goldsmith is the creator of that exhibit. We reached him in Philadelphia.

CO: Mr. Goldsmith, you had Hillary Clinton herself sitting in your exhibit, reading her own emails. What did you make of that?

KENNETH GOLDSMITH: I thought it was great. I couldn't have imagined that would have happened, but it did happen. And I thought it was a very happy occasion.

CO: So How did Hillary Rodham Clinton react to your exhibit?

KC: She reacted exactly the way I intended the audience to react. My exhibition was a materialization of something that previously had never been seen — these things on a lift on the Internet. And actually, when there actually materialized in a sculptural form the mystique of sort of off them. You know it's just a clump of paper on a table. And looking through that clump of paper, there's not that much of interest. And she said as much. I mean there really is nothing there. And that's what she came out saying. And that's what I wanted to project with the exhibition.

CO: And we just heard that clip from her. She called this controversy one of the strangest, most absurd events in American political history. Why did you think you could make it into an artwork?

KC: Well, I have a history of doing a lot of printing projects. Back in 2013, I did a project called “Printing Out The Internet” — which was the first crowdsourced printing out of the entire internet. I'm interested in materiality, and I'm interested in the potential of the document as poetry, the mundane, the average the unremarkable, as being reframed in an art context as being significant, beautiful, and poetic.

CO: And how did you display it? It was just not just the print outs of Hillary Clinton's emails. There was a kind of a there was an installation, right? Can you describe that?

KC: Yeah. Well, we got a couple of copies of the Resolute Desk, which is the president's desk in the Oval Office. Identical copies of them. And upon them we placed all of the emails — 62,000 pages of emails on the top of the Resolute Desk. In another version, near the other Resolute Desk, we bound the 62,000 pages of emails into books. There was also furniture that was derived from the furniture in the Oval Office, as well as rugs. And everything was derived from the Oval Office. So we were actually sort of recreating the Oval Office with the Clinton emails.

CO: And now these emails are, of course, extremely controversial though, and something Donald Trump actually used to great effect during the election campaign. And he said that it was proof that she was crooked, and that she wasn't qualified to be the president. And you know there was a lot of fallout that came from this. But what's actually in the emails? Because some of them were classified even as top secret. What do you actually see in these messages?

KC: Well, I saw one email where Hillary wanted to share an article about Vladimir Putin with her staff. And she said hey guys, check this out. And it was an article about how to Putin going to the North Pole to shake hands with a polar bear.

CO: Okay.

KC: There was another email in which she advised, on a cold night, John Podesta to wear socks when he went to bed to keep his feet warm. You know those are some of the more interesting ones. But most of all, you know it gave a glimpse into what it must be like to be secretary of state on a day-to-day basis. And it's sort of glamorous, but mostly exhausting. You know rafts of emails about meetings, phone dates, dinner appointments, taxi receipts, and airplane tickets. You know, truth be told, you know they're not too much different from anyone's inbox. And yet, because of their historical import obviously, perhaps the most important historical documents of our time, they've taken on mythical status. You know they're sort of Homeric in scope, Shakespearean in intrigue. I mean there is the first epic poem of the 21st century, or just tens-of-thousands of really boring emails.

CO: Well, from that point of view of the FBI, it was a colossal mistake. The FBI director said it was extremely careless because she was secretary of state, and she was using her private email address to conduct her correspondents. So on that level, be it below or above poetry of every way you put it, that's what the issue was, wasn't it?

KC: Yeah, but that's not my issue. I'm a poet. And I can do what I want with it, you know? And I can imagine it, and reimagine it, and miss-imagine it in ways that are creative and subjective. You know I'm going to leave the history to the historians. This was a work of art, a work of poetry.

CO: What's been the reaction to your exhibit?

KC: Well, it's funny. Before she came, there was no reaction. I was a little depressed, you know? You put up a big show, you put on this thing, and not too many people came. And now suddenly the whole world is paying attention to it. I sort of had the idea when I was going to do this that it would kind of get people's attention, and I was a little upset why people weren't paying more attention to it. But I had tried for years — at least two or three years — to show these emails in America. I have a lot of friends in the museum world and the gallery world, and nobody would show them. People were really frightened of you know being firebombed by the right, or firebombed by the left. So it has to go to Italy, where people you know don't have such a stake in this. But Hilary went to Italy and encountered her emails. And there she was tweeting about she said I went to the Venice Bienalle, and I found my emails. Maybe the GOP should know about this.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there Mr. Goldsmith, thank you.

KC: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

KC: Bye.

AH: Kenneth Goldsmith is the poet behind an installation of Hillary Clinton's emails, currently on display at the Venice Biennale, and visited this week by Ms. Clinton herself. We reached Mr. Goldsmith in Philadelphia.

[Music: Funk]

Victoria hydro poles

Guest: Beth Threlfall

AH: Wander into the Fernwood neighbourhood of Victoria, BC, and you'll notice something that stands out — the power poles. The thick wooden poles are decorated with paintings by dozens of people in the community. But now, after more than a decade, the initiative is coming to an abrupt halt — on the orders of BC Hydro. It’s a major buzz kill. Beth Threlfall is an artist who started the pole-painting project. We reached her in Victoria.

CO: Beth, what inspired you to paint telephone poles in your neighbourhood?

BETH THRELFALL: Well, Carol. In 2008, a lot was going on in my neighbourhood that I live in and Fernwood. And there was a community lecture happening by a fellow who is a community architect. And I came away just feeling so inspired, and knowing that I could do something in my neighbourhood. And walking home, I just started looking around, and my focus went to the telephone poles — just how rundown, tagged. And I knew that if I set my mind to putting on a beautiful pattern that it could really brighten things up. And that's where it began.

CO: So you saw these as canvases?

BT: I definitely saw them as canvases. They're everywhere, at least in our town. A good 500 of them are all over our neighbourhood. And they can be kind of an eyesore. So I did see them as a canvas, as a way of making change through art.

CO: So what would it look like? If I went into your neighbourhood today, what I see on those poles?

BT: Oh, well now you will see all sorts of designs. So that people that have participated in this project have been families, have been children, students, university students, and seniors. So the poles have just become a way of storytelling about what our community is all about. So they're now paintings of community leaders on the poles. There's pieces of poetry that people have painted on their poles of pets that passed away. So it really tells the temperature of our neighbourhood.

CO: Did you meet any opposition? Did anyone complain?

BT: Oh yeah. With any sort of public art project, there are always going to be negatives. And there are certainly lots of people that don't appreciate their poll being painted. And I hear that. You know I didn't start the project to start some sort of revolution or to make people unhappy. So we've been working with those people to put up pieces of papers on the pole saying please leave this pole blank, so that everybody feels a part of the community.

CO: Okay. Now the turn in this — the political turn — is that BC Hydro has told the community that it's no longer permitted to paint on these poles.

BT: Yeah.

CO: And says it's for a variety of operational and safety reasons. What have you been told?

BT: That has been the basic gist of what BC Hydro has now explained to me. I’m just not really sure where this is come from? You know, we've been doing this for 11 years. And I've been in contact with BC Hydro all along the way. So something has changed.

CO: BC Hydro says that the paint might degrade the poles.

BT: Yeah.

CO: And can cover up defects that they need to be able to know if there's any reason why they need to repair the poles. So is there a sense to that?

BT: Certainly at the beginning when we talked about painting the poles, the one piece that they communicated with me is that they just they asked me please just don't attach anything to the poles. And I was like, of course, yes, for the safety of your workers, we wouldn't you know start putting up birdhouses or anything like that. And I always came from the tact that we were actually helping out the poles because we were like removing nails, and taking out all the staples, and you know painting the poles we always assumed was actually extending the longevity of the pole.

CO: Now BC Hydro said in an interview with CTV News that no one asked for permission to paint the poles. Is that the case?

BT: That is not true. Soon as I came up with the idea, the next thing that I did was I contacted BC Hydro. I still have all of our communique on file, talking about the idea, and why I was doing it, and saying I was coming up with a positive solution because they did not have the budget — at the time — to do anything about the tagging or cleaning up of the poles. And I said well, how about if we try this? And they were like why don't we give it a try.

CO: Well, I guess that's changed now. What happens to the poles and have the paintings on them now? Are you expected to remove or do something with those paintings?

BT: No, BC Hydro has reassured me and the neighbourhood that they will not paint over the pre-existing paintings. Though, this morning, they said that they would paint over a pre-existing painting if somebody complained. People are very passionate about the poles, and they mean a lot to a lot of people.

CO: Who knew? Who knew that there would be such tension?

BT: I know! It’s such a simple thing you know, Carol. But it really has made a difference to our community. And the ripple effect that it's had where I've been able to talk to people all over North America.

CO: Do you think you can find another neighbourhood canvas to paint on?

BT: Oh, you know what, Carol? I'll always be doing community art — always. It's a part of who I am, and what I love to do. There's always creative solutions for everything.

CO: Well, I'll leave that to you. And it's good to talk to you, Beth. Thank you.

BT: Thank you very much, Carol. And art matters.

CO: I’m sure it does. Thank you.

BT: Bye-bye.

CO: Bye.

AH: Beth Threlfall is an artist in British Columbia. She started painting power poles in her neighbourhood 11 years ago. We reached her in Victoria.

[Music: Ambient]

FOA: James Morton sentence

AH: James Morton has spent a lot of time in courtroom. But this week, the prominent lawyer wasn't in court to try a case. He was being sentenced. Six months of house arrest and 50 hours of community service, after pleading guilty to bigamy and forgery earlier this year. You see, he was still married to his wife, a justice of the peace, when he married his law clerk, Jennifer Packwood, in 2018. In July, guest host Megan Williams spoke with Ms. Packwood. Here's part of their conversation, from our archives:

SOUNDCLIP

JP: I thought that I was marrying my best friend, my confidant; someone that I had spent the last ten years with.

MW: And at what point did things begin to unravel?

JP: At the police station. I'm really good at figuring people out, and I missed it. Everything that he told me, I missed everything. I look back at it, should I have known, could I have known, what did I miss, and there's nothing. There's absolutely nothing. It was that well hidden.

MW: What do you hope happens at the sentencing hearing?

JP: I don't think that the six-month conditional discharge is appropriate. I don't, you know? And a slap on the wrist for house arrest, is that appropriate? I do not think so.

AH: From our archives, that's Jennifer Packwood on As it Happens last July. This week, James Morton, the man Ms. Packwood thought she had married, was sentenced to six months of house arrest, and 50 hours of community service.

[Music: Sombre]

California worker bill

Guest: Maria Elena Durazo

AH: This week, a bill that could turn scores of contract workers into employees came closer to becoming law. It happened in California, where Maria Elena Durazo is a state senator. She co-authored the bill — which is meant to stop companies from taking advantage of workers. We reached her in Sacramento, California.

CO: Senator Durazo, why did you want to take on the gig economy?

MARIA ELENA DURAZO: I didn't want to take on the gig economy. There is a California's Supreme Court case that was decided last April, and the decision was to address a decades’-old problem of growing misclassification. So out of that Supreme Court case, we felt that it was important to make it clearer. It's been the law of the land, but we wanted to make it as clear as possible for ultimately workers, businesses, and the entire state. So that's why we did it. I felt we took a compromised approach to the issue. And it codifies this court decision, so that we could address the most vulnerable group of men and women most vulnerable to misclassification.

CO: So what changes then with their employment status?

MED: Well, what changes is that there is a clear test that will be used to determine if they are independent contractors or not.

CO: What does this do? You say these are very vulnerable people — the most vulnerable — in the employment chain. What are their working conditions now, and how will they be different?

MED: Well, for example, the control that is asserted over truckers — port truckers in particular — they have to pay for the truck, they have to pay for the maintenance of the truck, the gasoline of the truck, the insurance of the truck, and they have no say as far as to be able to negotiate what they get paid for the loads going on the truck. So they are held responsible for all the costs and expenses, but they're not in a position to negotiate. That's what makes them vulnerable that the decision of what to charge them is made by someone else.

CO: What I guess people are looking at very closely is how this affects what they call “app-based companies”. And that's companies that actually the people who do the work for them are they consider to be contract workers, and who’s relationship is they say it's not and they're not employees because they're just loosely connected through an app. And we're talking about companies like Uber, like Lyft, like Door Dash, Foodora. How is it going to affect them?

MED: Well, again, they'll just have to meet the standard — the three-prong standard. And if they meet that, then they can be classified as independent contractors. This doesn't take away the ability to have an independent contractor. It just makes it clear as to what the relationship has to be between that working person and the company that they're doing a service for.

CO: But the contract workers, will they now be entitled to a minimum wage, benefits, protections, those sorts of things?

MED: Not contract workers. It will to employees. So if you meet the test — the three-part test — you're a contract employee, you don't have those benefits and rights. if you don't meet that — and you're an employee — then you do have rights towards all of those benefits.

CO: How much resistance do you think you'll get from companies who are going to say well, these are not my employees, these are contract workers, this is an app-based relationship?

MED: I would hope that there isn't, but if there is one company — or several companies — said that they're going to put this on the ballot as a ballot measure — get the signatures to put it the ballot measure next year. And if they go forward with that, I think the figure that was put out there is 90-million dollars. We'd rather see that money being used towards the well-being of those working men and women.

CO: I can appreciate you're trying to protect people who might be exploited thorough these kinds of arrangements. Some have called this not the gig economy, the call it the feudal economy. But, at the same time, some of these people who are contracted, they like the arrangement. It works for them. I mean there are port truckers that are in the same bind that you described, but some like their relationship. I know Uber drivers who like the fact that they can just log on and log off on an app, and have a very loose relationship. So where does that leave them?

MED: Well, loose relationship doesn't mean that they can’t be treated as employees. You can see it's when there's so much control over how much they get paid, how much they can charge, and we know there's a peak and who decides that. You know that's something that clearly has so much control over those employees. I can appreciate that they want the flexibility. But we're talking about the well-being of the working people as a whole. And as a whole, there's been a tremendous growth in the misclassification of independent contractors. So we're trying to address something that's bigger. It didn't start with the quote/unquote “gig economy”. It's been around, but the growth of it has been tremendous and very dramatic. So it's having now a much bigger impact on the whole economy. So, again, this isn't something that just started. It's something that existed before in various industries. And we want to establish that these industry exists today, but as well as future growing and different industries that we may not know will come up or be developed in the future.

CO: We will leave it there. Senator Durazo, thank you.

MED: Thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

AH: Maria Elena Durazo is a California state senator. We reached her in Sacramento.

[Music: Indie rock]

Daniel Johnston obit

AH: In the '80s, in Austin, Texas, there was a guy who'd introduce himself to people — in the street, or at the McDonald's where he worked — and hand them cassette tape of music. I assume most people smiled politely, and threw it out later. But if you kept it, and listened to it, you were introduced to the remarkable music of that guy who'd introduced himself: Daniel Johnston. The singer/songwriter died on Tuesday of a heart attack. He was 58. At first, Mr. Johnston's voice and lyrics took some getting used to. And his early tapes were muffled and hissy. But his songs could be charming, and haunting. They got the attention of record labels and the music press in the mid-'80s — who, for a while, could only get hold of him by calling the McDonald's. The truth is, Mr. Johnston was often treated like a novelty act — an "outsider artist". He suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. He was institutionalized repeatedly. And his idiosyncratic, sometimes-whimsical songs often dealt with his mental illness. All of which led to frequent condescension from some fans and music journalists. Well, his life story definitely contributed to his profile, and his legend. But it overshadowed his songs — which were intermittently great

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 12, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This