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 November 20, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Daemon Fairless

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

DF: Tonight...

CO: Taking it from the top. The United States Ambassador to the EU tells the impeachment inquiry that White House pressure on Ukraine was a "clear quid pro quo" and that all involved "followed the President's orders."

DF: The wind out of his sails. A Maltese businessman is arrested while trying to escape on his luxury yacht -- our guest hopes his answers bring police a step closer to solving his sister's murder.

CO: Coming to the aid of Children's Aid. Toronto's child welfare agency partners with a national charity to raise money for a new project -- it will focus on keeping kids with their families.

DF: Unjust cause. Donald Trump pardons a U.S. veteran of war crimes in Afghanistan -- but a former Army medic who served in the same place says that's a serious miscarriage of justice.

CO: It was a big fan and so was she. But now that the Ontario government has canceled hundreds of green energy projects -- our guest will lose the wind turbine on her property.

DF: And clean getaway. A mechanical engineers new non-stick spray makes a toilet a little more slippery and stopping stuff from sticking won't just save us face, it'll save us water. As It Happens. The Wednesday Edition. Radio that engages in an anti-smear campaign.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Toronto woman welcomes child welfare program that would have kept her family together

Impeachment: Sondland

Guest: Matthew Miller

DF: Gordon Sondland is the person everyone in Washington has been waiting to hear from. You've probably heard his name come up time and again throughout the impeachment inquiry. He's a key figure in the investigation. He was a hotel magnate and a major donor to Trump's inaugural committee before he became the envoy to the European Union last year. During his testimony today, Ambassador Sondland was clear. He said that if Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky wanted a meeting with Mr. Trump he would have to publicly announce investigations, including one into Bursima -- the company where Joe Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board. Here's Ambassador Sondland speaking about that and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

SOUNDCLIP

GORDON SONDLAND: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others -- that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky, committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians. And Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the right White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements.

DF: Throughout the day, Republicans on the House committee attempted to poke holes in Ambassador Sondland's testimony. Here's Republican John Ratcliffe questioning Ambassador Sondland.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN RATCLIFFE: Ambassador Sonald I'm going to try and quickly move to summarize all of your direct communications with President Trump as it relates to this inquiry. And of course, you can correct me if I get it wrong. On May 23rd, you had a group meeting that included a -- what you call "a vanilla request" -- about ending corruption involving Ukrainian oligarchs. Correct?

GORDON SONDLAND: Correct.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: On July 25th, you called President Trump to say you were on your way to Ukraine, but nothing of substance occurred on that call. Correct?

GORDON SONDLAND: Correct.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: On July 26th you had a five minute call at a restaurant that you didn't originally remember, because it, according to your statement this morning, quote, "did not strike me as significant at the time" but once refreshed, recalled that the primary purpose was a rapper named "ASAP Rocky" correct?

GORDON SONDLAND: Correct.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: And on September 9th, and most importantly, reading from your deposition, you called President Trump to ask him, what do you want from Ukraine? He responded, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on. And what he ran on was fighting corruption. Correct?

GORDON SONDLAND: Correct.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: And then lastly, on October 2nd, in a random in-person meeting that you had at an event for the Finnish president, you ran into President Trump and advised him that you'd been called to testify before Congress. And he said to you, Good -- go tell the truth.

GORDON SONDLAND: That's correct.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: All right. And that is the entirety of your recollection of your direct communications with President Trump about these matters.

GORDON SONDLAND: I may have had another call or meeting or two. I again, I wish Mr. Ratcliffe I had the record.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: I understand. But this is what you recall?

GORDON SONDLAND: That's what I recall.

DF: Ambassador Gordon Sondland speaking today during a hearing in Washington. Matthew Miller is MSNBC's Justice and Security Analyst, and a former chief spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice. We reached Mr. Miller in Washington.

CO: Matthew, is it fair to say that Ambassador Sondland is a very different kind of witness than we've seen so far? He is a supporter of Donald Trump, he was appointed by him. He is not what Republicans would call a member of the deep state.

MATTHEW MILLER: I think that's exactly right. Unlike some of the other witnesses who have come forward, he's not a career public servant. He's not someone who's served for years and years in the State Department or the Department of Defense. He is a political appointee. He has this job because he gave a million dollars to the president's inaugural fund. He's a lifelong Republican and someone who in his first appearance before the committee, tried very hard to protect the president -- tried so hard that some members of the committee accused him of perjuring himself. And you saw a very different tune from him in his appearance today.

CO: What effect is that -- that different tune that he was singing today?

MM: I think there were two things he said that were very damning to the president today. One was he made clear that there was a quid pro quo. And he also made clear that the circle of people who knew about this attempt to influence Ukrainian government to open these investigations was much broader than we heard from previous witnesses. He made clear that it wasn't just the President and Rudy Giuliani, but also the President's Chief-Of-Staff, the Vice President -- Mike Pence, and the Secretary Of State -- Mike Pompeo, raising questions about how far this scandal extends beyond even the president himself.

CO: But we heard in the opening from Representative John Ratcliffe, a Republican, who goes through what was on the record, what Ambassador Sondland heard. "A vanilla request" for an investigation. Mr. Trump said, I don't want anything. Go tell Congress the truth. And as he points out -- what Mr. Ratcliffe points out is that different people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions about really what Mr. Trump's role was in all this was. Is that fair?

MM: I really don't think that exchange made the point Congressman Ratcliffe was hoping it would. Number one, those are a lot of interactions for an ambassador to have with the president. Most ambassadors never talk regularly with the president other than say, you know, big diplomatic events where they're kind of brief 30-second interactions. That was a high number of interactions. Number two, we know that according to Ambassador Sondland's testimony, the way the president was influencing the operation of the government was not just through direct interactions with Sondland and others, but he told them at the beginning, I want you to talk to Rudy. And then Rudy would give them instructions. Rudy would tell them, these are the two things I want. I want these investigations. And then the third point I think about that exchange that the congressman mentioned, that final conversation he had -- well, the final conversations before the president tells him to go up and tell the truth, where he talks to the president and the president tell them I want nothing. No quid pro quo. The president only said that after he knew that he had basically been caught according to the Chairman Schiff. And what the chairman meant by that is the whistleblower complaint had already been filed. That fact of its existence had already been told to the Hill. So Congressman Schiff knew about it and was informing the American public. By that point, the president knew that people had figured out what he was doing and he had incentive to try to clean up after himself and tell Sondland -- no quid pro quo. But even when he did that, he still told him, I want these investigations done.

CO: How closely did this testimony today tie this whole issue of asking Ukraine to have investigations that would have helped Mr. Trump politically? How close does it tie it to actually his instructions and him being directly involved in it?

MM: I think it puts it right in his lap. Look, we already basically knew from the beginning of this investigation that the president was directly involved because the minute they released that partial transcript, you had the president in his own words kind of laying out the most damning possible set of facts. You had him directly demanding investigation. Not even into Burima, the Ukrainian company, but into Joe Biden himself. So the president already in his own words in a document released by the White House was put right in the centre of this scandal. And today you had Gordon Sondland making clear that it was the president through Rudy Giuliani who was saying you know for the Ukrainians to get this meeting at the White House they have to open these investigation. Now Gordon Sondland wasn't able to directly testify that the president told him they won't get their aid, they won't get this 400 million dollars unless they open the investigation. But he laid out a pretty circumstantial case that by September it was clear to him that that was in fact the case. The reason the president was withholding that aid is he wanted those two investigation launched.

CO: But the Republicans keep coming back to this. If anything circumstantial -- and there is no smoking gun because as they point out the aid did flow to Ukraine and there were no investigations.

MM: Well but the problem with that is it ignores all of the rest of the evidence. The aid is only one piece of the puzzle. The demand for an investigation into the president's political opponents is in itself misconduct -- is in itself arguably an impeachable offense. There is another quid pro quo that basically is no longer disputed. The fact that the president said you cannot get this meeting at the White House unless you open an investigation. The only piece of the puzzle that's still left is circumstantial -- is this withholding of aid. And you now have Gordon Sondland coming in and saying it was pretty clear to him. He's the person more at the centre of this than anyone else. It was pretty clear to him. So, yes, that piece is circumstantial, but if they're going to hang their defense on that they have to ignore every other fact that can be incredibly damning for the president's actions.

CO: So if this did move the dial and many people are saying, this was absolutely crucial what happened today with Ambassador Sondland. But do you see any more Republicans being persuaded? Do you see any more the public being persuaded?

MM: It's very hard to tell. Public opinion has moved somewhat of this since the beginning of this crisis. You know you saw polling, you know, around whether the president should be impeached or removed from office -- removed from office moved from somewhere in the high 30s to around 50 percent where around half the country now says he should be removed from office. And it's kind of sat there stubbornly for a few weeks. I think it's too early to say whether public opinion will move. And as for Republicans, I think they will largely follow public opinion. They're not going to move just because they think it's the right thing to do to remove the president from office. They've made pretty clear they're going to defend him until they can't anymore. And so I think the question is really, will these hearings have an impact on public opinion? And I think it's too early to answer that question.

CO: All right. We'll be following this story. Matthew, thank you so much.

MM: Thank you.

DF: That was the former chief spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice, Matthew Miller in Washington.

[Music]

Children's aid changes

Guest: Anna Amy Ho

DF: Generally speaking, child welfare goes something like this. Someone sounds the alarm about a potentially dangerous situation. A local agency investigates. And on bad days, a child is separated from his or her family. Protection, not prevention, has been the name of the game. And the target of government funding. But now the Children's Aid Society of Toronto has raised roughly five million dollars of its own with help from the charitable Children's Aid Foundation of Canada. It plans to spend those millions on getting out of the business of raising children by supporting the children's families instead. It's an approach Anna Amy Ho says would have benefited her and her brother tremendously. Ms. Ho is an ambassador for the Children's Aid Foundation. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Anna I know this is a painful story, but how did you come to be in the care of the Children's Aid Society when you were young?

ANNA AMY HO: So when I was 13, my mom's common law partner murdered my mom and grandmother -- attempted to kill me, then took its own life. And so as a result of that incident, I was put into the child welfare system. And I first started living with my brother, who had just turned 18 about a week and a half after our family was murdered.

CO: And how difficult was that for him and for you?

ANNA AMY HO: You know, I can imagine that at that time he was overwhelmed, scared, and probably frustrated with the lack of support. And he was working you know probably seven days a week -- most weeks -- and missed a lot of school as a result. And unfortunately, (he) was actually expelled because he had missed that many classes. And so not only was the Society, you know -- didn't necessarily do their due diligence in terms of following up on providing mental health support, but his school also, unfortunately, you know kind of played hardball and didn't support him but rather cut him loose.

CO: When say "society" you mean the Children's Aid Society.

ANNA AMY HO: Yeah.

CO: And eventually, the Children's Aid Society came to the conclusion that it wasn't working, you and your brother. And then they decided, they let you be on your own to finish high school -- is that right?

ANNA AMY HO: Yeah. So actually on my 16th birthday they sat me down -- two of my workers -- and they said, you know, you've got three options now that it hasn't worked out with your brother. You either find relatives to take care of you, live on your own, or you live with foster parents. And I said, I honestly do not want to live with strangers. So, you know, they looked at each other and had a side conversation and said, you know, I think she could do it on her own. I think she could make it. And so they looked back at me and I went, sure -- I guess I'll give it a try. And that's what I did. You know, less than a week later I moved out on my own. I had my own basement apartment. You know it was a really really dark time for me.

CO: You were a success story. You went on. You finished. You went to university. Graduate school. But so many others who end up being in the care of Children's Aid Society don't fare so well which is why they have launched this new initiative called "Journey to Zero." What do you understand? Would this be the support that you would've needed for you and your brother to make a go of it?

ANNA AMY HO: Absolutely. I found out about the program almost two years ago and immediately, you know, I called the foundation because I've had a longstanding relationship with them as an ambassador. And I said, is there anything I can do to help you get this program up and running? Like, I wish I had this for me, my brother, when I was in care. I can imagine that you know if we had an early engagement team, which is one of the four teams that the "Journey to Zero" program is offering. It specifically targets children under the age of 6 and youth between ages of 12 to 17 being able to have a community resource specialist, to address the issues that the family is facing -- whether it's mental health, addictions, domestic violence. And so in my brother's case he could have gotten connected to a counselor, provided financial support to finish school so he didn't have to work so much. And he would have been offered, you know, educational resources to say, hey, we know you don't know how to be a parent at 18, but here are some parenting resources and workshops or courses you can take. But unfortunately, that wasn't the case. And my brother is caught up in this vicious cycle of poverty, mental illness, and homelessness. And that's why when I first saw the Journey to Zero program, I said I know for a fact that there will be different and better outcomes as a result of this program. We know it is based on evidence and track record of previous pilot projects in other countries. I mean, even pilot projects that have actually occurred in Toronto.

CO: The Children's Aid Foundation president said that after 100 years of intervening in lives of children and families at risk, they've come to realize that these outcomes are not great. And the Children's Aid Society of Toronto is saying we're no longer going to be in the business of raising children -- we're going to reinvest in keeping families together. I mean if it has been that long, why did it take so long to realize that the apprehensions, taking kids into care, that the way they were dealing with it was not working?

ANNA AMY HO: I absolutely agree with you. Even the funding model that Children's Aid Society across Ontario had was -- they were actually funded per child that they took into care. So when you have a system that is set up with this type of financial incentive, it is no wonder that kids were coming into care. Right. But with this new program, the approach has fundamentally changed from, let's investigate to let's support families to protect their own children so that they can grow up in a loving household and not be raised by a system in a system.

CO: The Ontario government contributed about two million dollars to this project through its funding to the Children's Aid Society of Toronto. But the Society and the Children's Aid Foundation had to raise an additional 5 million dollars from the private sector. And so if all the evidence shows that this is a better approach, why was it necessary to do that kind of fundraising?

ANNA AMY HO: You know that's a good question. And honestly, I think the government is very supportive of the program. You know, they've expressed a very positive attitude towards the program. I think they're looking for that hard evidence, not evaluation of this exact model that they're proposing, because this model isn't exactly the same as the other one that we have looked at and assessed in research. We are all very competent. It is going to be successful. And the Ontario government has expressed that they will be looking at you know the outcomes quarterly. And you know I'm really hoping that very early on that they're going to really sit down to look at okay we see that this program has you know, X, Y, and Z outcomes -- you know, we can actually put dollar amounts behind this program to help sustain it beyond the four years that it's currently being funded for.

CO: We will be watching. Anna, thank you.

ANNA AMY HO: Thank you.

DF: Anna Amy Ho is an ambassador for the Children's Aid Foundation of Canada, which today unveiled its new "Journey to Zero" approach in partnership with the Children's Aid Society of Toronto. We reached her in Toronto. For more on Anna's story visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Slippery toilet

Guest: Tak-Sing Wong

DF: When it comes to sticky situations, Tak-Sing Wong is your man. For years, the mechanical engineer and his team at Pennsylvania State University have tackled the scourge of friction. They've worked to make everything from windshield wipers to pipelines less "sticky." Recently, he was approached with a new challenge -- one that forced him to rethink a common household object: the toilet bowl. And again, he and his team prevailed. This time by creating a new coating that makes toilet bowl so slippery that almost nothing sticks. A new study on the coating was published this week in Nature Sustainability. We reached Tak-Sing Wong in State College, Pennsylvania.

CO: Professor Wong how much time have you spent pondering poo since you took on this challenge?

TAK-SING WONG: It's been almost four years. It all started back in 2015 when we were approached by a research group at Cranfield University. Back then, they were developing a toilet for the developing world through the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So one problem they had was that the human waste is very sticky to the toilet surface. So that's why they reached out to us to see if we can have a solution. Because my research group at Penn State has been known for the developing slippery surfaces to solve sticky problems.

CO: [Chuckles] Did you think though when you got into this business, this kind of engineering work, that you would be asked to try and figure out how to deal with sticky feces?

TAK-SING WONG: Not really. In the beginning, we kind of underestimated the complexity of this problem. And we didn't realize human poop is actually really sticky.

CO: But now you know that for a fact.

TAK-SING WONG: Now we know that. We actually know many things about poop now.

CO: All right. [Chuckles] Before we get into how you know and what you know about sticky poo -- besides the ick factor, what is wrong with human poop so sticky?

TAK-SING WONG: I guess everyone wants to have a clean toilet. That make sense, right? Everyone wants a clean toilet. But because, as all of us know, human poop comes into a different form. And there's actually Bristol stool scale that categorizes the poop into the seven categories. The type one poop is the solid poop. And the type seven is the liquid poop. And anything in between type three to type four are healthy human feces. And those are among the stickiest poop we have.

CO: [Chuckles] I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine what it is to have to study this much to know that there are seven categories of feces. [Laughter] And that human stuff is just like -- it is just a gooey gop, right? That's your problem.

TAK-SING WONG: Yeah. And we need to know this because as an engineer, if we want to design a surface to repel human feces, we need to understand the physical property of that and how we can test that in the lab. We didn't start with the actual human feces. We actually use a synthetic poop to test our surface because if I asked my graduate student to test with real human waste, they probably wouldn't be happy about that.

CO: [Laughs] So what is synthetic poop?

TAK-SING WONG: Yeah. We got this recipe to create synthetic poop from our collaborator at Cranfield University. So this synthetic poop consists of seven chemical components which include yeast, peanut oil, and miso, among other components. And you can mix them in a specific way -- such that you can emulate a physical property of the actual human feces.

CO: Okay. So you got your synthetic poop -- which I guess it doesn't stink, and that's another advantage. But it's not a matter of trying to find a different kind of toilet. You're trying to develop a surface on toilets that will be less sticky, right? So you came up with a coating, is that right?

TAK-SING WONG: Yeah. That is correct. In essence, we create a slippery coating that you can put on ceramic or glass that can repel human waste, including urine, feces, and bacteria.

CO: And what is this spray?

TAK-SING WONG: This coating comes into two parts. The very first part is a nano-scale hair that is permanently bonded to the toilet surface on one end. On the other end it is kind of free to move. And then later on, we infuse the second part, which is a liquid lubricant. So the combination of the nano-hair and the liquid lubricant makes the surface super slippery and nothing can stick to that.

CO: Okay just to be in a serious level here, the advantage of this is that the toilet needs less water.

TAK-SING WONG: That is correct because this coating like human waste can stick to it. So it wouldn't leave any chances of fecal streak or waste. So that is one thing. And you do not need that much water to clean off the surface compared to an uncoated surface. Indeed, in our laboratory we have shown that with a coated surface versus an uncoated surface -- you save 90 percent of water. Of course, for a flush toilet, you need a certain amount of water to move the waste down the drain line. So for typical 1.6 gallons per flush toilet, one would need to take about 50 percent of the flush volume to get a waste down the drain line so that 50 percent of water you cannot save.

CO: You're saving half the water of a flush.

TAK-SING WONG: That's correct.

CO: And that includes taking out, as you call it, the fecal streak.

TAK-SING WONG: [Laughs] That's right.

CO: Okay. So you're trying to put the toilet cleaning people out of business, I guess?

TAK-SING WONG: Well, I wouldn't say that, but I think one of the motivation we have is really try to minimize the use of aggressive chemicals when people used to clean a toilet and also maintaining the toilet itself clean -- I think everyone would be happy.

CO: For sure. When might this spray -- this coating -- be available?

TAK-SING WONG: Yeah. It's actually available now. And "spotLESS Materials" have been selling this toilet coating among other non-stick coatings.

CO: Okay you've developed the toilet so that the poo doesn't stick, but you can't develop one that the poo doesn't stink -- I guess that's not going to work.

TAK-SING WONG: Well, if you don't have the human waste sticking on the surface, the toilet wouldn't stink. [Laughter]

CO: Well done, Professor Wong.

TAK-SING WONG: Yeah. Thank you.

CO: All right. Take care.

TAK-SING WONG: Take care.

CO: I'm not going to ask you for your recipe for synthetic poop though.

TAK-SING WONG: But it just published so everyone -- feel free to look at it and make their own, if they want to.

CO: [Laughs] All right. Thanks.

TAK-SING WONG: Thank you for having me.

DF: Tak-Sing Wong is a professor of mechanical and biomedical engineering at Pennsylvania State University in State College, which is where we reached him. And we've got more on this story and our webpage: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: Trump's military murder pardon a slap in the face to honourable soldiers: ex-army medic

Malta investigation update

Guest: Corinne Vella

DF: The latest twist in the investigation of a murdered journalist in Malta has seen a wealthy businessman arrested on the high seas. Today, Yorgen Fenech was intercepted by the military while apparently trying to leave the country on his luxury yacht. Mr. Fenech is being questioned in connection with a 2017 car bombing that killed anti-corruption blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia. Three other men have already been charged with triggering the bomb. Just before her death, Ms. Galizia published a piece on the Panama Papers leak. It has since emerged that a company controlled by Mr. Fenech made secret payments to Panama companies set up by officials close to Malta's prime minister. Corinne Vella is Daphne Caruana Galizia's sister. We reached her in Malta.

CO: Corinne how hopeful are you about finding answers to your sister's murder after this dramatic arrest?

CORINNE VELLA: Well, it's a welcome and a very important development because there haven't been any arrests since December 2017 -- say for the one that happened last week and the one that happened today. So we're optimistic that things are moving ahead. So certainly there have been some developments. But I don't think we're quite there yet because we don't know what the outcome of the arrests will be.

CO: There was an announcement yesterday -- Malta's prime minister said that he would consider a pardon for someone who called the "middleman" -- who's not named. A middleman in the bombing who has apparently agreed to testify against those who masterminded the murder of your sister. Is it possible that that announcement might have led to Mr. Fenech's desire to leave Malta?

CV: I'd be speculating if I answered that question. But yes, certainly the arrests are linked. But I couldn't speak for Yorgen Fenech because he hasn't made any public statement at all. He's under arrest. But the person who was apprehended last week, news only broke about the arrest yesterday. And that's when Muscat said he's willing to offer immunity from prosecution in cases where this man's evidence can lead to further prosecutions. So there may be a connection -- there definitely is a connection between the two men because apparently Fenech is the next person up in the chain of command as a suspect. But the facts are still to be established. He's still in preventive custody, from what I can understand. And that means the police have until Friday morning to either charge him or release him. That all depends on how the interrogation goes. So things are evolving. But it is a step forward.

CO: When you mention Muscat -- you mean Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.

CV: Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. Yes.

CO: Now I know it's very complicated. We actually need your sister to explain this because she did it very well. But if you can give us a sense, a sketch, of how Yorgen Fenech was allegedly connected or possibly connected to the corruption that your sister was reporting on.

CV: Well, what's been published already -- the information in the public domain is this Daphne was covering politics and slowly by covering that slowly she started to uncover crime related to corruption. One of the stories she covered identified Yorgen Fenech. He's associated with a big project to build a power station which is now operating -- and which was linked to Muscat's election in 2013. He's a shareholder in the company that runs the power station. And it was later discovered -- after Daphne was killed -- that he owned a secret company that Daphne had identified and whose ownership she didn't know about. He actually owned that company and that that company was slated to be used to funnel money from Azerbaijan to the Seychelles into this company called "17 Black" and then two companies in Panama, which belonged to the prime minister's chief of staff, Keith Schembri, and to Minister Konrad MIzzi who signed on the deal for the power station.

CO: So we'll just unpack a bit of that. This company, the secret company, "17 Black" that this man Fenench was associated with was making large payments to secret companies in Panama. And those companies that were getting those payments were actually owned by senior officials in Malta's government, in the Muscat government, correct?

CV: Yes, correct. But here's the thing the company was owned secretly by Fenech. Nobody knew who owned it. So when Daphne reported about it, nobody knew what the ownership was. But, you know, slowly through the Panama Papers, through all the investigations, information emerged about the companies in Panama and so on. The story is being pieced together. And after Daphne was killed, there was a group of journalists calling themselves the "Daphne Project" some of them followed up on this company called "17 Black" and identified its owner who turned out to be Yorgen Fenech. So what you have there is somebody who is a shareholder in a company that has some business with government. Had a secret company and it was used as a conduit for payments from Azerbaijan through a network of companies towards supposedly paid making payments towards people in the Muscat government. But when you look at those factors and you look at the names and you look at the connections, it all looks very suspicious.

CO: Prime Minister Muscat has said that until now he had no indication that a minister on his staff or his chief of staff -- those are the two men you mentioned -- were linked or possibly linked to the murder of your sister. How close does this now get to the prime minister himself?

CV: Well one man is his chief of staff. One man is his star minister. Both of those men set up companies in Panama shortly after he was elected. I mean he talks as though there's no reason for them to resign. They should have resigned long ago. But once their companies were found -- they were identified as having companies in Panama -- that is when they should have resigned. If not sooner. But instead, what we have is a situation where they are still in office three years after these companies were exposed and when the journalist who exposed them has been killed. Now we find out that one of the suspects in the murder has a business linked to those two men.

CO: Corinne I'm sorry about your sister. Our condolences to you. But I appreciate that would you speak with us tonight. Thank you.

CV: Thank you. Thank you very much.

DF: Corinne Vella is Daphne Caruana Galizia's sister. We reached her in Malta.

[Music]

FactCheckUK

DF: Fact: The UK held its first prime ministerial debate last night before the country's December 12th election. Also fact: the Conservative Party's press office rebranded its Twitter account for the occasion -- changing its handle to "FactCheckUK." During the debate, the account shared pro-Boris Johnson statements -- preceded by the word "fact." Now Twitter is warning them not to do that again. But Tory Dominic Raab is making no promises. Here he is speaking with Louise Minchin on "BBC Breakfast."

SOUNDCLIP

LOUISE MINCHIN: Why do you need to dress it up as that? Why do you need to dress it up as "FactCheckUK?"

DOMINIC RAAB: Because we want to make it clear that we are holding Labour to account for the nonsense that they systematically and serially put out in relation to Conservatives.

LOUISE MINCHIN: You say make it clear. Let's take this from example from the fact checking agency "Full Fact." Okay. They say it's inappropriate and misleading for the Conservative press office to rename their Twitter account "FactCheckUK" during this debate.

DOMINIC RAAB: Who said Full Fact is the final arbiter of what the public get to see. There's no God given right or set in law. It doesn't sound to me like they like the competition. What we're not going to do is have this nonsense that the NHS is up for sale -- being put around Jeremy Corbyn.

LOUISE MINCHIN: We're talking about trust, aren't we? We're talking about truth and we're talking about whether or not this might be misleading. Twitter says we have global rules in place that prohibit behavior that can mislead people, including those with verified accounts. It's a verified account. Any further attempts to mislead people by editing verified profile information in a manner seen in the UK election will result in decisive corrective action. They talk about it being misleading.

DOMINIC RAAB: Well, I don't agree. It was [inaudible] to the CCHQ account. No one who looked at it for more than a split second would have been fooled they would see it's from the CCHQ. But the key point is we need to test some of the nonsense that Labour are putting around. The NHS will never be up for sale. And we're the ones -- forget all this negativity which I think people are bored of -- we're the ones with a 34 billion pound to invest in the doctors, the nurses, and the hospital.

LOUISE MINCHIN: People watching this morning will want to know -- they'll want to know about the truth. Do you think you'll do this again? Is it a mistake?

DOMINIC RAAB: Louise I knock on doors every day. I've been through the Midlands yesterday. I'm down in Surrey, which is my own seat. No one gives a toss about the social media cut and thrust.

DF: That's British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab defending the Conservative Party's temporary rebrand of its Twitter account.

[Music]

Trump military pardons

Guest: Adam Linehan

DF: U.S. First Lieutenant Clint Lorance was serving out a 19-year sentence for the murder of two Afghan civilians. But thanks to President Donald Trump, he's now a free man. Late on Friday, President Trump quietly cleared three American service members accused or convicted of war crimes. It meant a full pardon for Lieutenant Lorance who was convicted for ordering his troops in Afghanistan to fire on unarmed civilians. He then called in false radio reports to cover up what happened. On Monday, "Fox and Friends" gave him a hero's welcome.

SOUNDCLIP

CLINT LORANCE: Well, President Trump is somebody that sees something that's wrong and fixes it and doesn't care whose feelings it hurts. And you know that's what I learnt when I was talking to him on the phone. He said something along the long lines of things like this is going to make a lot of people irritated at me, but I don't care. That's what I want in my Commander-in-Chief -- somebody that will see something that's broken and fix it. The military justice system is absolutely broken. I've got people still sitting in Fort Leavenworth and I will not give up on them. And I hope President Trump's not going to give up on them.

DF: That was Lieutenant Clint Lorance speaking to "Fox and Friends" this week after being pardoned by President Trump. Adam Linehan is a former U.S. Army medic who served on the same battlefield in Afghanistan where Lieutenant Lorance commanded. We reached Mr. Linehan in Austin, Texas.

CO: Mr. Linehan we just heard Lieutenant Clint Lorance speaking on Fox and Friends. He's thrilled to be out. What does his freedom mean to you?

ADAM LINEHAN: To me personally as a veteran, what it says to me is that as a country we don't actually care about the reality of the situation on the ground and that we are more concerned about the politics around these wars than we are actually whether or not they are won.

CO: As you know that he has a lot of support. There are conservative commentators. Many Republicans see Lieutenant Lorance as a celeb. What do you think he represents to his supporters?

AL: I think he represents a winner, a guy who is going to do whatever it takes to get the job done, who doesn't care about civilian casualties, who doesn't care about the collateral damage. You know, along the same lines of thinking, why don't we just turn Afghanistan to glass? The people who espouse this idea that all that matters is our success in these wars and whatever we have to do to win...we win. And so they refuse to acknowledge or accept the possibility that Americans can be war criminals.

CO: Lieutenant Lorance was sentenced to 19 years and a court martial convicted of second degree murder. And his lawyers and himself have always maintained that he was defending his platoon from a serious threat. And you know very well from having been in this very region how threatening it is, how things are coming at you, and you're making split second decisions, and you have to protect -- you have to defend yourself. Can you tell us about the threat that you understand he perceived that day?

AL: According to Lorance and his supporters, the motorcycle that he ordered to be shot is a motorcycle carrying three men was bearing down on the platoon. That it was a split second decision. It was either them or us. In reality, it was much more mundane. There was no split second decision necessary. The motorcycle was not driving towards the platoon. In fact, the platoon was in the middle of a grape field, separated from the road by mud walls.

CO: Two men were shot. One of them got away. What has he claimed happened after that as far as how they followed up on those shootings?

AL: So according to members of the platoon, he sent up a false report saying that the bodies were recovered by the local villagers before the platoon was able to conduct a proper battle damage assessment and figure out who these guys were. One of the soldiers who actually was ordered to shoot and pulled the trigger, he collected items off of the bodies and then later delivered them to the company commander when he told on Lorance for ordering him to kill the civilians.

CO: And those items include a pair of scissors, identity card, and some cucumbers.

AL: Yes. There was no ammunition. There were no rifles.

CO: There was one incident of not obeying Lieutenant Lorance's when he was a soldier was told to fire on a 12-year-old who was at the scene of the shooting. What happened there?

AL: You know, it was a similar thing that had happened the day before. This was Lorance's third day with the platoon. He showed up and according to members of the platoon, he was eager for a fight. He had been at brigade headquarters. He had never been in combat. On day two, he allegedly went up into the guard towers and told the soldiers that were in the guard towers to shoot in the direction of the neighboring village and in the vicinity specifically of people. And they told him after firing a few shots, when children -- when he started directing them closer and closer to the children that they weren't going to do it. So this happened again when a child came into view. And at that point, the soldier who was on the machine gun that killed those two men that's when he said this is too much.

CO: At his trial -- the trial of Lieutenant Lorance -- there were nine of his platoon members who testified against him. You know from being a soldier how unusual that would be. Why did those men decide that they were actually going to speak against their commander?

AL: It disgraced them. When you come home from war, you come home from war with a lot of guilt no matter what. I can't even imagine what it would be like to come home from war having done that. And the platoon felt like they had been making a lot of progress in the area up until that point. They were forging relationships with the locals. Their service meant something to them. And Lorance had clearly crossed a threshold that they weren't comfortable with.

CO: When you say what effect this had on these platoon members -- you're not just being hypothetical. You know some of them. What impact has this ordeal had on them, on their lives, since they've been back?

AL: I know that many of them continue to wrestle with this. It haunts them. 30 or 31 of them have come home. You know, five have passed away since then -- one of them in a high speed single vehicle car accident. One of them was murdered under dubious circumstances at his home. And two weeks ago, one of them committed suicide.

CO: Is it possible to look at what Lieutenant Lorance did in this way -- that he was somebody who was trying to prove himself, he was new, he'd only been there for three days. This was perhaps an extremely bad character, extremely bad decision making, but not criminal. Is it possible to see him that way?

AL: I think that what being a soldier is, is having the ability to restrain yourself and protect innocent people. There are a lot of soldiers, myself included, every member of Lorance's platoon included who didn't go over there or ever have the intention of killing civilians and exercise restraint under much more dire circumstances than Lorance was in that day. And so I completely think that Lorance is a criminal. Absolutely.

CO: He's a murderer?

AL: He's a murderer.

CO: What do you think the effect it has on other soldiers, other people? Do you think it has a chilling effect on the others -- when they see something that they have to report?

AL: Absolutely. I mean, I've come to the conclusion that if you're a soldier and you see one of your comrades do something like what Lorance did, you will be better off not saying anything. And even the president might validate the argument against you.

CO: Mr. Linehan I know this is difficult for you to talk about -- it is so close to you. But I appreciate that you would speak with us. Thank you.

AL: Yeah. Thank you.

DF: Adam Linehan is a former U.S. Army medic who served in Afghanistan. We reached him in Austin, Texas. For more on the story and the presidential pardon of Lieutenant Clint Lorance go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Dog years

DF: Why does it matter how old your dog is in human years? It's not like you can swap stories about your colonoscopies just because you're both 50-ish. And at the end of the day you still have to scoop up its poop. Still, we've been doing these calculations forever. Most of us follow the old formula. You know, one dog years equivalent to seven human years. It's simple, but unfortunately it's wrong. Now there are legitimate scientific questions about differences in animals aging -- specifically epigenetic clocks which track our biological age, not just our chronological age. Well, a geneticist from the University of California San Diego and his team looked at the epigenetic clocks of dogs. Labrador retrievers to be precise. They found a lot of fascinating things to do with genomes and DNA and stuff. But let's get to the news-you-can-use part. The helpful new formula to determine your dog's age and human years -- it's simple. You just multiply your dog's natural logarithm by 16 and add 31. So a 10-year-old dog isn't 70 in human years. It's [calculating] well, let's see…carry that one: 67.8. Well, that is slightly more accurate. I don't know. Maybe that 2.2 two year revision seems like big news to you, but it's hard to see how that major scoop makes a real difference to the one you're going to have to do later on.

[Music]

Regina Scott

DF: Novice, atom, peewee, bantam, and midget. Those are the common age classifications for Canadian youth hockey leagues. And now to make the game more inclusive, Hockey Canada is cutting them from the teams. As of the 2020-21 season these terms will be replaced by age titles ranging from U7 -- under 7-years-old -- to U21. Guelph resident Regina Scott must be applauding that. When she noticed the term "midget" was being used in her son's local basketball league, she couldn't stay silent. She asked her son's league to drop the term. It complied. And the Ontario Basketball Association followed suit. Ms. Scott spoke with Carol last November after the Ontario Basketball Association dropped the term "midget." Here's part of that conversation from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Regina, what was it about your own family that made you want to get this term “midget” drop from the age groups in basketball.

REGINA SCOTT: So we are parents to three kids, and our youngest was born with achondroplasia, which is the most common form of dwarfism. So as we were learning about our son's condition, we are also educating ourselves, and came to the realization that the word midget is very derogatory. It's hurtful, it's offensive, it has a history of only negative connotation towards people of short stature. And it was confusing for us because we said oh, I had no idea. As we assumed so many other people didn't know. But one thing that kind of sparked our attention was that it is commonly used in sports.

CO: And your son who has dwarfism is Jeremy? How old is he?

RS: Jeremy is two and a half.

CO: Your husband is a coach at the basketball league?

RS: Yes, he is — for several years now.

CO: So what was it like for him when he was continuing to coach after you got this diagnosis for Jeremy? And for Chris, it must have been quite something to see this term midget turn up in all age groups?

RS: Yeah, yeah, it's hurtful. Because when you're referring to a person with dwarfism as a midget, you're forgetting that they're a person with a condition. They're not a midget. They're not their condition. That's not what defines them. And so when it's constantly tossed around in sports, and in those circles, it's one of those things where it has now a personal meaning.

CO: Now, when you approached the basketball league in Guelph to drop the word, did you get any pushback from them when you ask them hey, do you think you could do this?

RS: No, not at all. It was amazing. It goes to show how progressive the association is, and you know just what a positive impact they want to have on all kids. They said we thank you for bringing us to our attention. We had absolutely no idea. And you know a lot of the problem is it's just been that way for so long. You know people get into habits, and they just never really thought to look into it, or of course not. Why would you, right? Until you're affected by something, it doesn't have any meaning to you.

DF: Regina Scott spoke with As It Happens in 2018 about how she convinced her son's local basketball team and the Ontario Basketball Association to drop the term "midget" from their age classifications. On Monday, Hockey Canada announced that it's changing its traditional age category names too, to remove terms such as "midget."

[Music]

Part 3: New Trudeau cabinet

New Trudeau cabinet

Guest: Susan Delacourt

DF: Justin Trudeau decided he needs a deputy after all. When the Liberals first took power, Mr. Trudeau said he wouldn't be needing a deputy prime minister. But then the Liberals were reduced to a minority and the Bloc Quebecois and Western alienation made their return to Canadian political life. So this afternoon, when Prime Minister Trudeau unveiled his new cabinet, it included Chrystia Freeland as his number two. Afterwards, Global's David Akin asked the prime minister whether he had a model in mind from the deputies of the past.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID AKIN: It was your father who appointed, I think, the first ever Deputy PM -- Allan MacEachen. Don Mazankowski. Anne McLellan. Give me your sense of the role in your administration for this particular position. More Mazankowski, more MacEachen, more McLellan. GIve me a sense.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I see it as being a very much a "Freeland-ish" role. Chrystia and I have worked very closely on some of the biggest files facing Canada, Canada and the world, but particularly Canada and the United States. And our ability to work well together on these issues that quite frankly, touch national unity, touch energy and environment, touch relations with all provinces and all regions of this country is going to be extremely important thing at a time where we see some very different perspectives across the country that need to be brought together. And I'm very excited about having her as both a strong intergovernmental affairs minister and as my deputy prime minister.

DF: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking to reporters this afternoon after naming his new cabinet at Rideau Hall. Susan Delacourt is the Ottawa bureau chief for the Toronto Star.

CO: Susan, we just heard Justin Trudeau describe Chrystia Freeland role as going to be "Freeland-ish." What kind of a...

SUSAN DELACOURT: New word for the Canadian political vocabulary.

CO: [Laughs] Or should be Freeland-esq.

SD: Yes.

CO: What kind of a role do you think she's going to play?

SD: I'm fascinated by this. I think it is a recognition that there was a little too much Justin Trudeau in the first Trudeau government. So he's basically picked himself a co-star -- somebody who will be, as he said, working with him and often standing in for him especially in tense situations. Things got very tense with Donald Trump, as we'll remember during the first Trudeau government and Chrystia Freeland was often sent in to say the things that Trudeau while Trudeau sat in the background. Now that the tension in Canada is more domestic, shall we say, I think Chrystia Freeland will be performing the same role with the premiers and with angry Canadians wherever they may be based that she did with Donald Trump. She'll go in there. She'll speak straight to them. And she will leave the prime minister to come in only at selected times.

CO: What's that going to do for, I guess, perceptions? I'm sure you hear as much as I do -- people say Chrystia Freeland, I think she should be the prime minister. So is this really a dream job or maybe a poisoned chalice?

SD: [Laughs] That's good. Well if somebody has written a book or two about Liberal leadership drama, I'm really really actually not hoping for another round of it. It can be incredibly exhausting and mysterious to follow. So I've seen no signs that Chrystia Freeland is actively trying to be the Paul Martin to Trudeau's Jean Chretien. I don't think we're in for anything like that. It used to be said that prime ministers doomed their competitors by putting them in finance. Maybe there is an element of that. I don't get any sense that Trudeau feels anybody breathing down his neck or that Chrystia Freeland will be anything other than a partner to him. She will be more like I think an Anne McLellan. And coincidently Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister to Paul Martin, was on this team advising Justin Trudeau about how to construct his cabinet. So I think she might have even said -- Anne McLellan the former deputy prime minister: why don't you have somebody like me? So I do think Chrystia Freeland will attract some attention, but I don't know that that's going to hurt Justin Trudeau because what Liberals were told during the campaign, they're quite open about this, is that there was too much Trudeau in the first government. And it's time for him to be a little more low profile.

CO: I mean they have they have much on their plate. They have much to do. I mean climate change is a huge file, and the economy, the free trade agreement. But at the same time, they believe, I'm sure that they have a short window -- perhaps two years. That's how long minority governments usually last. If they're lucky. So what did they have to do -- not only just run the country, but they have to be prepared at any time to be going to the polls again, right?

SD: I see this as a chance for a do over. I think they would like a chance to come back as a majority. And I think that what we're going to see in the first few months of this government is not so much being afraid of an election. I don't know that they are. I think we're going to see them trying to fix what they think was wrong. That the election has turned into a teaching moment for this Liberal government and watch for all the ways in which they are trying to undo or fix what they think and what they heard was wrong with the first when. Some of that is unfixable. Some people are never going to like this government. But I think what we are seeing right now is lessons from the 2019 election turned into a laboratory session.

CO: Many people have compare this to 1972, when Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre, was in a similar situation, there are so many uncanny similarities, aren't there?

SD: Yes. [Laughs]

CO: And that he had the same two year minority. He had a two year window. And he did. He changed things tremendously. Allan MacEachen being a key part of that. Can Justin sort of channel his inner Pierre? Can he do what his father did?

SD: It's funny earlier this year there was a gathering of all the old people around his father, Pierre Trudeau, who had helped his father negotiate the constitution and they had a lunch. And Trudeau junior -- Justin Trudeau -- slipped into the lunch and joked with him that he had come up with a campaign slogan for this election, which was "the land is strong" which is what almost did Pierre Trudeau in 72. So I think I don't know that he wants to repeat the lessons of his father, but he certainly doesn't want to repeat his mistakes. And I think you're going to see Justin Trudeau knuckle down, get to work, stop flitting around the world like a global celebrity, stop being the flashpoint for every government controversy, and try to come back with a majority. And some of that is going to be by working with people. I haven't counted yet, but he said the word "team" and "collaborative" and "cooperate" many many times today in his short statement to the media.

CO: And does that path to a majority run through Alberta and Saskatchewan or does it run through Quebec and putting the blocks to the Bloc?

SD: Certainly the prominence now, the elevation of some Quebec ministers in this government to high prominent roles. Melanie Joly. Pablo Rodriguez is put as government House leader. I do think that it was interesting that all the leaks, the initial leaks about who was in this cabinet were going to Quebec media. So I think the clear signal was, let's send the message out there to Quebec that there's a Liberal team here in Ottawa and they don't need to look at the Bloc.

CO: All right. We will leave it there and we'll be watching. Thank you, Susan.

DF: Susan Delacourt is the Ottawa bureau chief for the trauma star.

[Music]

Simon Cheng

DF: During five months of protests in Hong Kong, a lot of protesters have accused police of wrongdoing. But now a former employee of the British consulate in Hong Kong has gone public with his accusations of abuse. And Britain's foreign secretary is calling for an investigation. Simon Cheng was a trade and investment officer with the consulate, but he says he was also asked to collect information about and monitor the status of the protests. Then this past August, when he was returning from a one-day business trip to Mainland China, Mr. Cheng says he was detained for 15 days and tortured. For the record, here he is detailing his accusations to the BBC.

SOUNDCLIP

SIMON CHENG: I've been shackled. I've been handcuffed. And I've been blindfold. Also they make me hooded.

INTERVIEWER: They put a hood on your head?

SIMON CHENG: Yes.

INTERVIEWER: For how many hours would that last?

SIMON CHENG: I don't know because I cannot see anything but very very long time. And then they handcuffed me like this.

INTERVIEWER: Your hands are cuffed and they hang you on something.

SIMON CHENG: Yes exactly. And then they start to torture. For example, put my hands up handcuff and for several hours -- and you feel very painful. And then, for example, you need to do a lot of extreme exercise for several hours as well. And you legs will shiver. You cannot stand still.

INTERVIEWER: And if you tried to sit down or stop, what would happen?

SIMON CHENG: They would beat me.

INTERVIEWER: Did they beat you?

SIMON CHENG: Yeah, of course. I realized not only me, it's a bunch of their people also from Hong Kong get caught because of the protest.

INTERVIEWER: How many do think?

SIMON CHENG: What I saw is about 10. But I'm not sure how many. But I would feel quite a lot. And I heard someone spoke in Cantonese saying that "raise your hands up." "You raise lots of flags when you was in the protest, isn't it?" "Raise your hands up." Quite loud. And I feel that this a torture -- part of torture -- because I remember raising my hand up as well.

DF: That's Simon Cheng speaking to the BBC. Mr. Cheng is a former employee of the British consulate in Hong Kong. He says he was detained and tortured in Mainland China this past August. Chinese authorities deny Mr. Cheng's allegations and have insisted his lawful rights were protected.

[Music]

Wind farm cancelled

Guest: Jen Ackerman

DF: The wind turbines are coming down. And residents in Ontario's Prince Edward County are either thrilled by this news or devastated. The White Pines Wind Farm was one of several green energy projects canceled in 2013, shortly after Ontario Premier Doug Ford took office. Now there's a price tag for those canceled projects: 231 million dollars, according to provincial documents revealed this week. Jen Ackerman is one of those residents in the "devastated" camp. She agreed to a wind turbine on her property in Prince Edward County. And now it's coming down. We reached her onboard a train just outside Montreal.

CO: Ms. Ackerman I understand this trip that you're taking on the train isn't exactly a vacation. Why are you on the move?

JEN ACKERMAN: Probably the number one reason is because I have to escapes from Prince Edward County because of all the bad things that are going on there and they're tearing down our wind farm.

CO: And what is it about tearing it down that is so disturbing to you?

JA: I'm the landowner for turbine nine. I've watched this develop over the last 10 years. And I've put my heart and soul into it. It's not just the machine to me. This is a huge symbol of hope. And I find great peace in being under my turbine. And to see it demolished like this is heartbreaking.

CO: This whole project of wind that was put together by the previous Liberal government is canceled. And we just learned that it's going to cost the Ontario government 231 million dollars to cancel these green energy projects. So how much of that price tag is attached to the cancelation of wind farm in your community?

JA: Just our wind farm, I've been told it's 140 million. They've been saying land leases. They've been paying for...there is a president. There's all the different components of the turbine. There are different contractors that they've had to hire. It's been -- imagine an ongoing expense for a long long time. But the last three years when they first started construction, they then have security on site. They've got insurance. They are paying the landowners. That type of thing. And the turbines themselves -- if each turbine is worth millions of dollars times nine turbines, it adds up. It adds up.

CO: And there's also the cost -- I mean you have a 20 year guaranteed contract to have that turbine. So they're going to keep paying you, right?

JA: Right. So it actually worked out, you know, as far as landowners go -- we have a wonderful president Ian MacRae with WPD. And he fought hard for us landowners. We're having a full payout.

CO: This White Pines project involved nine wind turbines -- you are number nine. And that's what was in construction when the government canceled. How far along is it? I mean is the turbine actually up and running at this point on your farm?

JA: Right. So Turbine 9 was the only turbine that was fully commissioned, which means it was actually ready to be attached to the grid. The three other turbines that are completely up are -- all you can see them spin when the wind blows. The other ones that were not completed, they are in pieces now on the ground but they were half assembled.

CO: How much electricity were they supposed to generate?

JA: Well, they were saying it would have powered half the homes in Prince Edward County. That's a lot of electricity. Certainly, it's a shame not to be using that electricity.

CO: Of course the argument is that -- and this is what the Ford government has said -- that this was not needed. The electricity that would have been generated from these green projects and that the cost of that electricity of manufacturing was extremely expensive and those costs would be held by taxpayers for something that really wasn't necessary. We didn't need this power. Ontario has a surplus of electricity, as you know. So what do you say to that?

JA: Well, when you look at what they're doing to the nuclear plants and they're spending billions upon billions of dollars refurbishing nuclear -- why not do away with the nuclear and focus on wind energy which is clean? And then they would certainly need the energy. Plus they're forecasting by within three years, it's going to be a shortage of electricity. As far as the expense wind energy is one of the lowest forms of electricity for the consumer. I heard somewhere with like 26 cents or something when it's actually only 13. So there's a lot of misinformation out there. And the Ford government for some reason wants to misinform people.

CO: You know that in your community and many others, people are opposed to these turbines. They say that it ruins the landscape. Some people believe that they create health problems. They've been sick since turbines have moved in. They say they kill birds. Isn't that what this decision is part of the Ford government is reflecting? The opposition has been in your own community.

JA: Right. So the opposition in our community is actually very small. There might be 50 people against it in a population of 24,000. As far as the bird kill, there is estimated about three birds a year killed by a wind turbine. And they say that people that get a headache from it, they've given themself a headache just because they are stressing over the fact that they might get a headache.

CO: But there have been tremendous divisions in your community, aren't there? You've known it personally within your own business. Is that right?

JA: Absolutely. Well, I just sold my shop in Milford. I had a little bakery-convenience store type of thing. It was doing very well. With the wind farm they were boycotting me. So the locals that didn't like wind energy were boycotting me. But it's interesting because I actually increased my volume of customers because there were more supporters than there were not supporters.

CO: You are going to be paid, though, and so you are going to continue to get what you would have had over the next years or decades. So is that any compensation to you? I mean how does that not make it less difficult to see the turbine come down that you're going to lose that investment?

JA: I'm not really all about money. I had taken and gone in front of county council -- Prince Edward County Council -- and in front of all the councillors and the mayor. And I said, look I am going to get a revenue of about 20,000 a year for the next 20 years -- I am offering it to the county, take the money, and put it into helping the environment. We will clean up the shorelines. We will help with the bird habitat. We will put in three plantations, everything. And take this money and spend it within the county. So I wasn't going to have a penny of it. The county turned me down. I plan on using the money that I do get and putting it back into the environment. I just bought property in Cape Breton. I'm now able to protect that from development. I put in solar panels in my house. I am going to get an electric car. So thank you to the Ford government for giving me this money. That's very nice of them. But I would rather have had my wind farm.

CO: At the same time though, do you think at some point they're going to need those turbines? Can it still be used -- take out of the mothballs sometime later in the future?

JA: There was somebody interested from the States in purchasing all nine of the turbines, and the Ford government turned the offer down. At this point all these beautiful turbines are scrap metal. They're going for scrap.

CO: Ms. Ackerman I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JA: Thank you.

DF: Jen Ackerman lives in Prince Edward County and is a supporter of the White Pines Wind Farm Project, which the Ontario government canceled. We reached her in Dorval, Quebec.

[Music]

Laser hair removal

DF: Danielle Nadeau was hoping to save herself some time by undergoing laser hair removal. Now she has scars her dermatologist says may never disappear. Five months later, the Vancouver woman has now decided to sue Ideal Image Group of Canada, where she spent 7,000 dollars over eight sessions -- alleging they breached the standard of care. Laser hair removal is unregulated in B.C. Danielle Nadeau described the experience to CBC Vancouver.

SOUNDCLIP

DANIELLE NADEAU: It's known that laser hair isn't like a pleasurable experience usually. So I was aware they would probably like you get a little idea of like a rubber band snapping on you is what people associate it with. But this was like nothing I had felt like before. And I was at a point where I was like legit, like biting my fist at one point. And I said -- because she knows I had moved away when she brought the laser to me -- and just like instinctually and she's like, oh. And I was like, sorry, it's really hurting more than usual. And she gave me like a little chuckle and was like, okay, can we continue now? I'm like, okay. I look at my head -- I'm like, is it supposed to be hurting this bad at the eighth session? And then at the end, when I was like putting my clothes back on, I was like, you know, this does it feel like how it usually feels. And then she told me to come back if it continue to hurt.

INTERVIEWER: And what happened to your skin in the days and the weeks that followed?

DANIELLE NADEAU: So it slowly became like brown -- really dark brown and circles wherever those red circles had been. And then eventually those started to come off. And now I'm at the point where it's just from about an inch or two above my knee all the way down and my Brazilian area with like kind of like nickel sized like hypo-pigmented spots. So I remember when it first happened, I had like the really dark spots. I remember like seeing a girl, like taking photos of my legs. And I was like -- and I have a pretty thick sense -- I am like okay there's nothing I can do about it. I mean but it does get to you after a point. People constantly staring at something. In the summertime wearing shorts. And for work because I am an exotic dancer. Unfortunately, your looks are a huge part of how you make your income. And people are wary of things they don't know. So they see you with spots all over your legs and especially in your Brazilian area, that is a deterrent for a lot of people. Almost someone comments it's like, what's wrong with your legs or what's wrong with your skin?

DF: That was Danielle Nadeau, who was left scarred by laser hair removal. Speaking with CBC Vancouver. The medical spa says it's looking into her case and is committed to resolving the matter.

[Music]

Pernod Ricard

DF: When you first get a job at the licorice factory, you're very excited because you love licorice. Then to your delight you learn the management actually encourages you to eat licorice. So you eat a lot of it -- at first. Then due to the cavities and the nausea and the scurvy, you stop eating quite so much. But then management starts pressuring you to eat licorice and mocking you when you don't eat it. Eat licorice all the time, they sneer. This isn't a celery factory. That's a bad fictional scenario. In fact, the only thing worse than being pressured to eat licorice would be being pressured to drink a licorice drink with 40 percent alcohol -- which is exactly what several people who worked at Pernod Ricard say has been happening for years. A former salesperson for Pernod Ricard says his bosses plied him with the anise-flavored booze all the time. They told him essentially that he was being paid to drink it. So he did. Drinking in his estimation -- 12 drinks a day. And since he filed a complaint with France's labour court, two more employees of Pernod Ricard have come forward to say they've had similar experiences. One of them said she'd started having visual and auditory hallucinations due to over drinking. And when she returned after sick leave, her boss urged her to have a drink -- saying, go on, you're not working at Perrier. Pernod denies all this. A spokesperson said, quote, "There's no culture of alcohol, no order, no incitement in any form to drink." But these people who worked for the company insist there's a semi enforced culture of drinking, which means the harder they worked, the more wasted time there was.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 20, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This