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 21, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Daemon Fairless

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

DF: Tonight:

CO: Climate changing. Justin Trudeau's allies say the Prime Minister is open to "improving" key environmental laws — which means we've got some questions for the new minister in charge.

DF: They can't rest their case. After the last scheduled hearing in the impeachment inquiry wraps up, a former federal prosecutor says the Democrats have a strong legal case against the President — but the political case will be tougher to make.

CO: He calls it "an attempted coup" and a "witch hunt". But today, he was indicted on corruption charges — and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's problems mean more political turmoil for Israel.

DF: The unstoppable stoppable killer. Our guest says the much-discussed Ebola virus isn't the most deadly illness in the Democratic Republic of Congo — it's the easily-prevented measles virus.

CO: Kindred spirits. Spirit of the West co-founder Geoffrey Kelley remembers his late friend John Mann — a singer-songwriter with a wicked sense of humour, who shed light the stigma of early onset Alzheimer's.

DF: And... fetching top dollar — and then the ones under that. For years, patrons covered the ceiling of his California tiki bar with bills — and when our guest took it all down, he found layers and layers of dirty money.

DF: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio figures he could have joined the upper crust by removing it.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: New environment minister, Netanyahu indicted, California bar money

New environment minister

Guest: Jonathan Wilkinson

DF: There were hints today that Justin Trudeau might be willing to open up some wiggle room in his environmental policies. They came in a meeting the Prime Minister had with Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi. Mayor Nenshi raised the oilpatch's concerns about two pieces of legislation: Bill C-69 is the new environmental assessment process; and Bill C-48 is the ban on tanker traffic on British Columbia's north coast. Afterwards, the mayor suggested Mr. Trudeau might be open to change. Reporters wanted to know what exactly the Prime Minister had said.

SOUNDCLIP

NAHEED NENSHI: He did not say anything specific, but he did say that he was open to improving that legislation so that it actually makes life better. On C-48, listen, obviously, it too is a flawed piece of legislation. That's said, you know, I asked the Prime Minister, look, if there would be a legitimate pipeline opportunity such as the Eagle Spirit Indigenous-owned pipeline in that area, would your government be open to reconsidering the ban? I didn't get as specific as an answer as I would have preferred, but certainly I got the sense that that is a conversation that we could have.

DF: That was Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi speaking to reporters after his meeting with the Prime Minister in Ottawa today. Well, if there are going to be changes to key environmental laws, then Jonathan Wilkinson should know. Yesterday, Mr. Wilkinson became Canada's new Environment Minister. We reached Minister Wilkinson in Ottawa.

CO: Minister Wilkinson, You heard Mayor Nenshi. Is your government willing to rewrite Bill C-69 or Bill C-48 if that's what it takes to make peace with Saskatchewan and Alberta?

JONATHAN WILKINSON: Well, so what you referred to as Bill C-69 is the Impact Assessment Act. And that is something that we brought forward in the last Parliament. It was intended to restore integrity in the environmental assessment process that was gutted in 2012 by Prime Minister Harper. And what it essentially tries to do is put in place better rules that enable good projects to proceed. Specifically, it really frontend loads a lot of the conversations around issues so that you can actually have those conversations early on and attempt to address them.

CO: Okay, but will you rewrite it? Will you change it?

JW: What we have said is, you know, it's enabling legislation. A lot of things need to be done in the context of implementing that. And so we are very open — and we've consistently said we are very open — to consultations and discussions about how we can improve the implementation of the bill. So we're certainly open to that.

CO: And then the other one is that a ban against oil tankers traveling along the northern British Columbia coast — which also Mayor Nenshi mentioned. Is that something that you are willing to re-examine?

JW: Well, you know, this law has been passed. It's in place at this present time. I don't think that there's a lot of interest in revisiting that particular law at this present time. But certainly what I hear from Mayor Nenshi — and from others in Alberta and Saskatchewan — is some very legitimate concerns about how this whole energy transition that's been discussed around how do we manage the move towards a lower carbon future. How does that get addressed in a thoughtful way that that response to those concerns and aspirations? And we're certainly open to that conversation. And that's something that I am very much focused on. And I'm going to be looking to stakeholders in Alberta in Saskatchewan and across the country to have that conversation.

CO: But you know the energy industry is the largest emitter in Canada. And that's the economy of Saskatchewan Alberta is largely based on the energy sector. So how do you reconcile that? That's what everyone's wondering what you're going to do. How do you possibly bring those two things together? They appear to be irreconcilable.

JW: I don't think they're irreconcilable. And I would say that certainly, the energy industry is important in Alberta and in Saskatchewan to a lesser extent. But I don't think it's the only industry there. There certainly are others. But it is important for us to start with the baseline — which is science tells us that we need to get to net-zero by 2050, or to avoid, you know, catastrophic consequences for the human race. So the bottom line is we need to get there. But there are lots of different pathways that can be chosen. And what we need to do is to work with Alberta and Saskatchewan, with other provinces, with stakeholders across the country to define those pathways that will enable us to ensure future economic prosperity while being clear that we are going to meet our targets.

CO: So you have a plan to do that, and have a plan to work with Saskatchewan and Alberta. And we know Catherine McKenna didn't have a lot of luck working with Saskatchewan and Alberta on this because she came up upon irreconcilable differences, didn't she?

JW: Well, what I would say to you is I am committed to working going forward in a manner that is inclusive. That is looking to hear the concerns and the aspirations of folks who live in those provinces. That's very important. We need to work together to try to develop solutions. Coming from the clean tech background, I actually am quite optimistic about technology being part of that conversation. I also come from Saskatchewan. I grew up in Saskatchewan. I went to university in Saskatchewan. I worked for the premier of Saskatchewan. I did federal-provincial relations for the province of Saskatchewan. I feel very close to the folks that live there, and the aspirations of they have. And I think that my commitment to people who live there is to be open and to listen to those concerns and to work very hard to try to ensure that we are doing this on a collaborative basis. With the bottom line being that we must address climate change in substantive ways, and we need to be moving towards the net-zero number by 2050.

CO: Okay, so in the interest of national unity, are you willing to bend on carbon pricing? Not just with Alberta and Saskatchewan, but with Ontario, with Doug Ford?

JW: Well, I think we actually had an election where more than two-thirds of people in this country voted for parties that believe that a price on pollution is the right way to go. And so, you know, I think that issue was pretty much settled in the election. A price on pollution, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you it's the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. We have structured the federal program — which only goes into place where provinces have chosen not to act — in a manner where we actually recycle the money back. And 80 per cent of Canadians are actually better off relative to the price that they actually pay at the pumps or on heating fuel. So that is something that we will be moving forward with because it's an important part of an effective plan to address climate change. But I would tell you that Canadians told us that was important for them too.

CO: Okay, I’m going to take that as a no, you're not going to bend on carbon pricing.

JW: I think you would take it as I think Canadians settled that debate in the election.

CO: All right. But that we still know that in Ontario — and in Alberta — they're looking to see you bend on that, or at least to accept what they are offering as being their commitment.

JW: We have always said that if provinces have equivalent systems that provide the kind of stringency and coverage that we are always open to that. So well Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system, British Columbia has had a price on pollution — its own price on pollution — since 2008. The federal program doesn't apply there.

CO: Okay, so are Alberta and Ontario offering you an equivalent program?

JW: So that is something that obviously we are looking at. I've been in the job for about 18 hours now, and that's certainly one of the conversations that we're having is as provinces bring forward options, we need to ensure that there is equivalency with respect to coverage and stringency. Assuming there is, then great! If there's not, then we would be encouraging them to do more.

CO: We spoke with Minister McKenna when she was environment minister about the abuse she was taking, the offensive and even dangerous abuse, and the misogyny that she encountered in that portfolio. It seemed to be somehow associated with her stance on the environment. As she handed over responsibility to you, did you talk about that?

JW: Yeah, we talked about that. And certainly, you know, she and I have talked about lots of things. I was her parliamentary secretary for two-and-a-half years, and then as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, we worked very closely together on a range of files. She certainly endured a lot of abuse. You know, it's a very unfortunate thing I think in this modern age of social media where people will say things — very awful things — on social media that they would never say to your face or on the phone. And certainly, I think she had to go through much more than I think is tolerable for most folks.

CO: Do you think that this portfolio will be easier for you as a man?

JW: I don't know. I mean, it's a tough question [chuckling]. I would tell you that I worked with Catherine here for two-and-a-half years. I have an incredible admiration for the work that she did here. I think she made enormous progress. If we can build on that and make similar progress on a go forward basis, I would be a happy ministry.

CO: But we know that there's been strong associations between those who advocate for the environment and misogyny. And do you think it's easier for you as a man?

JW: [sigh] I would love to say no. That it's not easier for me as a man, but, you know, I’d probably in my heart of hearts they may maybe it is in this context. And it's one of those things that somehow we have to try to figure out how we address that issue because it's not fair.

CO: Mr. Wilkinson, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JW: Thank you very much.

DF: Jonathan Wilkinson is Canada's new Environment Minister. We reached him in Ottawa. Also in Ottawa today was Jean Chretien. As the current Liberal Prime Minister's new cabinet members finished taking questions from the media, the former Liberal Prime Minister stepped up to the mic. The reporters wanted to know if Mr. Chretien had any advice for Prime Minister Trudeau on how to handle Western alienation.

SOUNDCLIP

JEAN CHRETIEN: it was a problem that exists since a long time. I’m the only Liberal who managed to get members elected three times in a row in Alberta. So for Mr. Trudeau, we always had a senator representing Alberta. Saskatchewan. I think BC at one time too. And we survived. The prime minister is the prime minister of all the Canadians, all right? So when you're prime minister, you're not prime minister for one party, you’re prime minister for all Canadians. And I'm sure that every prime minister understands that.

REPORTER: Do you think that Mr. Trudeau should appoint a senator from Alberta or someone else who is a non-elected person in the cabinet to show the West that he means business?

JC: But he has a lady that is born in Alberta. That her father is a farmer in Alberta, but he is the prime minister of all Canadians, they decided not to vote for a Liberal. It's not us. I had a debate with Harper two weeks ago in privately, but in front of 700 people. And I spoke up my mind. You know, Trudeau. bought a pipeline, I told him. I had to defend that in front of the Easterners. Why in the hell he's using the money to buy a pipeline to the oil companies don’t want to keep! And I said it’s difficult to explain, but he did that to try to sell oil from Alberta. And you said thank you to him.

DF: That was former Prime Minister Jean Chretien speaking to reporters this afternoon in Ottawa.

[Music: Folk rock]

Netanyahu indicted

Guest: Dahlia Schendlin

DF: Israel's magician is going to have to dig deep into his top hat this time. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared defiant and furious today at a press conference, hours after he'd been indicted on charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust. He's accused of — among other things — trading favours with a wealthy newspaper publisher, and accepting thousands of dollars' worth of gifts from wealthy friends. It all comes at a terribly inconvenient time. Israel now faces the prospect of a third election in less than a year, after coalition talks to form a government collapsed yet again this week. Dahlia Schendlin is a political commentator and consultant. We reached her in Tel Aviv.

CO: Dahlia, Prime Minister Netanyahu sure looked angry tonight. He called this indictment an attempted coup. What did you make of his performance?

DAHLIA SCHENDLIN: I think that he gave a very practiced performance. The speech he gave tonight in response to the announcement that the attorney general will be indicting him on three counts is exactly the speech we've seen him give many times. It seems to me almost exactly like the speech he gave when the attorney general first announced the intention to indict him pending a hearing back in February. And moreover, he repeated the themes that really have come to characterize his political persona. He is a victim. He is a victim of forces within the state — primarily left-wing forces and the media. And, you know, the number one target for him right now is the police and the prosecutor's office within the law enforcement system. And the implication of that is that those same forces are against the citizens of Israel.

CO: Just to review just briefly some of the cases, I mean, he is accused of taking gifts from people in return for political favours. I mean, things like cigars and champagne and gifts for his wife. He is accused of having agreed to create legislation in return for favourable coverage in newspapers. With all this, I mean, is there a lot of evidence to support these charges?

DS: Well, the attorney general is somebody who is considered an extremely cautious and conservative figure with a small “c”. The investigations have gone on for a long time. And he himself has been under tremendous pressure from both sides. In other words, those who believe the prime minister probably is guilty, and those who are absolutely committed supporters of the prime minister. And I think the attorney general would not have made any move at all if he hadn't gone through the cases with extreme, extreme caution and thoroughness. And I don't think that he would have recommended indictment — including on the more severe charge of bribery — in what's known as case number 4,000 if he wasn't convinced, as he put it, of a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. Two of the three cases in which he is being indicted are all about Netanyahu wanting favourable coverage in the media. What he was saying is that in any country of the world, a politician wants good coverage from the media, and cultivates relationships with the media. What law enforcement is saying is that in order to get that good coverage, he gave essentially quid pro quo favours. And yet, offering the possibility of advancing legislation that would harm a competitor newspaper in return for a popular newspaper giving him good coverage.

CO: There's two tracks of grief and trouble for Prime Minister Netanyahu, aren't there? It's not just that he is facing these charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust, but that he is having a very hard time governing and trying to pull together a coalition since the last election. What do we know about the timing of these charges at the time that he still hasn't been able to pull together this coalition. And we just saw that it's one day after his rival a Blue and White leader Benny Gantz failed to form a coalition government himself.

DS: Well, the first thing Netanyahu did in his speech was accuse the attorney general — although, he didn't accuse him personally. But this announcement — the indictment — was released on the most politically-sensitive moment in all of Israeli history with a certain bombastic tone that we have come to expect from U.S. President Donald Trump. That's Netanyahu's perspective. I think any other observer in this country, this process has been delayed numerous times at Netanyahu's request. The other way of looking at it is that he purposely waited until after Netanyahu's mandate to form the government had run out. And then his challenger, Benny Gantz, also was unable to form a government, and after his mandate ran out. These were the two phases. Both of them had 28 days plus an extension to form a government. Neither of them succeeded. And during that entire time, the attorney general refrained from making this decision. So it seems like it was time to wait it out so that he would not be accused of having any political influence. But when you look at Israeli politics — especially over the last year — there's never a time in Israel that is not politically-sensitive.

CO: [chuckle] The thing is that Mr. Netanyahu was re-elected with the public knowing all of these accusations against him. And he still remains popular. If you're actually possibly going into a third election in less than a year, would he be able to run again, and would he be elected again?

DS: He is not required to step down as prime minister. And he is still currently the acting prime minister. But what is not clear right now is that if he were to win an election, it's not clear that the president can call on him to form the government. But I do not see Likud’s power growing if there is a third election.

CO: There are, of course, as you've already suggested uncanny similarities between the politics in Israel and those in the United States. And not least among them a lot of questions about how much longer leaders can be supported by their parties. Do you think it's possible at some point Mr. Netanyahu, well, that Likud might get kind of tired of him?

DS: Yeah. I mean, it's hard not to make these comparisons, right? Especially because these cases are unfolding, you know, almost simultaneously. I mean Israeli commentators, of course, and political observers are jumping back and forth between the American channels, and watching the impeachment hearings, and watching what's going on with Netanyahu. But to answer your question, we are already hearing rumors about figures inside the Likud who are so far refusing to kind of come out into the open and openly criticize the prime minister. But the rumors are saying that there are voices within the Likud calling to reconsider whether he should be the candidate if there is another election. There has been talk of primary elections within the Likud. They haven't held primaries in years. There haven't been challengers in recent years. But the last time the idea was floated of holding a primary — which actually was as a Netanyahu himself, who briefly mentioned it after the September elections — one of the figures is often cited as a possible rival, his name is Gideon Sa’ar, immediately wrote on Twitter, I'm ready. And those two words left a strong impression. That was a few months ago, but this evening, with Netanyahu’s speech, the news reports are saying that people — sources — inside the Likud were not very happy with his unrelenting assault on the Israeli law enforcement. They didn't like his combative tone, and they're considering within themselves that this might be the end of the Netanyahu era.

CO: All right. We will be watching. Dahlia, thank you.

DS: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

DS: Bye-bye.

DF: Dahlia Scheindlin is a political commentator and consultant. We reached her in Tel Aviv.

[Music: Up-tempo]

California bar money

Guest: Michael Thanos

DF: There's a tradition at a tiki bar on Alameda Island in California. When locals and visitors pop in for a Mai Tai at the Forbidden Island, they pin a dollar bill to the ceiling. The bar recently decided to take that money down — and it turns out those bills have really added up over the last 14 years. Michael Thanos is the owner of Forbidden Island. We reached him in Oakland, California.

CO: Michael, how much money was on the ceiling of the Forbidden Island bar?

MICHAEL THANOS: Woooo, well, it definitely exceeded any expectations that we had. We ended up pulling exactly 10,367 dollars — and then plus there was a heap of foreign currency.

CO: And this was, of course, foreign currency. But most of this in the money you're describing was in single dollar bills, right?

MT: Yes, absolutely.

CO: U.S. dollars.

MT: Yup, yup [chuckling].

CO: And so when started adding it all up, what were you thinking?

MT: Yeah, oh no, we were just shocked — especially, you know, once we got to that, you know, two, three, four-thousand dollar mark, and just realized we were, you know, not even half way. Yeah. I couldn't believe it. Because all of a sudden, on a daily basis, for years and years, we asked how much do you think is on the ceiling? And for the longest time, our, you know, best guess has been, you know, $4,000, maybe $5,000 tops. So yeah, we were, you know, definitely very, very surprised.

CO: Now, what did the bar look like? With all these dollar bills pinned to the ceiling — and I guess some of the walls too — what did it look like?

MT: Well, you know, it's a tiki bar, so it's got, you know, the whole tiki esthetic. Now, right above and behind the bar is a, you know, just a false drop ceiling. And so that's where, you know, the dollar bills were. And, you know, where it started, and where it was concentrated. It definitely provided a, you know, a different sort of twist to our tiki esthetic. But once that was full, and I mean you know full, to the point of where if somebody stuck a dollar bill, turned around, and turned right back, they’d probably have a hard time finding it. Then it, you know, started going up on the walls, the ceilings of our booths, even on some of the decor. And I just figured that, you know, the time had come to just reset this or else it was literally just going to take over.

CO: And I guess some people when say that they couldn't find their dollar bill after they pinned it, but they personalized it, right? They wrote things, they drew things on them. What were the more interesting ones that you saw?

MT: Oh, we got some great ones. Most of them have, you know, it's altering, you know, George Washington into like, you know, Darth Vader or Bob Marley or something like that. But I mean people got really, really creative. And something that started happening a few years ago is we have this bucket of markers — all sorts of different coloured markers — and we'd hand that to folks whenever they requested getting a bill on the ceiling. So they would definitely get really creative with it.

CO: How did this get started?

MT: We opened in 2006, and literally just a few months into opening, a customer came into the bar, sort of noticed this drop ceiling that has sort of like a made a cork. And so he actually requested if he could stick a dollar bill for good luck? And then asked us, or rather shared with us the tradition that according to him went back to World War 2, where, you know, sailors heading off to fight in the South Pacific would leave a dollar bill at their favourite watering hole actually as a good omen that they would return and spend it. So he asked if he could do that? We said Oh, yeah, absolutely. That sounds great. And, you know, one thing led to the next, and, you know, 12 years later, we've got almost a full bar of dollar bills.

CO: More than ten 10,000 dollars’ worth.

MT: More than $10,000. Yeah.

CO: But if the tradition was that you came back from war, and you went back to that same bar, and you spent that dollars, I guess no one came back to spend the dollars [both laugh].

MT: No, no, no one came back to spend. I mean, you know, there were definitely, you know, a few people along the way sort of joking and motioning up to the ceiling going like can we buy our drink with this? Or is this tip money? But yeah, it was never seriously pulled or anything like that. I think everyone knew walking in that you know this is something you don't mess with.

CO: Right, and also I guess that, well, maybe it did bring them luck, right? If that was the idea.

MT: Yea, yeah, there's that too.

CO: Now, you said that it was just time to change it up. It was time to bring all that money down. But how disappointed are your regulars going to be?

MT: [chuckling] Well, at first, we pulled it down. And there was, you know, no time to count it and put up many of the bills. So everything pretty much went into garbage bags until we could find time to really count and separate it and stuff like that. So initially, our guests would walk in and were like woah, were you guys robbed? Or, you know, what's going on? But once we explained to them what we intended doing, you know, counting, sorting, and then donating whatever was salvageable to charity, they were cool with the idea. And, in fac,t almost immediately reached in, grabbed another bill, and put it back up.

CO: So it won't take long before you got to your ceiling covered again, I would imagine?

MT: It won't take long at all. Yeah, cause I mean all of that you know 10-plus-thousand, we got at least 1,400, 1,500 dollars’ worth of bills that were clearly not salvageable, you know? And I mean the artwork is so intense on it [CO laughs] that it could just no longer count as currency. So those bills actually went back up — as did all the foreign currency that was placed. And between that and folks adding to the ceiling in the last month or so, it's already taking shape pretty rapidly.

CO: So all the money that is salvageable is going to charity, is it?

MT: It's going to charity in the end of the day. Yes, absolutely.

CO: Michael, it's great to talk to you. Thanks.

MT: Thank you.

CO: Bye

MT: Bye now.

DF: Michael Thanos is the owner of Forbidden Island, a tiki bar in Alameda, California. We reached him in Oakland. And we have more on this story — including photos of the bar with all those dollar bills — on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie]

Part two: Impeachment: wrap-up, John Mann obit

Impeachment: wrap-up

Guest: Elie Honig

DF: It was the final scheduled day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump. Some things were the same. For example — broadly speaking — the Democrats' insistence that the President did something bad, and the Republicans' insistence that the Democrats are doing something bad. But the witnesses today were different. One of them was David Holmes, a diplomat at the US Embassy in Kyiv. Back in July, Mr. Holmes overheard Ambassador Gordon Sondland on the phone with the President. And Mr. Holmes says Mr. Trump was speaking loud enough that he could hear him asking the Ambassador whether the Ukrainian president was going to "do the investigation." Here's Mr. Holmes recalling what happened next:

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID HOLMES: After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the president was in a bad mood. As Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the president did not give an expletive about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland agreed that the president did not give an expletive about Ukraine. I asked why not? Ambasador Sondland stated to the president only cares about big stuff. I noted there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. And Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation and moved on to other topics.

DF: Also at today's hearing was Fiona Hill. She was the director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council. And she had some criticisms for committee Republicans, for their focus on 2016 election meddling.

SOUNDCLIP

FIONA HILL: In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically-driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests. As Republicans and Democrats have agreed for decades, Ukraine is a valued partner of the United States. And it plays an important role in our national security. As I told the committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary. And that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016. These fictions are harmful even if they're deployed for purely domestic political purposes. President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each other, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.

DF: Elie Honig is a former federal and state prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst. We reached him in New York.

CO: Elie, when you add up all the testimony we've heard over the last two weeks, how does the Democrat's case for impeachment look today?

ELIE HONIG: Overall, it looks strong to me as a legal matter. If I was looking at this as a prosecutor — which important footnote — this is, of course, a political matter. But when you put all the pieces together brick by brick, it's a case that I would feel fully comfortable charging, for example, in federal court under our bribery laws.

CO: What did Fiona Hill and David Holmes add to the case today?

EH: Fiona Hill did a couple of important things. First of all, she did a good job I think of dispelling this myth that Ukraine and not Russia interfere with the 2016 election. The reason that matters is that sort of became the origin story that Rudy Giuliani promoted in order to I think sell this scheme to Donald Trump and others in the government. And it's what helped lead to the dismissal of Ambassador Yovanovitch and cleared the way for this corrupt scheme to go forward. Fiona Hill also gave us some insight into John Bolton — who is the national security adviser — who has decided not to testify. What his thinking was the fact that he raised objections to this as he saw it develop, of course, it would be even more useful to hear from John Bolton. But on White House instructions, he is deciding against testifying. As to David Holmes, the most important thing he does as he puts the word investigations in Donald Trump mouth. He overhears this restaurant conversation on a cell phone between Gordon Sondland and the president. And he overhears the president asking about whether they — meaning the Ukrainians — will do the investigation. That's an important piece of evidence.

CO: But as you point out, if this was a case being built to take to court, it would be a different matter. But you say it's political. So how does that play politically? We've seen the Republicans seem to be on a completely different track in these hearings.

EH: Yeah. Thus far, there's been no sign of movement or budging by any Republicans in the House or the Senate. And I think that's significant. I think, on the one hand, I think the case is solid enough and serious enough that the Democrats feel not just comfortable moving forward, but compelled to do so by their constitutional duty. On the other hand, for reasons that might be political, might be substantive, might be a combination of the both, might be fear-based, no Republican has stepped forward or even really made a significant move toward stepping forward and saying I'm not okay with this. I find it to be impeachable. I'm going to do my job. You know, I don't know what they would need to get them there. Because I think the case that was prevented presented this week is quite compelling.

CO: But there is an interesting piece in in BuzzFeed News that says that if you look at how the Republicans are asking questions, they seem to come out of nowhere, and they leave the person they're questioning looking puzzled and confused. And that ends up though that's a little clip that goes onto Facebook or goes on to Fox News that is coupled with a narrative that says that what's really going on here is a cover up. That it’s really the Democrats and working with Ukraine that were trying to sabotage a 2016 election for Donald Trump. That that's the real story. That this alternative narrative is playing because they're finding a way to inject that into these hearings, are they not?

EH: What I think they're really doing is even more insidious than that. They're asking patently unfair and unreasonable questions that they know darn well the witnesses can't give an answer to. For example, do you see impeachable conduct here of Donald Trump? They asked that of several witnesses. That's not up to the witnesses to figure out or to decide. And so, of course, you end up with the witnesses looking confused or taken aback or saying I don't follow. Do you have any basis to impeach the president? I mean, how could they? They’re one witness in a broader puzzle. Do you have evidence that the president committed impeachable offences? That's not what witnesses do. They don't get up there and point at the defendant or the subject whoever it may be and say I'm a witness. I find you guilty. The witness says here's the facts that I know. It's then up to the lawyers to argue and the fact finder to decide is this impeachable or is this a crime? So it's a cheap trick. But as you say, it can make for a good soundbite, good fodder.

CO: Well, it’s more than that. It’s actually reaching hundreds of thousands of Americans, isn't it? This alternative narrative that the Republicans are building. So it's having an effect I would imagine?

EH: It is I think. And they're also doing this trick of sort of unless the president announces the magic words, Wally's committing an offence declaring what the offence is and defining the offence it's not enough, right? There was a lot of did Donald Trump ever tell you to bribe anybody? Did he ever say that you should commit a quid pro quo? I mean nobody says that. When you’re robbing somebody, you don't declare I hereby rob thee. And it's not what the law requires. But again, it makes for a catchy little clip because the witnesses say no, he didn't tell me to bribe anybody. That's not the way bribery works usually.

CO: We heard Fiona Hill express her concerns that elected officials in the U.S. are peddling this fictional narrative, this alternate narrative. But it goes beyond just being a false narrative. What it also does is that it plays with security. That to suggest that Ukraine is really the one that interfered and not Russia dismisses the reality that Russia is probably involved in some kind of plan to engage in the 2020 election, right?

EH: Yeah, it's something that our intelligence officials have been warning about for some time. And I think if there's some good that will come out of this, it may be that there's more of an awareness of that.

CO: But there's absolutely no evidence, in fact, quite the opposite, there's tremendous amount of evidence that says that Ukraine was not responsible party, right?

EH: That's what Robert Mueller found. That's what I think the consensus of our intelligence community. And we heard that from various witnesses this week as well.

CO: Today was the last scheduled televised hearing, so what happens next?

EH: Well, the House Intelligence Committee still has the case. They could add more witnesses. I don't think they will. But David Holmes was a surprise witness that we saw added just a couple of days ago. But under the procedure, so the House Intel Committee now has to draft up a public report. They have to submit that over to the Judiciary Committee — which can then hold more hearings of its own if it so decides. And then the House Judiciary Committee will draft up and recommend articles of impeachment to the full House of Representatives — which then has to vote. And under our constitution, it takes a majority vote of the House of Representatives — which will be 218 out of 435 — in order to impeach. But it's important that people understand impeach does not necessarily mean removal. Because then there's phase two — which means it goes to the U.S. Senate — which holds a trial. And that requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. So 67 of our 100 senators — assuming they're all present — in order to convict and remove the president.

CO: We will leave it there. Elie, thank you.

EH: All right. Thank you.

DF: Elie Hoenig is a former federal and state prosecutor, and a CNN legal analyst. We reached him in New York.

[Music: Elevator music]

FOA: McGill student sentenced

DF: Niloufar Bayani's Canadian friends could hardly believe the news in 2018, when she was first arrested in Iran. But news of the former McGill University student just got worse. This week Ms. Bayani was sentenced to ten years in prison. Back in January 2018, she was arrested on suspicions of espionage, along with seven other environmentalists — including Canadian-Iranian professor Kavous Seyed-Emami. Shortly after his arrest, he died mysteriously in Evin Prison. That's the same facility where Ms. Bayani is being held today. In December 2018, we spoke to Ms. Bayani's friend Hayley LaPalme, who did environmental work with her in Toronto. Here's part of Ms. LaPalme's conversation with Carol.

SOUNDCLIP

HL: I know that she had a strong like social responsibility and commitment to environmental work and that she had a real love for her country. I mean vividly I remember her doing an Iranian cooking class for us -- teaching us a Persian meal that her grandmother had shown her. Niloufar is someone who loves her country, was committed to the environment, and so when I learned that she was doing the work with the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation you know it's exactly the kind of work that I would expect her to be doing.

CO: What did you think when you heard that she had been arrested?

HL: I mean I think the news of her arrest was horrifying to many of her friends and her community back here in Toronto and in Montreal. You know Niloufar is this person who has this lightness, goodness, intelligence, generosity, about her that is really contagious. Like she really brings out the best in people. So to learn that this person who had been like this wonderful presence in our community here that now she is in prison cell -- I mean it's stunning really.

CO: Do you have any idea how she's doing?

HL: No. We have no real information about how she's doing. But we are optimistic and hopeful that our friend is doing okay. I mean Niloufar is an incredibly resilient person and so I mean I think we are just sending her -- you know any strength you can muster across distance. I mean yeah we don't know. All we can do is be optimistic.

DF: That was Hayley LaPalme speaking with Carol in December 2018. Ms. LaPalme is a friend of Niloufar Bayani, an Iranian wildlife activist and former McGill University student who was sentenced to ten years in prison this week in Iran.

[Music: Sombre]

John Mann obit

Guest: Geoffrey Kelly

DF: His band was called "Spirit of the West". And onstage, John Mann was as spirited as they come. As the frontman, Mr. Mann was a magnetic presence onstage. He was also a powerful songwriter — helping write Canadian hits like "Political," "If Venice is Sinking" — and the pub anthem, "Home For A Rest." And when Mr. Mann was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's — he refused to fade into the background. Instead, he spoke openly about the disease, joining his bandmates for a farewell tour. Yesterday, John Mann died at home in Vancouver. He was 57 years old. Geoffrey Kelly was Mr. Mann's friend, and co-founded Spirit of the West with him in the early '80s. We reached Mr. Kelly in Vancouver.

CO: Geoffrey, first of all, I'm so sorry for the loss of your friend.

GEOFFREY KELLY: Oh, thank you, Carol. It was a long struggle. A tough journey — especially for John's family, but we all felt that the pain. And you just get through you know learning about the diagnosis and the various stages of Alzheimer's, and we knew it was eventually going to lead to the palliative stage of things. And that's kind of when or our vigil really began about a week ago.

CO: So did you have a chance to say goodbye?

GK: We sure did. I happened to be there yesterday. I feel very fortunate, and there was about eight of us there. And the most lovely moment came when his wonderful daughter, Hattie, we decided to swab is his lips with Guinness — which was one of Johnny's favourite drinks. So Hattie cracked a can of Guinness, she had a pull on the Guinness, swabbed Johnny's lips with Guinness, then we passed the can around, and we finished it. And shortly after, he sailed off into the mystic. And it was just it felt so right to have that kind of final drink with him around his bed. You know, it was an amazing moment. And even with a little bit of humour in it.

CO: That is an extraordinary scene. Thank you for sharing it with us, Geoffrey.

GK: Oh, you're welcome.

CO: That was your goodbye. Can you tell us about your first hello? What are your first memories of John?

GK: Oh boy. Well, my wife was the one who sort of brought John into my life. They were together in theatre school, and I was playing a little bit of music with the other original band member J. Knutson. And she said boy, you ought to hear this this guy John Mann, who's in my one of my classes. He's an amazing singer. And we were so impressed by his voice and his energy. And, at that time, he was very influenced by people like Stan Rogers. He loved the East Coast sound. But there was something about him, and we just all connected really well. Suddenly, we were three and we got a little gig up at Whistler playing outside in the square. And that was kind of how it very innocently began. But right from the word go, John brought a certain kind of energy that we recognize as being something that would really make us unique. He was like a folk singer, but a punk rocker at the same time, if you can kind of imagine that combination. [CO laughs] His frenetic energy just rubbed off on all of us.

CO: That's the most extraordinary. And no one can forget that when you see how he moves. And just to say it's energy is to understate what a force he was on stage [chuckling].

GK: Yeah, and I just heard Grant Lawrence on the CBC saying that John seemed to embrace that notion of dance like no one's watching [CO laughs]. And he did with just reckless abandon. And regardless of what kind of music it was, he wasn't a delicate dancer, that's for sure. But he had his own style. And he just couldn't help himself [chuckle].

CO: Now, in 2014, John — and the band — went public with his diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer's. How difficult was it to go public with that, for him and for all of you?

GK: We put a lot of thought into how to go about it. And we felt at a certain point, we needed to tell people because we didn't want John to feel embarrassed about maybe messing up a song or people wondering why did he do that? Or why is this happening? And we felt it was the right thing to do. And then eventually, it got to the point where it just became too much for him. So we wrapped it up with a few great shows — one of which was Massey Hall, where John was just at his absolute best. He, for some reason for that show, he rallied. And I think he seemed to know the importance of it. We had always wanted to play there. And we finally had our chance. And John was such a champ that night. And that was probably one of the best final shows we did. We also had a couple of great ones at the Commodore — which were our very final shows here in Vancouver. But I was so proud of him because it must have taken so much courage to walk out on stage, just kind of not knowing if your mind would let you down or not. And he was courageous right till the very end of his performing career, for sure.

CO: Is there a moment or a particular story that speaks to who John was for you that you hold dear?

GK: Oh boy, there's so many. One of the more humourous moments was, at a certain point in the ‘90s, I think you really felt like we were having to play way too much. And I remember being on a ferry with John talking about this, and saying I think we should really all find some different things to do, and have Spirit play way less. And I said to Johnny, you know, what do you think you would do if we kind of back off of the band? And he goes, well, I'm not really sure. But I'd be fine as long as it involves applause. [Both laugh] That was his line. And he did exactly that. He went back into theatre, and he went back into starring in musicals, and movies, and television shows. He had an amazing second career as an actor. But I always loved that line about the applause. I thought it was very John and very funny.

CO: Now, even as he lost his ability to perform, or to connect with singing, he didn't lose his connection to music, did he?

GK: No, he did not. And [chuckle] he seemed to find some way of expressing himself as he got deeper into the disease. And for a long time that was through snapping his fingers. He snapped fingers so much that he actually got blisters. That was his way of enjoying the music. Yeah, so music was a huge, huge huge part of his life all the way through, right until yesterday. In his room, we had his kind of playlists playing all the time very softly in the background. And he always found a way to express himself, that's for sure.

CO: And Guinness [laughing].

GK: And Guinness, yeah. His last tipple of choice was Guinness, for sure.

CO: Geoffrey, thank you so much for sharing your memories of John Mann with us.

GK: My pleasure, Carol.

CO: Take care. Bye-bye.

GK: Bye-bye.

DF: Geoffrey Kelly is the co-founder of Spirit of the West — and John Mann's friend and longtime collaborator. Mr. Mann died on Wednesday — the result of early-onset Alzheimer's Disease.

[Music: Sombre]

Part three: DRC measles deaths, RCMP officer’s journal

Arizona migrant helper

DF: In January 2018, he was accused of harbouring unauthorized migrants — and faced years in jail. Now, Scott Warren is a free man. Yesterday, a jury in Arizona found Mr. Warren not guilty of trying to help migrants evade custody. He said all along that he was just a humanitarian worker trying to make sure they don't die, while making the long and perilous journey across the Sonoran desert. This was the second trial for Scott Warren, after a judge declared a mistrial back in June, when a jury was unable to reach a verdict. At that time, we spoke with another longtime volunteer with the same organization that Mr. Warren had been working with. Here's what Catherine Gaffney had to say about the case, from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

CG: Scott was arrested at The Barn, which is a humanitarian aid station in Arizona. Two undocumented migrants came up to him asking for help, and he offered them help. He gave them food, water, clean clothes, and a place to rest, called the doctor. These are the acts that both the government and Scott agree happened. And they are the acts that the government is prosecuting him under the harbouring statutes.

CO: And he’s a volunteer with No More Deaths, which is an organization that you are also volunteering for. What do you do? What is the purpose of No More Deaths.

CG: No More Deaths as a humanitarian aid group. Our mission is to end the death and suffering of migrants and refugees along the U.S.-Mexico border. And every day our volunteers go out into the remote migrant trails, and leave food and water caches to try to prevent folks crossing through from dying of dehydration and exposure. And we do a number of other interventions as well. We operate a free legal clinic for undocumented people, and we have spent a lot of time documenting abuses at the hands of US Border Patrol.

CO: What do you make of the timing? You said you and the other volunteers and Mr. Warren have been doing this for some time. Why do you think he was arrested now?

CG: Well, the U.S. Border Patrol was the focus of an abuse documentation report that No More Deaths released on the morning of January 17, 2018. And we don't think it's a coincidence that that afternoon, U.S. Border Patrol agents decided to set up surveillance of Scott and The Barn, where he was arrested with the two migrants. That particular report documented more than 3,500 water gallons that were destroyed by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and other incidences of them interfering with the provision of humanitarian aid. And we also released a video of U.S. Border Patrol agents destroying water gallons and otherwise interfering with aid.

DF: Catherine Gaffney is a colleague of Scott Warren's. They both work with the humanitarian aid organization, No More Deaths, which provides food and water to migrants crossing the desert in Arizona. Yesterday, Mr. Warren was acquitted on charges of harboring unauthorized migrants. In a tweet following the verdict, No More Deaths promised, quote, "We will continue to provide food, water, and medical aid to all those who need it, until the day that no one dies or disappears while crossing the deserts and oceans of the world." Unquote.

[Music: Country]

DRC measles deaths

Guest: Xavier Crespin

DF: We have covered recent Ebola outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo on this program extensively. So has pretty much every major media outlet around the world. After all, it's a frightening and highly contagious disease with no proven treatment — and no cure. But it's another virus that's proving to be most deadly in the DRC. One we've known about, and had the ability to prevent, for decades. Measles. According to the government of the DRC, more than five thousand people have died from the virus since the beginning of the year — most of them under the age of five. That's more than twice as many people as the country's Ebola crisis has killed to date. Dr. Xavier Crespin is UNICEF's chief of health in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We reached him in Kinshasa.

CO: Dr. Crespin, I know you are based in Kinshasa. From where you are, how bad is the measles outbreak? What have you seen about how affected the children are?

XAVIER CRESPIN: Actually, the situation in the whole country is very alarming situation. And what is shocking here is children under the age of five represent 75 per cent of infection. And nearly 90 per cent of death. Currently, we are talking about 250,000 cases of measel, with 5,000 death reported currently.

CO: Now, we know that measles is quite preventable. This is something that there’s an immunization for it that is very effective. I know that you and others have tried to get the DRC immunized, and the children immunized. What's wrong? Why is it so difficult to get the children the doses they need of the immunization against measles?

XC: Actually, there are several factors. First, this country is very big, big country. And we have logistic challenge to transport the vaccine in all the areas — especially in the remote areas. And security is another one because even where we have the vaccine, it is very difficult to go everywhere. In some area, we need to have military or the police force to be with the vaccinator to go there. Another issue is the community mistrust of vaccine itself. But the other problem in this country is that the routine immunization is very weak. We have only about 50, 55 per cent of health coverage in this country — which means that half of the population have not access to basic health services in the country.

CO: It's interesting that one of the factors you say is that people mistrust the vaccines. And you know, of course, in Western countries where it's quite possible everybody can be immunized, everyone can have their children immunized against measles, it's so available. And yet, that skepticism about vaccines exists here. And when you see the effect of it, as you can see it in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it's quite startling, isn't it?

XC: Yeah, there is a huge difference between the developing country and a country in sub-Saharan Africa. In some area, even the traditional healers are against all the vaccination. And these people are very well-known in the community. So the people trust more than the vaccinators that we’re bringing in the area. In this in this particular country, because of Ebola, we did have some vaccination campaigns for Ebola. And yet, some people who are vaccinated have Ebola. So this creates another mistrust of vaccine. So there are a lot of really difficulties to have all the children vaccinated here. But we also lack vaccine. And sometime people just come to the health facility and there is no vaccine, and they have to pay sometime to get into the health facilities.

CO: And we know that in the DRC, that the places you are talking about, they have seen tremendous difficulty, haven't they? The war that has waged, the numbers of people killed, the breakdown of infrastructure and supports of all kinds. So they're already dealing with a lot of health issues before they have both Ebola and now this measles outbreak.

XC: Yeah, these populations face a lot of difficulty during the last few years back because of their insecurity, because of their political instability, and all of this being the issue of the health system itself. This is why we think at UNICEF that there is a need to invest more in health. And currently, there is a need to invest significantly in strengthening the DRC national vaccination program, and address all these gaps in coverage — because there is a huge coverage gaps. As I said, 50 per cent of the population have no access. And when it comes to vaccination, 65 per cent of children in this country are not completely vaccinated — which means that we have a gap in the funding to have more vaccine, but to have also more medical kits because we need some medical kits to be delivered in health centre in the measles hotspots.

CO: There's a lot of attention paid to the outbreak of Ebola, and that has been what people believe is the big problem in in Democratic Republic of Congo. Do you think it's a problem that that we're not as aware of this measles outbreak because the Ebola crisis seems to take up all of the attention.

XC: Yeah, actually, at the international level, Ebola is taking much more attention. But the reality is that we have a lot of case of measles in this country. And it just affected all the provinces — the 26 provinces — in the country — whereas, for Ebola, there’s only two provinces. And we have less case, and we have less death if you compare to measles. And also, the measle outbreak in DRC has become a far more deadlier than Ebola — which, to date, has taken around 2,500. So for us, it is important that the international community put also a lot of attention and emphasize on how they can support the effort from the government, and NGOs and other partner who are working closely with the community on a daily basis.

CO: Dr. Crespin, I know you have much work to do, so we won't keep you. But thank you so much for speaking with us.

XC: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye-bye.

DF: Dr. Xavier Crespin is the chief of health for UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We reached him in the country's capital, Kinshasa.

[Music: Sad piano]

Poetry prize winner

DF: "The whole world inside a single sentence." That's how the jury for the CBC Poetry Prize describes the work of Calgary poet, Alycia Pirmohamed. She took home the six-thousand dollar prize today, for her collection of three poems: "Love Poem with Elk and Punctuation", "Prairie Storm", and "Tasbih". Ms. Pirmohamed's background is in biology — which might explain why the natural world features so prominently — and so beautifully — in her submission. Here she is, reading from the first of her three prize-winning poems.

SOUNDCLIP

ALYCIA PIRMOHAMED: To taste water on the surface of a mirror. Io love — even briefly — the elk of your own tongue. We become a myth that will cleave in the middle. I admire spooling lotus after lotus after. Fragment of my body. Brown edges. The whorl of a question mark. And you, night’s quiet exclaim. We become a bridge that crosses the chasm. It takes a moon or to, a slithering to chapter. I look at the fringe, and watch evening kick her feet right through. We too become hoofs of light, and feel our way around tenderness. This is a dream. And we are the ruminants in it. I want to know how you move. From polygon to speckle, rectangle to unravel. In the water, I stretch out until I am lagoon. And you are the coral at my toes. Until I am the lotus that blossoms after.

DF: That's CBC Poetry Prize winner, Alycia Pirmohamed, reading the first installment from her winning collection: "Love Poem with Elk and Punctuation". As the winner of this year's award, Ms. Pirmohamed will receive six-thousand dollars from the Canada Council for the Arts. And she'll have the opportunity to attend a two-week writing residency at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity. Her full collection is published at: www.cbcbooks.ca.

[Music: Horns!]

RCMP officer’s journal

Guest: Elenore Sturko

DF: Sergeant Robert David Van Norman was, by all accounts, a good RCMP officer. He was stationed in northern Canada in the 1950s, and earned a medal. But in the 1960s, he was forced to resign — for being gay. Now, his great-niece — who is also an RCMP officer — is publishing a journal he kept. Elenore Sturko is a corporal with the RCMP in Surrey, B.C. That's where we reached her.

CO: Corporal Sturko, how did it come to be that your Great Uncle Dave was forced to leave the RCMP?

ELEMORE STURKO: Well, he was serving in the RCMP from ‘47 to ‘64. And when he ended up, after his time in the north, being posted to Ottawa, he was spotted at the Lord Elgin Hotel — which was known as a gay hangout during the ‘60s. And after being confronted with that information, he was forced to resign from the RCMP. So he actually never really recovered from that expulsion. And he died in 1988, before the prime minister's apology.

CO: The prime minister's apology you're referring was is in 2017. That's when Justin Trudeau apologized for the so-called “LGBT Purge”. Was your Uncle Dave part of that?

ES: Well, he was part of the “Purge”. So that security time that started in the ’50s, and went on for decades, and affected many LGBTQ2+ Canadians across the country. And since he passed away, when I heard that the apology was coming, my wife and I, I was posted to Ottawa at the time. And we made some arrangements to have a special viewing of the apology, and it was actually really impactful day for both me and my wife and my greater family.

CO: Then there's this other part of this story, and that's that you have located a journal that your Great Uncle Dave was keeping. What’s that about?

ES: Well, the journal actually was a little photo book that he had made for his parents as a gift. And it documented his travels up to the north, up to Pond Inlet in 1950 and ‘51. And he actually had lots of amazing photos of that time, and of some of the people he was in contact with. The Inuit he worked with and met, and captured a lot of their daily life and activities. You know, after the apology and stuff, and hearing some of the stories from family members about what that time was actually like for Dave, I didn't want the story to end that way — especially since I'm a current serving member of the RCMP, and a member of the LGBT community. I felt like I wanted to, you know, sort of have his honour restored. And do something for him where we could see his service commemorated. So that the last thing that is sort of remembered about him isn't that it was made to resign from a career that he really loved and what really defined him, but celebrated for the excellent service that he provided. And my Great Uncle Jack — Dave's brother — put the book into my hands, and the project sort of took off from there.

CO: This journal of your uncle’s that you found, and that you're working with, this is not about him being gay, is it? This is about the extraordinary work that he was doing in Northern Canada. And I understand you're actually translating his journal into Indigenous languages?

ES: When I decided that I would share it, and publish it, and make it available, I actually sought some advice from different people than I know — including she was formerly the host of CBC “Igalaaq”, Rassi Nashalik. And she gave me some advice in talking about the importance of making sure that, you know, getting the perspectives of people in the community. Getting the perspectives of, you know, people who were either photographed or you know are the descendants of people who were photographed. And I kind of decided from there that I'd like to see it translated into Inuktitut to have it accessible. And just even knowing how much my uncle was impacted and loved Inuit culture, I thought that would be a really nice tribute as well. he had learned to speak Inuktitut. And one of the interesting stories that Michael Jacques told me is that he'd come down from the north on leave — him and Jacq — they drove over to a TB hospital — specifically to go and visit some Inuit who had been brought out of the communities for treatment for their TB. And he walked in and started speaking Inuktitut with them, and how their faces lit up. I mean, to me, it's just an example of how much he really did care about the people that he was in service to and served alongside of up north.

CO: What are you hoping to do with this journal?

ES: This is a not-for-profit project — even though I'm publishing the book, and will be making it available for sale. You know, it's a tribute to my uncle. And we're going to use all the proceeds to do something in the community. So I'd like to raise money, and then I'll consult with the people of Pond Inlet. And depending on how much we have to work with, you know, some of the other communities that my uncle visited and worked in, and let them decide what they might want to do with the donation — whether it's some equipment for recreation or something for their school. But I would like to see something good done in his memory. And this has been an excellent connection for me, and it's something that I've really, really enjoyed doing.

CO: Did your Uncle Dave ever talk to you about what happened to him at the force?

ES: No. You know, my Uncle Dave died when I was 13. But it wasn't like a topic of open conversation. And I really only had really larger conversations about the issue with my grandmother and my Uncle Jack and my late Uncle Bob about what happened to Dave only a few days before the apology. The questions that I really most cared about and was concerned with before I even went to the apology is whether or not Dave would have accepted that? And would he want me to go? What would he have thought? But, in fact, they told me that no, he actually would have wholeheartedly accepted the apology from the prime minister. And in his time, despite the hardship that he went through as a result of being forced out of the RCMP, he never said a harsh word about the RCMP. And he remained proud of the service that he had given until his death.

CO: But there you were in Ottawa, dressed in your red serge, seated next to your wife, Melissa. What do you think your uncle day would have said to you at that point?

ES: Well, I think he would have been happy, you know? He was certainly in my heart. So I think he was there with us. I feel more connected now having done research — especially seeing his words and seeing his photography. It’s given me a sort of snapshot into some of his perspectives. And I think that, yeah, he was definitely there when the apology happened.

CO: Corporal Sturko, it's a great story. And I appreciate you sharing it with us. Thank you.

ES: Well, thank you for your time.

CO: Bye.

DF: Elenore Sturko is a corporal with the RCMP in Surrey, British Columbia. That's where we reached her.

[Music: Indie rock]

Rugby player

DF: Over the next several months, 20 teams will be fighting for the Heineken Champions Cup — the biggest prize in European rugby. Last weekend, the British team Harlequins FC lost to the French team Clermont. In an interview on the 'Quins' website, back row forward Tom Lawday reflected on the loss — and the club's strategy for its next game on its home field, which is called the Twickenham Stoop.

SOUNDCLIP

TOM LAWDAY: We said during the week, we're going to go there to try to get points. To come out with nothing is very disappointing. And the fashion that it happened as well, you know, we weren't particularly happy with that. So I think, you know, we're going to look forward Saturday now, check the footage, see how we can improve, and yeah, hopefully, get a decent run out at the weekend against Bath. We need to get back to winning ways. We need to start scoring tries. We need to start playing more attacking rugby, kicking the ball, you know, doing all the things that Quins are renowned for. So, look, we're gonna regroup this week, train hard, come out on Saturday in front of, hopefully, a packed out stoop. And yeah, see what we can do

DF: Among the revelations there: the Harlequins wanted to win, and were not happy that they didn't. Now they're going to try to win, by playing rugby better. I don't mean to single out Mr. Lawday. That interview is just one of probably millions of examples of athletes answering questions about sports in the most obvious way possible. You don't expect anything more — which is why an interview with his teammate, Joe Marler, comes as such a pleasant surprise. In this clip, Mr. Marler addresses the same question about the loss and the future that Mr. Lawday addressed — except he doesn't at all. To say any more would spoil the slowly unspooling ridiculousness of his response. So here's Joe Marler.

SOUNDCLIP

JOE MARLER: I wasn’t hurting as much as the lads who were out there, but I definitely felt it. And I know how hard the boys have taken that to be disappointed with the account that we put out. But we got another week to get back on the horse, you know? And take that horse to the water. And you can ask that horse. You can say hey, horsey, do you want to have a drink? Or do you want to swim? Yeah, it's up to that horse to then realize what he wants to do in his life. And that horse, at the moment, wants to go out on Saturday. He wants to clip clop all the way to the stoop. And he wants to say hello to those fans. And he goes and he goes I'm sorry about the result last week. But I'm going to give a better performance here at home against Bath. He's a slightly Irish horse. So we're looking forward to, like I say, getting back on that horse.

REPORTER: And are you looking forward to getting back on the horse? Six months since we last saw you.

JM: I don't like horses. I can't ride.

DF: That was Harlequins FC rugby player Joe Marler, horsing around presumably, and giving one of the greatest sports interview of all time.

[Music: Instrumental]

Snake legs

DF: When you decide your bangs aren't working anymore, you know you're in for a long and difficult hair journey. For months, you'll have to fill your hair with bobby pins and barrettes. Change your part. Apply various pomades and mousses. And the whole time, you can only wait for your coiffure to take its final form. You know what can identify with that tough transition? Snakes. But don't complain about growing out your bangs to snakes. They'll just say, "Oh, four months sounds awful. I can't imagine what you went through." Look, snakes are sarcastic at the best of times, but this time, they're right. Their awkward period was significantly longer. We already knew they once had legs, and evolved not to have them. But new research shows they lost their front legs first — and then, tens of millions of years later, they lost their back legs. A while ago, scientists discovered a bunch of snake fossils in Argentina. They were about 95-million years old. And among the many things the scientists have since discovered through fancy scanning was that these snakes had hind legs. Just hind legs. And the research suggests they had those hind legs for about 70-million years, before finding their ideal, legless form. Obviously, to stick around that long, those back limbs must have worked. It just seems like a long time to push your wiggly tube body around on two stumpy little twigs, before you give them up. I mean, they must have known early on that they were on their last legs.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 21, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This