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 October 24, 2019

Hosts: Helen Mann and Nana aba Duncan

HELEN MANN: Hello, I'm Helen Mann, sitting in for Carol Off.

NANA ABA DUNCAN: Good evening, I'm Nana aba Duncan. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

ND: Tonight:

HM: Painfully familiar. For a Syrian refugee in the UK, the news of 39 bodies in a truck trailer brought back horrible memories — because it could've been him, when he made the same journey in 2015.

ND: Bitter business bureau. It looked set to blow up, but it imploded instead — and as the co-founder of the company WeWork leaves with one-point-seven billion dollars, our guest, who predicted its virtual collapse, is left disgusted.

HM: A long-overdue bill. One of the architects of B.C. legislation giving First Nations "free and informed consent" on projects affecting their lands is hopeful it will change things in the province.

ND: Seeking safety, in numbers. Turkey and the US say the ceasefire in northern Syria is permanent, but Syrian Kurds aren't convinced — so they're paying to cross the border and get to refugee camps in Iraq.

HM: You check in — it checks you out. A high-tech Japanese hotel apologizes to guests over a security flaw in its in-room helper robot — which could have made it a peeping au-TOM-a-ton.

ND: And...the squeaky wheels. While most rats scurry around in garbage, a select group are learning to drive -- thanks to American scientists who built "rodent-operated vehicles".

ND: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that avoids the rodent less travelled.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Truck deaths follow-up, B.C. Indigenous rights, rats in cars

Truck deaths follow-up

Guest: Ahmad Al-Rashid

ND: Authorities in Britain say all 39 victims who died inside a truck container were Chinese nationals. The container was found yesterday at an industrial park in Essex, in England's southeast. It had travelled to the U.K. from a port in Belgium. The driver is being held on suspicion of murder. Police haven't released any details about the victims' identities, why they were in the truck, or what their final moments would've been like. But our guest can imagine. Ahmad Al-Rashid is a Syrian refugee who now lives in the UK. When he escaped the bombardment in Aleppo, he hid in the backs of trucks during a gruelling, 55-day-long journey to the UK. We reached him in the Midlands, U.K.

HM: Mr. Al-Rashid, what was your initial reaction when you heard this very disturbing news about these 39 bodies being found inside this truck container?

AHMAD AL-RASHID: The first thing that came to mind was the memories that came back to me when I was in the back of one of these, you know, refrigerator trucks back in Calais, in the front. It brought back these memories of being stuck in the back, you know, trying desperately to get out, and knocking and pleading for help.

HM: It's hard not to be haunted by the thought of these people — the 31 men and eight women — going through that. What do you imagine their experience was?

AAR: For me, it's very difficult to imagine. I mean, I eventually ended up you know being rescued. But I think, even for me, I remember like the two hours that I spent in the back of this container. It was one of the most horrific experiences of my entire life. Almost you know freezing to death. Not being able to grieve. Metal container, trying to knock, trying to shout, to scream, plead for help. Someone to get me out. But eventually, someone came and they let us out, unlike what happened to this unfortunate 39 people who lost their lives yesterday.

HM: How many of you were in that refrigerated container?

AAR: So I've been into quite a few of them. I mean, in one of the terms was seven. One of the times were two.

HM: What did you say to each other in those moments?

AAR: Most of these people didn’t know each other. You know, you really you don't speak. I mean, you just look at the eyes, you know? And all you're thinking about at that time for me was family. Because everything I did at that moment, and the entire journey, the purpose and the aim was to get somewhere safe. Where, later on, family would be able to join me.

HM: Can you tell us about the process of what brings you to board one of these trucks, and leads you on this dangerous route?

AAR: People need to know and realize that the vast majority of people making these decisions and these journeys are forced. This are not kind of you know voluntary like people going for a walk or going for an adventure. For me, the process was a very complex process because it involves going online, Facebook chats and trying to find the smugglers. Which was, you know, horrific because, unfortunately, there was no other legal pathways for me to be able to do to get where I wanted to get. So the only option that was left was through these criminal gangs, you know, smugglers. And they reach out to you, and you know they give you lots of options and lots of alternatives. You go with them and eventually you know they show their true colours. You know, I remember in Turkey, in Greece, and even in France, they will show your pictures. It’s going to fine. There’s going to be no issues. It’s gonna be super easy. But the reality is it's not. These are all fabrications or lies. All they care about is money and want their money.

HM: And how did the smugglers treat you during the trip?

AAR: Really that was the spectrum. Sometimes you find them you know they're trying to help and support. But sometimes you know they were coming with knives, and guns, and they were beating. I mean, one of the times I remember when we're trying to cross from Turkey to Greece, and there was an Iraqi man because we were promised to go on a boat. And when we were driven to the beach, it turned out it's a rubber dinghy. And the Iraqi man with his family said this is cheating, this is lying, I'm going to call the police. And we about 88 people, and these smuggler, you know, went crazy. They started beating this man in front of his wife and children. I were all terrified because they were armed with guns and knives. So we were all forced into, you know, that dinghy at the time.

HM: You know, the things you're describing, I have to wonder what drives people to take the risk. I know you've said that this is not like taking a walk. People feel that they have no other choice. But knowing the threat of death on these trips is very real, what makes one take that risk?

AAR: It’s the alternatives. I mean one of the reasons why I fled Syria was because the bombing and the shelling that I saw. One of the first things that I've witnessed after the bombing started was a mass grave of bodies of people because there was no time, you know, to bury them in a dignified way. They had to come dig a hole, you know, and put all the bodies in one mass grave. But also that time you had ISIS, you had bombings, and then shellings. And then terrible things happening in Syria and across Syria. And, again, for a human being you know — regardless if it's a Syrian or any nationality really — the aim is first to survive.

HM: Let me bring you back up to the current situation and this tragedy in Essex involving these 39 people, who police confirm were Chinese nationals. Who do you blame for the deaths of these people?

AAR: I think it's is not an issue about blaming. I think it's looking at the reasons of why this is happening. I think it's always easier to point fingers while trying to address the main cause of why these people are fleeing. What are the ways to help, you know, stop these criminal activities. But also trying to come up with some of the solutions that might not entirely solve the problem, but at least could alleviate the situation in terms of finding legal pathways for these people, you know, instead of giving these moneys and all taking all this risks with these smugglers.

HM: We spoke on the program yesterday with a Conservative MP in Britain, Andrew Mitchell. He said, among other things, that his government needs to do a better job of warning people about the dangers of being trafficked so that they are deterred from making this kind of journey, to begin with. Would that have stopped you? Would it stop these people, do you think, from making this journey?

AAR: I think raising awareness is key. It's very important to tell people about the risks and the dangers. But also, on the other side, and on the other hand, we need to realize that some people are so desperate that if you're in this situation of despair, you know, and the whole system is failing you, you've seen your loved ones killed, your house destroyed, your future, you know, completely gone. I don't know how much you would have trust in some of these systems. So it's really a very, very complex issue. It's not an easy thing.

HM: Knowing what you know though about the dangers that you went through, would you do it again? Would you board those trucks?

AAR: This is a very tricky question because, as I said, now I'm sitting in England somewhere quite safe. It's always easier to say yes and no, and, you know, speculate about it. I mean going back now from where I'm sitting now I think it was a very dangerous and was a crazy thing to do. I think I should have never done that. But going back at the same moment or family being stuck, being seidged in eastern Aleppo, I don't have access to them, then I don't have an option but to move forward. I think I would still do this if you're in a situation of despair and you don't have much to lose and then your life.

HM: Mr. Al-Rashid, I'm glad you're well, and I appreciate you sharing your own experience with us.

AAR: Thank you. My pleasure. Thank you very much.

HM: Okay. Goodbye.

AAR: Bye.

ND: Ahmad Al-Rashid is a Syrian refugee who lives in the U.K. We reached him in the Midlands.

[Music: Horns]

B.C. Indigenous rights

Guest: Cheryl Casimer

ND: More than a decade after Canada voted against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN, British Columbia's provincial government has tabled legislation to implement it. Indigenous leaders — including MP Jody Wilson-Raybould, outgoing MP Romeo Saganash, chiefs and elders — all filled the gallery and the floor of the legislature for the historic moment — which will ensure that the basic human rights of Indigenous people are fulfilled by B.C. law. Today's move comes after similar legislation died at the federal level when the election was called. But one of the authors of the B.C. bill says she's hopeful its fate will be very different. Cheryl Casimer is a member of the political executive of the First Nations Summit ,and an architect of the new legislation. We reached her in Victoria.

HM: Ms. Casimer, what was the atmosphere like in the legislature today as this bill was tabled?

CHERYL CASIMER: I thought it was electrifying and very emotional. You know, we're doing something that's never been done before. And there were just so many things that took place that made it extra special in terms of the fact that we were able to address the legislative assembly. That doesn't happen too often. I think though what was most significant, of course, was the tabling of the legislation around the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

HM: So this has on the one hand great symbolic significance, but in practical terms, how do you expect the legislation will change the provincial government’s relationship with First Nations in British Columbia?

CC: Well, the legislation is a framework that's going to provide for the provincial government to align their laws with the standards of the United Nations declaration. So that's going to change it significantly. Now, it's not going to happen overnight, for sure. Once the legislation comes into effect, the next step for us, of course, is to develop the action plan that is a part of the work. And, as I said, it's going to take us some time to make sure that we get it right.

HM: Can you give me though an actual example of a kind of scenario where the legislation might change how the province and First Nations interact?

CC: Well, who the government is going to deal with that in itself expands. Because typically, the government was constrained to entering into negotiations or discussions with Indian Act bans. Whereas the Declaration calls for the recognition of Indigenous groups, and to enter into discussions with those indigenous groups in how they want to organize themselves. So having conversations with Nations or groups of Nations or hereditary governance systems or whatever the case may be, that expands who the government would be having these discussions with. So when we're talking about consent, it's going to be a lot of work because it's going to be an exercise of reaching consensus.

HM: Now, a bill similar to yours had been tabled federally, but it died in the Senate when the federal election was called. With that bill, there was significant debate over the UN declarations called for, and this is a quote, free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources. B.C. Premier John Horgan has said that that — that consent — is not the same as a veto. What is your take?

CC: Well, throughout this process of developing the legislation, the framework, we recognize that there are definitely some interest groups who are really scared and concerned about whether this means giving veto to two Indigenous groups in this province. And basically, halting the whole economy, per say. And our message to them is that if you take a look at the 46 articles in the United Nations declaration, nowhere in there does it say anything about veto. It talks about free prior informed consent. How do you reach that? You reach that through sincere dialogue. The will to establish a strong relationship with the Indigenous groups. And, as I said, to come to an agreement or an arrangement that is going to be beneficial for all parties involved.

HM: But if there is the requirement for a free prior and informed consent, and the answer is no, how is that different than a veto?

CC: Well, a First Nation government is a government. And they have the right to say yes or no, just like a municipality has the right to say yes or no. Or just like the province has the right to say yes or no. But you just don't do that willy nilly. There's a stringent process in place in terms of you know having that conversation about at what expense is this going to happen? Have we been able to ensure that our interests are being protected, mitigated, you know there's a whole huge exercise that has to take place in order to reach that level of consent.

HM: But if consensus can't be reached, I guess I'm just wondering where the issue goes from there?

CC: Then I guess somebody is going to be saying no.

HM: So that does sound like a veto. That sounds like something different than what Premier Horgan is saying.

CC: I don't believe so. So I mean the same question could be asked about the province and of municipalities as well. Do they have veto rights, veto powers? They have to make decisions as a government as you know every day. So I don't know what the difference is between what they do on a regular basis from what an Indigenous government would have to do on a regular basis. I'm just saying that as an Indigenous government, we have the authority to say yes or no, just like any other government. Those laws that currently exist are stemmed in denial. But the United Nations declaration will afford that to open up to be able to be reflective of these standards, which allows for a different relationship.

HM: What hope do you have that other jurisdictions in Canada are now going to follow British Columbia in implementing something like this?

CC: Well, federally, we'd like to see something. Because, as you mentioned earlier, Romeo's private members bills, you know, died on the Senate floor. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that if they were to be re-elected, it was going to be a priority to introduce something similar. And so we're definitely going to you know hold them to that.

HM: Well, Ms. Casimer, congratulations again. And thank you for helping us understand it.

CC: No worries.

HM: Okay. Bye-bye.

CC: I Appreciate the opportunity. Bye.

HM: All right.

ND: Cheryl Casimer is one of the architects of a bill tabled today in British Columbia. The new legislation makes B.C. the first province in Canada to formally implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We reached Ms. Casimer in Victoria.

[Music: Ambient]

Catherine McKenna

ND: Catherine McKenna says she was hoping to take a bit of a post-election media break. But the Liberal Environment Minister was back in front of the microphones this afternoon. Overnight, someone had painted a misogynistic slur across the front window of her campaign headquarters in Ottawa Centre. Reporters asked Minister McKenna about her reaction.

SOUNDCLIP

CATHERINE MCKENNA This is really beneath us as Canadians. I'm angry, and quite frankly, really disappointed. You can look at all the amazing women I have on me on my campaign. I have girls. I have young women. I have older women. More experienced women maybe as we'd say. And I'm not sure what the message sends to them. This isn't about me. It's about what kind of politics we want in our country. That someone would do this, like I don't even have words to describe what kind of person would do this. It's the same as the trolls on Twitter. It needs to stop. I always think there's something good out of things. It’s a little hard right now because this just happened [laughing]. But I think if there is a way that everyone can reflect on how we wanted to politics better. And how we can have better discussions. And how both online, and offline, we can stop this, this abuse. I don't think anyone should be subject to abuse. It's not just me. We see it for all sorts of women that go into politics, but all sorts of people that have been involved in politics. Gosh, we see it with Greta, she's a 16-year-old girl who's just fighting for the planet. Anyway, I am a bit shaken. Look, I'm tough, but I am I'm really sick of this.

REPORTER: How do you change the discourse?

CM: Well, so maybe speaking to the person who did this, or the people who spread hate and vitriol online, maybe the first thing a person should do is think about whether you use that kind of language for your mother, your sister, your girlfriends, your daughter. And if you wouldn't, then maybe don't use it on other people.

ND: That was Environment Minister Catherine McKenna in Ottawa this afternoon. Overnight, someone spray-painted a misogynistic slur across the front window of her campaign headquarters.

[Music: World music]

Rats in cars

Guest: Kelly Lambert

ND: In a lab at the University of Richmond, rats learned to drive. Now, don't go picturing those little creatures driving life-size Ferraris or anything like that. These were small plastic containers on wheels that the researchers called ROVs — rodent-operated vehicles. Obviously, the results were delightful. But they were informative too. And some of those results were published recently in the journal Behavioural Brain Research. Kelly Lambert is one of the authors. We reached her in Richmond, Virginia.

HM: Professor Lambert, for those who have not seen the pictures, what do these rodent-operated vehicles look like.

KELLY LAMBERT: So they are homemade rat cars. They're made out of a plastic cereal container like you’d put breakfast cereal in. We took the lid off so the rat can jump in the car. And then we put a little aluminum plate and some steering copper bars at the end, and they go up to the plate, and they grasp the bars, and that turns the car on. And they drive to their Fruit Loops reward.

HM: How do people react when you tell them that you and your colleagues teach rats to drive?

KL: Well, I am a serious nerdy neuroscientist, but I have had the best time. I presented this at the Society for Neuroscience over the weekend, and serious older scientists just laughed out loud. They smiled. You know, I think at this day in time maybe we need some rat drivers, some driving rats, to make us smile. But there is a more serious side to it.

HM: How do you teach rats to drive? I mean clearly the Fruit Loops are part of this. But what's the process?

KL: Yes. So we used some old operant conditioning or shaping. So you have that reward, which is the Fruit Loop that gets their attention. And then, in the study that was published, we wanted them to jump in on their own. So when they got close to the car, we'd give them a reward. And then we'd require them to get closer. And then they need to jump in. And then they would need to enter or position themselves on the plate. Then they would need to grasp the bar, hold on to the bar, and they would have to go longer distances to get that reward. So it's a very traditional form of behavioural training or conditioning called shaping.

HM: How long does it take to teach a rat to drive?

KL: So we had two different versions, but the study with the enriched environment is just a forward driving. It takes four to six weeks to train them reliably. And we just train them about five or ten minutes a day. The steering kind of proof of concept study to see if we could get them to turn in right, left, or forward directions, that took several months. We were doing trial and error. We started with a joystick [HM and KL laugh] and then went to the steering. So we trained them about eight or nine months. But we could probably get those steering in closer to four months. We were each teaching each other, the rats and the human investigators.

HM: Right, so it’s not just going forward. It's actually steering the vehicle. Not a steering wheel though in the traditional way.

KL: Right. So they have bars in the front to go forward and right or left, and they have to turn their bodies to go in the position they want to go. But they can steer. And unique positions, and when we move the treat, they're going somewhere they haven't been before. So they are really using it as a tool, which is very interesting. And it’s an opportunity to ask them different types of questions.

HM: Now you had 17 rats in this study, were some of them better drivers than others?

KL: Well, those were two studies. So six of those were the females that were done. We use those in the complex steering study. And then the other eleven, half were in the enriched environment, and half were in a standard laboratory environment. And what was really shocking to me was that in that enriched, engaging environment, they all learned to drive to criterion, which was four straight drives. And none of the standard-housed rats met that criterion. So none of them got their driver's license for this study.

HM: Just let me clarify, what's the difference between the enriched environment and the standard upbringing for a rat?

KL: Yeah, good question. So usually in standard laboratory cages, they have everything they need: food, water, a smaller space. SO everything's safe, but it's just not very interesting and challenging. There aren't different things to interact with. And the enriched environment, it's a larger space, more animals together, and we put different objects like hollowed out logs or little ladders to climb on or bells so that they stay busier and they can interact with the environment in more interesting ways. And we think that this builds their neural networks. And probably transferred and allowed them to learn something, made them more flexible. I think that's a really important finding.

HM: Yeah, so the rats with the enriched upbringing were better drivers, but there was more to it than that. After the trials, you tested the rats poop. What did you find out?

KL: [laughing] Very glamorous job we had.

HM: Yeah, there you go.

KL: [laughing] We can we can look at stress hormones. And we were looking a stress hormone, and then DHEA — that is kind of a buffer and more of a measure of resilience. So we look at how the ratio of those two are together. And regardless of whether or not they were in the enriched or standard group, they all received training. And that training in itself move those stress hormones in healthier ways. So we think that the training itself is enriching. So they had healthier stress hormones. But in a previous study, we compared drivers and riders — just passengers — and the drivers had healthier like the DHEA levels. So we think that driving may give them a sense of control or agency or self-efficacy. So we're gonna start to look into that as a model of human self-efficacy as well.

HM: These were, of course, lab rats. Do you think rats out in the wild could learn to drive — theoretically?

KL: Yeah, Because I think well they would be stressed if we brought them in. But they're their world in the wild is more of the enriched environment that we're trying to simulate in the lab. They may even be better than our enriched rats if we could get them to feel comfortable in our lab.

HM: I'm not sure that's a comforting thought to people on the streets [HM and KL laugh]. You know, we have these images rats. Do you think people are going to feel differently about rats hearing about your research?

KL: Maybe so. I think most people have been pretty impressed with their abilities. And rats don't have a great reputation. So they need some image control, I think. I don't know. Do you feel differently?

HM: Well, lab rats are different than sewer rats, aren’t they? [giggle]

KL: That's true. That’s true.

HM: I think a lot of us seeing those images of the rats in the cars thought it was very amusing. It's also interesting to hear that there's a function in terms of just studying their neuroscience. So thank you so much for telling us.

KL: I think so. You're welcome. Have a good afternoon.

HM: Bye-bye.

KL: Bye.

ND: Kelly Lambert is a professor of Behavioural Neuroscience at the University of Richmond in Virginia. That's where we reached her.

[Music: Indie rock]

Part two: WeWork bailout, Iraq Kurdish refugees

WeWork bailout

Guest: Scott Galloway

ND: Some CEOs leave their failing businesses with a golden parachute. But that seems inadequate to describe the soft landing given to the co-founder of the start-up WeWork. The former Silicon Valley darling set out to revolutionize shared work-spaces. WeWork was once valued at forty-seven billion dollars. Now that house of cards has come crashing down — and the company is only surviving with a lifeline from a Japanese investment firm. Today, it was reported that the company plans to cut four thousand jobs. But co-founder Adam Neumann could be walking away with a one-point-seven billion dollar payout. Scott Galloway is a business school professor at NYU who rang alarm bells about the company years ago. We reached him in Delray Beach, Florida.

HM: Professor Galloway, before we get into exactly what went wrong with WeWork, I would love to hear what you think of the one-point-seven billion dollar payout that it seems Adam Neumann is now in line for.

SCOTT GALLOWAY: Well, when you think about just the sheer size, eBay acquired PayPal — one of the most successful payment platforms in history — for one-point-five billion. I mean, this is a budget greater than the budget for the National Endowment of The Arts or the Peace Corps combined. So one-point-seven billion dollars comes out to about 850,000 dollars per employee that is about to be laid off at WeWork. So by any stretch of the imagination, this is an unprecedented payout.

HM: Well, how does it go over with those employees? What are you hearing? Because the stock has plummeted, and not only do those people, many of them hold I guess equity in the company, they may be losing their jobs.

SG: Well, sure, you can only imagine that the individual who's probably most responsible for the decline in value is walking away with one-point-seven billion dollars. And probably a good portion of the 12,000 employees are wondering if they're going to have health insurance. So I would imagine there's a great deal of animosity towards Adam Neumann from the employees who are kind of left behind to clean up the mess.

HM: Yeah, at one time WeWork was valued at forty-seven billion dollars. What made the company so attractive to investors?

SG: Well, there's sort of what could be best described as a certain level of consensual hallucination between investors and founders hoping that they're chasing sort of this halcyon effect of trying to find the next Google or Facebook. But realistically, even though Softbank may have valued internally WeWork at forty-seven billion dollars, and they had lined up bankers who were about to register 120 million dollars in fees for taking the company public. And so they propped up an analyst who was going to validate that valuation. Arguably, the company was really never worth that. And to some extent, Helen, this as a victory of the markets because the markets refused to let this company go public.

HM: What was it that drove those numbers? You know, it looks like it was a real estate company. It would lease, I think, office space — maybe buy some up, rent it out to others, sometimes tech entrepreneurs. It envisioned itself as something else. It called itself the largest physical social network in the world. But I'm wondering how you get the value from that?

SG: So this is a company growing very fast. It was growing 70, 80 per cent a year. But it was also scaling its losses just as fast. And then they used the word “technology” 123 times in their S-1, trying to trying to position themselves as, in fact, a technology company. So as long as the markets are willing to buy that story, companies you know will continue to try and position themselves as technology companies. And will replace profits with top line growth. But I think the markets have finally said this doesn't make any sense, and the music has stopped, and there's obviously too few chairs here. So this might be coming to an end.

HM: You mentioned a technology. Was it ever a technology company?

SG: One hundred per cent no. I mean the closest they had to a technology was they had an app for reserving conference rooms. So no, you know, a website and an app that helps schedule conference rooms does not a technology company.

HM: Did it ever actually own any of the workspaces?

SG: No, as a matter of fact, one of the reasons this company is probably worth less than zero is that they have 42 billion dollars in long-term lease commitments over the next 15 years. And they’ve leased other people's office space. As a matter of fact, that 47 billion dollar number meant that that one floor they leased and say a ten-story building was being valued more than the entire building they were leasing one floor in. So this never made any sense.

HM: Do you see any similarities to the Theranos story?

SG: Theranos was outright fraud. I do believe that you do need to distinguish between a CEO restricting FDA inspectors from her lab from an individual who took advantage of a moment in time. I think Adam Neumann will go down in history actually as one of the greatest poker players and negotiators in history, who was able to lose 17 billion dollars in someone else's money, and get a ten per cent commission on that or even a 20 per cent commission, and walk away with two-and-a-half billion dollars.

HM: Now you started to poke holes in the company back in 2017. What was it about WeWork that made you skeptical at that time?

SG: So I brought a core competence to the situation called math. And I just saw a company that was for every dollar in revenue it was taking, it was spending two dollars. So, you know, I don't claim to have any special skill here other than basic arithmetic. This company never made any sense. It kind of buttresses the notion that a lot of these unicorn companies are a conspiracy between their founders and their BCs, trying to pump the company up with corporate communications executives, a very charismatic CEO, an incredibly compelling story, and then foist, quite frankly, what I'll refer to as their unicorn feces on unwitting public market investors. And I think that the market is having an overdue immune response to what is what I'll call yoga babble and the unicorn feces it is some of these private market companies.

HM: You mentioned SoftBank, and this is the Japanese investment bank that's basically bailing out the company or taking it over. Why are they doing that, given the valuation questions that you're raising here?

SG: I think some of it is cultural. And that is Masayoshi Son, the founder of the 100 Billion Dollar Vision Fund, which is the largest growth fund ever assembled. To have his largest investment be taken over by American banks, and sold for pieces or sold for scrap I think would not only be the end Vision One Fund, and the Vision Two Fund, which they still have hopes of raising. But it would be a tremendous loss of face. This wasn't an investment in WeWork as much as it was an investment in the reputation and the face-saving of Masayoshi Son and SoftBank.

HM: Look, thank you very much for taking us through what's happened here.

SG: Thanks for your time.

ND: Scott Galloway is a business school professor at NYU. We reached him today in Delray Beach, Florida. The company that saved WeWork, SoftBank, released a statement saying that it has, quote, "...decided to double down on the company by providing a significant capital infusion and operational support...We remain committed to WeWork, its employees, its member customers and landlords." Unquote. And you can find more on the WeWork saga on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Jazz]

Iraq Kurdish refugees

Guest: Mark MacKinnon

ND: U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a permanent ceasefire in northern Syria. But that hasn't stopped thousands of Kurds from fleeing the country. Since the Turkish incursion in northern Syria began, thousands of Kurds have sought refuge across the border in Iraq — flooding into the Bardarash refugee camp. That camp was recently empty. Now, it's reaching capacity — leaving officials in Iraqi Kurdistan rushing to meet the demand. Mark MacKinnon is a senior international correspondent for the Globe and Mail. He has been visiting the camp — and Syrian Kurds crossing the border. We reached Mr. MacKinnon in Dohuk, Iraq.

HM: Mark, you were at the Bardarash camp yesterday. What did you see?

MARK MACKINNON: The first thing that struck me is how often this keeps happening. The Bardarash camp built actually five years ago for people fleeing the rise of ISIS. And they had just dismantled this refugee camp earlier this year. And now they're having to put it back together again. They're up past 10,000 people now. And while I was there, you know, there were 19 more buses that arrived in a row, delivering each of them about 30 more people.

HM: So when you see that many people arriving, what is the impact? How crowded is it?

MM: Well, at this point, Bardarash, today, or tomorrow, or tonight, will run out of space. This is a camp that at capacity is 12,000 people. They passed 10,000 yesterday. They're expecting another 1,700 tonight. So there are agencies in the Kurdistan Regional Government that are scrambling to get to other camps open because they expect people to keep coming.

HM: Right. So at this point, is there adequate food and water? Is there enough shelter?

MM: At this point, within Bardarash, they are doing well. They were giving out three meals a day. The refugees I spoke to were happy to be somewhere safe.

HM: What did it take for these refugees to make it all the way to this camp?

MM: Well, and this is what I spent part of today doing is I drove down to the border where you'd expect these refugees to cross — and this will be in tomorrow's Globe and Mail. And that border point is closed from the Syrian side, from the YPG side. And it seems as a result of that, these refugees are having to pay smugglers to take them further south into Syria through the lands that used to be controlled by ISIS. And then cross into Iraq point further south, and then they come back up north through Iraq to Iraqi Kurdistan. So it’s turned what could have been a couple of hours drive until you know a day, two day journey. And really the only people that are able to do it are those who can afford to pay the smugglers, who are charging 500, 600, 700 dollars per person.

HM: Wow! That's a lot of money for these people.

MM: Absolutely I mean that region of Syria has not had really anything but war for the last eight years. There's no economic opportunity. So what money you have sort of tucked away is presumably for this moment. These are very tough decisions to decide to trust somewhere that you don't know to smuggle you and your family out of the country with all the money you have left.

HM: U.S. President Donald Trump has declared what he says is a permanent ceasefire in the region, and he points to what he calls a safe zone that has been created. If there is this safe zone, why are Kurds leaving for this camp?

MM: The words safe zone is one that none of the Kurds I spoke to is using because the safe zone, it arguably increases Turkey's sense of safety in that they're driving this militia — the YPG — away from their border. But that the deal struck between Mr. Erdogan and President Putin of Russia envisions taking some of the millions of refugees from other parts of Syria — most of them Arabs who are currently living in Turkish refugee camps — and moving them into this safe zone. So the Kurds feel like they're not supposed to be there, like they're being driven out of their own land.

HM: You spoke, as I understand it, to some young men who had very specific fears about what would happen to them if they stayed in the area.

MM: That’s a secondary fear, but a very strong one. You've got families that are running away because they've heard or seen the violence as the Turkish offensive took place. And that's right now on pause, and could restart any time now. We also have people who saw videos online — really graphic videos — of things being done to Kurds who were in the area is being captured by Arab militias that are allied to the Turkish army. And they have a third group of people who are young men of fighting age who were worried that the YPG has invited the Syrian regime back in as a way of they hope preventing Turkey from going too far into their territory. They're then drafted into the forces of Bashar al-Assad, who many of them have been fighting against for the last few years.

HM: This has all happened really quite quickly following President Trump's decision earlier this month to withdraw the majority of American forces from this area, and to allow Turkish forces to enter the northern part of Syria. We've seen people throwing things at the American vehicles as they move through the area. When you spoke to some of these Kurds, what did they tell you about their own feelings towards these American allies?

MM: It's not just among the Syrian Kurds, but I mean just broadly in this region, there's a sense that the Americans are disappearing, and there are new power brokers, Mr. Erdogan in Turkey, Mr. Putin in Russia. But yes, the Kurds in particular, both in Syria, where they were throwing potatoes at the departing American convoy. And even here in Iraq, where they've been living under the de facto American protection since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Suddenly, they worry what the next tweet will say. What could happen to them. Are they as safe as they thought they were?

HM: You know, and yet, we saw the commander in chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces, which is the opposition to the Syrian government, tweeting praise on Mr. Trump for his great efforts to bring about a recent cease fire. What's he doing there?

MM: I think at this point, the YPG doesn't know who to trust. And when they look at their options, they have, as I said, invited the Assad regime back in. But they don't really have a relationship with them or with the Russians. And they and they certainly are fearful of the Turks. So they're in a position where the only sort of relationship that they know is their relationship with Americans. And they're trying to keep the Americans involved any way they can. Because with everything changing under their feet, they're hoping that Trump can be convinced to sort of re-engage and see them as the allies they were when they're fighting alongside each other against ISIS just a few months ago.

HM: On their journey to the Bardarash camp, these refugees, as you pointed out, drove past camps that continue to housed Yazidi refugees who fled five years ago. What does that tell you about what is potentially in store for these Syrian Kurds?

MM: And that's the tragedy of this part of the world right now is if you move around the region, just refugee camps, refugee camps, refugee camps right now. And, yeah, today, as I was driving towards the Syrian border, you know we passed buses that were coming up to go to Bardarash camp. And on both sides of you, there were just these fenced in refugee camps full of you know tens of thousands of Yazidi refugees who don't feel safe yet returning to their homeland, which is just a short drive away really. So yeah, this feeling of refugee camps become cities. Right here I am in Dohuk, there's other Syrian Kurdish refugee camps where people who fled ISIS a few years ago. They're still here, and they haven't felt safe to go back. Right now, they feel that was obviously the right decision.

HM: Well, it's difficult to hear about their situation. I thank you very much, Mark, for talking with us.

MM: Thank you very much.

HM: All right. Take care. Bye bye.

ND: Mark MacKinnon is a senior international correspondent for the Globe and Mail. We reached him in Dohuk, Iraq.

Music: Sombre.

Matt Galloway

ND: It's official. "The Current", the CBC's national morning current affairs radio program, has a new host. But he's not a new host to us, or a lot of you. You may have heard Matt Galloway guest hosting this program. Or you may have heard him consistently managing to be sharp and enthusiastic at a time of day when most people can’t even say a half sentence, as the host of CBC Toronto's morning radio show "Metro Morning”. Now, he’s going to get to sleep late — by his standards, anyway — when he take up a permanent seat behind the mic at “The Current” This afternoon, Matt spoke with CBC News Network about his nine years at "Metro Morning", and what comes next.

SOUNDCLIP

MATT GALLOWAY: I'm feeling really excited. And “The Current” is a big show as well. Anna Maria Tremonti is a legendary journalist. Following her is daunting. But I'm really excited by the opportunity. I've done “Metro Morning” for almost ten years. I like to say that it's the best job in this building, and in radio in the country. This is just something a little different. The chance to do longer interviews, to talk more nationally, rather than just focus on the city that I love, and to, you know, play a little bit with the show and maybe take it in a bit of the same direction, but with some different energy.

ANDREW NICHOLS: And so that's what's interesting about this is that, you know, a lot of people associate you with Toronto. I mean you just you love this city, you know this city inside and out. So what do you say to those people who are watching, who again, maybe are happy for you, but who will miss you?

MG: I say thanks for the privilege of being able to talk about the town that I live in, and the town that I love. It's to be able to wake people up in the morning and be the first thing that people hear is an incredible honour. And you have to think really carefully about how you wake people up. But also, to talk about the place that you're in, to talk about the small things that make up a city, and to tell people stories about the city that they may not know is a really exciting opportunity. Because people learn more about the city that they're in through the work that you're doing, and that's what I'm hoping to be able to do that through “The Current” as well. Is kind of tell people maybe on a national scale some things about the country that maybe they don't know.

AN: So, you know, if you were to give some advice to your successor, I had the privilege of filling in for you, but I was very nervous because I can't believe I'm filling in for Matt Galloway. It's too much.

MG: Oh, come on!

AN: No, seriously. And it is a challenging show, the hours are challenging, there's a lot going on. You know, what kind of advice would you have to someone, whoever that person is going to be?

MG: You know, I mean having hosted the show, how much fun it is, right? There's a lot that's going on, but we do 10, 12, 13 interviews a morning, and you're covering the spread. Everything from interviews with politicians, to interviews with artists, to local people who have a great story to tell. Just be curious, and be interested in the city that you're in, and the world that you're in, and make sure that you get enough sleep. The alarm clock takes no prisoners. And when it goes off at three o'clock in the morning, if you've been burning it at both ends, you'll know about it sooner rather than later.

AN: So I was thinking about “The Current”. So it airs at 7:30 Eastern Time, right, in Atlantic Canada. So do you get to sleep in a little bit more?

MG: Is five a.m. sleeping in? Yes. If you wake up like I do at three, five a.m. is sleeping in. I'll take that.

ND: That's Matt Galloway speaking with the CBC’s Andrew Nichols today. He is the new host of "The Current". Congratulations, Matt. And good luck with the new early mornings.

[Music: World music]

Japanese hotel robot

ND: Dear valued guest:

We'd like to thank you for choosing the Henn Na Hotel in Tokyo Bay for your recent stay. We trust that you felt well looked after. But we regret to inform you that you may also have been well looked at. As you know, our hotel is famous for its high-tech elements — especially the robots. The giant adorable robot that greets you at the entrance. The humanoid robots at the check-in desk. And the gravel-voiced dinosaur robot in the bellhop hat.

SOUNDCLIP

ROBOT: Check in is all finished. Enjoy your comfortable stay.

ND: Robots everywhere! Including the one in your room — the egg-shaped one we call "Tapia", that sits on the desk near the television, facing the bed. Here's a happy guest, asking it things.

SOUNDCLIP

GUEST: Turn the TV on.

TAPIA: Turned on the TV.

GUEST: Today’s weather.

TAPIA: Light rain until afternoon. And windy until evening.

ND: Good old Tapia! So attentive! Too attentive, it turns out. You see, valued guest, in July, a security engineer informed us here at the Henn Na Hotel that Tapia had a tiny security flaw. Just an extremely minor glitch that meant the bed-facing robot could — in the engineer's words — "be converted to offer anyone remote camera/mic access to all future guests." Unquote. So, yes, it was possible that someone could have hacked into poor little Tapia — and used her eyes to watch you as you sat fully clothed on the bed, thinking about how great robots are. Or whatever else you might have done. The problem is now fixed, and we apologize for exposing you to the possibility that our robot was exposing you, while you yourself were exposed. We will be keeping a close eye on things from now on. I mean, we won't. Sincerely, the dinosaur robot from the Henn Na Hotel.

[Music: Indie pop]

Part three: Parliament future: Peter Van Loan, student mock impeachment, Tower of London bodies

Parliament future: Peter Van Loan

Guest: Peter Van Loan

ND: Justin Trudeau is a politician with some holes to fill. Canadians reduced Prime Minister Trudeau to a minority in Monday's election. And in Alberta and Saskatchewan, his Liberals have been wiped off the map. But Mr. Trudeau isn't the only leader with some weakness on display. Jagmeet Singh's NDP lost all but one of their seats in Quebec. And Andrew Scheer's failures around Montreal and Toronto have the Conservatives leaning well to the West. To find out what that's going to mean for the parliament to come, we've reached someone with experience in making a minority work. Peter Van Loan served as the Government House Leader under Stephen Harper. We reached Mr Van Loan in Toronto.

HM: Peter Van Loan, Justin Trudeau has said he doesn't plan to form a formal or even an informal coalition. What advice would you have for him on how to make that work?

PETER VAN LOAN: Well, he's in a very strong position, I think. Because his minority is a strong one with a lot of seats, and as a result, he can achieve a majority vote, which he needs on any piece of legislation with the choice of three different parties. So the strong minority is piece one. But the second piece is that that opposition is divided. It's divided on two axises — ideologically, but also on the federalist, separatist. So on almost any issue, he should be able to find a way, if it was pipelines for example, have the Conservatives support it. If it was expansion of pharmacare, you could count on the NDP supporting it. If it was he wanted to shut down an inquiry into SNC-Lavalin, maybe the Bloc would be there for him. But it's that kind of luxury. And on most issues, it's going to be hard for the opposition to form a common front. So I think he's in a pretty good position.

HM: Well, what does that division in ideology do to those opposition parties? I mean how much more vulnerable does that make them?

PVL: Well, each party is a little bit different I like to say in terms of you know they're going to be thrown kind of hot potatoes from time to time by the government. They're going to have to come up with positions. The government will decide the agenda. And in some cases, they may have to support the government or look at compromise. For the NDP, compromise among their base is not necessarily a bad thing. They've never formed a national government. And the way they measure success is have we had policy initiatives get adopted by another government for which we've been you know kind of authors or drivers? And hence, they're pretty open to compromise if they see that kind of policy success result. And I think for liberals, similarly, their folks are traditionally willing to be flexible and look at compromise often as a plus. The Achilles heel for liberals in it if they start compromising on too many things in the wrong circumstances is that they can look a little bit desperate to hang on to power at all costs, which is a kind of risky thing for Liberals. I think the Conservatives have the toughest position because the supporters of Andrew Scheer generally don't want to see anything done to support Justin Trudeau. But if he brings forward legislation, you know say tax reductions, or something on a pipeline, that is you know something the Conservative Party should support. There will still be a part of their base saying how dare you prop up this government or support them on any basis? So that could be one way that the Liberals could prompt some mischief that weakens the leader of the opposition. And I would look for them to do that, and look for them also to put forward legislation on issues designed to kind of divide the opposition parties. And again, he would do it with the NDP maybe on energy stuff, where there is a divide in different parts of the country or ideologically, or on some of these more social conservative kind of issues for the Conservatives. I've heard talk that they might do something, for example, on responding to the court decision on the right to die legislation. That could potentially lead to divisions in the Conservative caucus. And that will be tough for him to manage. And the more they can kind of create those divisions in the opposition parties, the stronger they can it can look over time.

HM: We're talking about vulnerabilities. I want to know about Andrew Scheer himself. I mean he's pointing out that the party — despite not winning government — did get a higher percentage of the vote. But we're also hearing a lot of unnamed Conservative sources right now complaining about his failures — particularly in Quebec and Ontario. What are you hearing?

PVL: I think most Conservatives share my view, which is that if you've made sound forward progress, which we've had here a gain of more than 20 seats, and finishing ahead of the Liberals in the popular vote, bringing them to a minority. If you've had that kind of forward progress, you've earned the right to continue for another round. I actually think the risk for him is in the efforts to undermine his leadership will come more from the Liberals exploiting, as I said, some of those opportunities to create division. And I think a big part of their agenda will be to try and paint him kind of as a weak leader in contrast. And there's an opportunity in this already situation for Justin Trudeau to remake himself. He's got some significant baggage from the past couple of years of a character nature. And he has a chance to paint himself as a little more mature if he can manage and show leadership in the difficulties of a minority and chart a course. And, you know, without kind of the glibness of the past look a little bit more like a serious leader. He can remake himself and shed some of that baggage. So there are opportunities on both sides for Justin Trudeau. And the advantage you have when you are the government, and it is a strong minority with a divided opposition, is you kind of get to pick and choose what we're going to talk about, what the issues will be. That being said, there are always issues that come out of left field you can’t anticipate. And the Liberals, as we've seen over the past couple of years, also are prone to the occasional scandal.

HM: There are reports that your former boss Stephen Harper has been trying to put a lid on some of the frustrations within the party with Andrew Scheer. Does that say something in your mind about his potential vulnerability right now?

PVL: Well, Stephen Harper knows well having gone through the 2004 election that you don't make it at all the way to government all the time in one go. And I think he can speak from his experience about the success that came from a party that was united behind him and allowed him the opportunity to build and do what was necessary to win in 2006, and then in a couple of subsequent elections after that, obviously, with continuing success. And that's why I say that test is demonstrating meaningful forward progress. And Andrew Scheer has demonstrated that same kind of meaningful forward progress. And that's why I think someone like Stephen Harper would say let's have an opportunity for that growth to continue.

HG: Well, given your own experience and expertise in dealing with minority situations, I'm really pleased that you were willing to join us today and talk this through. Thank you very much.

PVL: Well, thank you very much. Take care.

HG: Okay, bye-bye.

ND: Peter Van Loan is a former Conservative MP. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music: Indie rock]

Mock impeachment

Guest: Chris Dier

ND: U.S. lawmakers are wrestling with whether or not to impeach President Donald Trump. And recently, so was a high school class in Louisiana. Chris Dier is the world history teacher at Chalmette High School. He held a mock impeachment process in his class. And he says what happened amazed him. We reached Mr. Dier at the high school in Chalmette, Louisiana.

HM: Mr. Dier, what was behind your thinking in having this mock impeachment process in your history class?

CHRIS DIER: Well, you know, this is history unfolding right before our eyes. So there's no way I could pass up an opportunity to bring that history to my students. They love to get involved. They love lively debates and discussions. So it's not typical for an impeachment proceeding to happen while I’m teaching history. So I wanted to bring that to my students, and get them engaged with contemporary politics.

HM: What grade are these kids in?

CD: These are seniors, so they're gonna be voting next election. So I want them to be as informed as possible.

HM: Right. So before this started, this process of yours, what did the students actually know about impeachment?

CD: They didn't know too much besides you know what they heard on social media or from parents or some news outlet. So they didn't really have too much of a background regarding impeachment. So we had to go through a lot of the history about what is impeachment. Its historical origins. Why did the framers put into the Constitution. Previous impeachment that occurred. And then finally, get into the facts of this case.

HM: So in terms of the current controversy involving President Trump, how did you prepare the students? What kind of information were they presented with?

CD: It was really the information that I gave them at first were the primary source documents, the actual reconstruction transcript between Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, and our president. And then I gave them the whistleblower complaint. So they were asked to corroborate these two documents. And then eventually debate whether they felt that that was a violation of law, and enough for an impeachment, and then enough for a conviction and a removal.

HM: Now I understand that Mr. Trump pretty much handily won this parish in the election. I'm wondering whether you had any concerns at any point about whether you would be I don't know accused by parents or administrators of maybe doing something that challenged the president?

CD: Yeah, so you're right. Trump won this parish by over 65 per cent. But you know, as social studies teachers, I think in general, we're just hesitant to teach divisive topics you know in the past and present because of hyper-polarization or pushback from parents. But I think avoiding a topic for those reasons is somewhat of a political move in and of itself. So to ignore it is making a statement there.

HM: Did you have any people complain?

CD: No, no, I’ve never had a parent push back. But I also think I'm from the community, and I know a lot of the parents and community members. And they trust me to teach in ways that are objective and that foster critical thinking and academic growth. Not in ways that try to influence their decision.

HM: So how did you structure this mock trial?

CD: So after they were given all the information and discussed and debated bits and pieces of the facts of the case, they had to present their own position whether they felt that the president should be convicted and removed from office. So what I did was I told them that they were Senators for the day, and they had to present their case one side or the other. I divided the class up into three different sections. I put the yays on one side, the nays on the other, and then in the middle where the unsures. Each side had to make their case, and the unsures, as at any given point, could get up and go to the yay side or the nay side. And when the unsures did that, then of course, the sides would all cheer, and they're happy they pulled someone over. So I think they gained a good understanding of what's going on.

HM: I was going to say, it's pretty clear that this is a deeply divisive issue in your country. How did the students comport themselves compared to what we're seeing in Washington right now?

CD: You know, that's fascinating, they were incredibly cordial with one another throughout the entire process. It's fascinating because I go home, and I turn on the TV or look at my phone, and I just see so much bickering and people attacking one another. But you know we work to build a sense of community in classrooms. So if they don't understand something, they ask for clarifying questions. Or if they disagree with someone, they're not supposed to attack the person. So when you build that culture, then I think these types of debates — regardless of how controversial — I think they can they can flourish.

HM: All right, it came to a vote. What happened in the initial vote?

CD: The vote was 14 students voted to remove Trump from office, while seven students voted for him to stay — which, interestingly enough, is an exact 67 per cent.

HM: Right, if the Senate was going to remove the president, it would have to be two thirds.

CD: Yes, it would have to be two thirds.

HM: So in terms of the reasoning, the thrust of the argument on each side, those who were in favour of impeachment, what was their take?

CD: So one student said that we have to set a precedent that it's not okay for a president to use his leverage over other countries for his own political gain. On the other side, on the nay side, one student said that the yay side, their arguments were subjective, and not legal. So they got into a nice little legal battle after that.

HM: So we know the students learned something from all this. What about you, did you learn something as well?

CD: Oh yeah, I'm always learning things. In fact, as I was doing the lesson, I was learning about what was happening. And I'm always amazed by students — especially the ones in this classroom. They could carry themselves with such passion, but still be respectful and polite to have these conversations.

HM: So do you feel like they are more politically engaged now that they're moving into a more intense political season?

CD: I think so. They went home and did more research, and wanted to continue the lessons after. So they actually conducted their own independent research, and came back the next day still debating. But I think that's the goal is to get them engaged, and to realize that these issues, they’re going to impact them after they graduate. And, for the most part, a lot of these issues that we talk about, they're being impacted now. Yeah, the goal is to get them as involved as possible.

HM: All right. Mr. Dier, it sounds like a really valuable exercise. Thanks so much for sharing it with us.

CD: Thanks so much for having me, Helen.

HM: Okay. Bye.

CD: Bye.

ND: Chris Dier is the world history teacher at Chalmette High School. We reached him at the school in Chalmette, Louisiana. And we’ve got more on that story on the As It Happens website. Just go to: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Instrumental]

Bowman/Dryden promo

ND: In the history of the NHL, there are a lot of great players — from Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe, to Wayne Gretzy and Sidney Crosby. But when it comes to coaches, one man stands above the rest — and he's got the Stanley Cup championship rings to prove it. Tomorrow night, we'll air Carol's conversation with legendary coach Scotty Bowman — who coached nine NHL teams to victory. He's the focus of a new book, which is out next week, written by his former goalie Ken Dryden. It's called "Scotty: A Hockey Life Like No Other." One of the things that makes that life so extraordinary is that Mr. Bowman has had an up-close view of many of those hockey greats — and some of its most notable moments. Including the Richard Riots in Montreal, back in 1955:

SOUNDCLIP

SCOTTY BOWMAN: I was at the game, March 17^th. And I had my standing room pass. And I think that was the year I was starting to coach a Junior B team. I was at the game, and I was standing behind them the blue sections in the end zone. And it was actually right below me was the seats where the president, the late Clarence Campbell, was with his wife. And Detroit took I think was at least two or three goal lead. It was a very important game for both teams because it was near the end of the season. There was only a handful of games left. And the game was called at the end of the first or second period — it might have been the second. But they just couldn't handle the tear gas bombs were going off, and they had to forfeit the game. It was a tough scene. I don't know how I did it, but I ended up walking the corridors. And I think it was the son of the coach of the Canadians at the time was Dick Irvin, Dick Irvin Junior, who later became quite a broadcaster, as you know. And I ended up in the Canadians dressing room. I remember I mean you had to go somewhere. And you know, they rioted on the streets. I don't recall what I did after the game. I mean I didn't have a car or anything like that. But I got home. But it was a terrible time. I mean we had blocks and blocks of damage done to the streets and St. Catherine Street. But it was a tough memory.

CAROL OFF: Do you remember it, Ken?

KEN DRYDEN: I have no firsthand memory of it.

CO: But it was a legendary time.

KD: Yeah. Well, and there are a lot of Quebecers who became very well-known and prominent and influential in the 1970s in the independence movement that would trace some of their real beginnings of their passion to that time.

ND: You can hear more of Carol's conversation with legendary hockey coach Scotty Bowman — and former-goalie-turned-politician-and-author Ken Dryden — tomorrow. They joined Carol in the As It Happens studio to talk about the new book "Scotty: A Hockey Life Like No Other."

[Music: Banjo]

Tower of London bodies

Guest: Alfred Hawkins

ND: The Tower of London isn't supposed to be easily accessible. It was a royal fortress and prison, after all. But while some of its inhabitants may have dreamed about getting out, a recent discovery is raising questions about two individuals who got in. The tower's chapel was a burial site for beheaded traitors — including three queens of England: Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, and Jane Grey. And when archeologists recently excavated the ground outside its entrance, they made an unexpected discovery. Alfred Hawkins is the assistant curator of historic buildings at the Historic Royal Palaces. We reached him in London.

HM: Mr. Hawkins, what did archaeologists find when they started digging up the medieval floor near this chapel on site?

ALFRED HAWKINS: So we started performing these archaeological excavations to enable disabled access into our chapel. Before we did that, we need to really understand what was below the ground. So when we went through the modern layers, we found, as you say, a medieval floor surface. And within that were two burial carts containing complete human skeletons.

HM: Did you have any expectation that there might be bodies in this area?

AH: So the chapel has been in use for a thousand years. And it's had a burial ground for most of that time. So we were prepared to find something, but it wasn't expected. As the documentary evidence that we had found beforehand doesn't show that that specific area was part of the burial ground.

HM: So what went through your mind when you saw these remains?

AH: Oh, well, we haven't had any complete human skeletons at the tower for about 40 years. So I knew it would be something very special. And the fact that we are also able to perform scientific analysis on the bones was something really amazing.

HM: Who do you think these people were?

AH: So they would have been fairly normal people. So the analysis we did looks at the pathology of the bones, which means basically, we look at the growth marks and damage and wear and tear. And from the bones, you can see that they weren't particularly malnourished, but they were well-fed either. So we get a vague idea of their social status from that. And you can also see areas of where on the bones. They were clearly doing manual tasks and all these kind of things. And these little bits of evidence lead us to think that they're fairly normal people living between 1450 and 1550.

HM: And one was a woman and one was a young child, is that right?

AH: Yes. So there was a woman between the ages of 35 and 45, and a child around the age of seven. They were buried relatively close, as you would expect in a burial ground. But they were definitely not the same burial.

HM: Were they related?

AH: There's no real way of telling whether or not they were related. Most of what we did was based around observation and measurements. But it doesn't appear that they were.

HM: So besides the bodies themselves, as you go through this site, were or other items found?

AH: Yes. We found a medieval floor, which is incredibly exciting because all of the previous documentary evidence suggests that Edward the First Chapel, which was built in the 1280s, and burned down in 1512, was actually built towards the north of the chapel. And this dig happened towards the south west. So it's kind of completely unravelled where we think the previous building on the site was, which is really, really exciting.

HM: What about materials related to these two bodies?

AH: So there were no burial goods, as we would say. But there were coffin nails surrounding the older woman. So when you're buried, the woods of your casket will obviously rot away. But what's left are the nails. And they stay in a fairly consistent position around the body. So we're able to make an educated guess from that that the 35 to 45-year-old woman was buried within a coffin. But because these nails weren't present around the child, we think that the child was simply shrouded or wrapped in a piece of fabric, and then immediately buried like that, which is an entirely unusual for the period.

HM: Given how ordinary these people appear to be, how ordinary their lives appear to have been, why would they maybe have been buried there?

AH: Everyone associates the Tower of London with the royal power, and Anne Boleyn, and Lady Jane Grey. And all of these fantastic famous people have been executed and buried in the chapel. But you have to remember that this place has always been a mini town within London. It's its own little parish, so you've got the ordnance office, the National Archives, various different national institutions which were born here. And all of the people who worked in those institutions lived within the walls of the tower. So when they died as well, they were buried in this chapel alongside those people who we remember today.

HM: Who else has been buried at the tower?

AH: So there’s a large number of burials. When the floor was taken down inside the chapel in 1876, around 1,700 bodies were exhumed.

HM: Wow!

AH: So that gives you a scale. As far as individuals, you have Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard's, Lady Jane Grey, a huge, huge number of very famous individuals who would have displeased the monarch.

HM: Right. And now as for the two bodies that you discovered, where are the skeletons now?

AH: So the skeletons have been reinterred by our chaplain, Reverend Roger Hall. And we’ve reinterred them into the crypt. And it was a really special kind of ceremony. And the key with this is always trying to maintain the respect and dignity of a Christian burial for these individuals. So it was it was really nice to be part of that.

HM: I see. Any more research to be done in this area?

AH: So lots more research. SO because we've now identified that that area was indeed part of the burial ground, it gives us a bit more information as to where we go next to try and find out the exact dimensions of this burial ground, and particularly with the surface that they were cut through. Obviously, this could completely change our understanding of the evolution of the buildings on the site. And there'll have to be a lot more research into that. So we watch this space really.

HM: Wow. It's fascinating. We will watch the space. Mr. Hawkins, thank you so much.

AH: Thank you very much.

HM: Okay. Bye-bye.

AH: Bye.

ND: Alfred Hawkins is the assistant curator of historic buildings at the Historic Royal Palaces. We reached him in London, England. And you can find more on that story at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Piano]

DL: Dorset detour

ND: Dateline: Godmanstone, Dorset, England.

[Music: Dateline theme]

ND: Kind of seems like Dorset Council went out of its way to send people out of their way. No one in Godmanstone — population 130 — is upset about the roadwork itself. They fully understand that the sewer has to be hooked up to the new house. And that that will require workers to rip up about 50 metres — or 160 feet — of street. They even understand that they'll have to detour around that roadwork for five days or so. What they don't understand is why the official detour is 66 kilometres long. If you still think in Imperial, that's 41 miles. If you think in terms of how long a drive takes, that's over an hour. And if you think an hour-plus detour around a stretch of road that usually takes a few seconds to travel is ridiculous, that's what everyone in the area thinks too. Especially because, when that long drive is over, you'll have travelled a circuitous route that deposits you just a couple of minutes from Godmanstone. Obviously, drivers are furious. But officials insist that, since a major road is closing, only major roads should be part of the detour. Even if using smaller roads would be faster, by somewhere close to 100 percent — which seems like a weirdly roundabout way of trying to explain a weirdly roundabout way.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 24, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This