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 25, 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: A timely vote of confidence. A record number of voters turn out in Hong Kong to elect an unprecedented number of pro-democracy candidates — and the landslide victory sends an unequivocal message to Beijing.

DF: A major step backward. If they passed through Guatemala, the U.S. says it will deport asylum seekers there — and one Democratic lawmaker says that's putting migrants' lives in danger.

CO: A call to arms. A shocking number of pedestrians have been hit by cars in Toronto, so one councillor is handing out reflective armbands to people on foot — Critics say that's victim-blaming.

DF: A way around words. After listening carefully to Joe Biden's speeches, journalist John Hendrickson meets with the Democratic presidential candidate to discuss something they've both tried to hide: their stutters.

CO: One fish in the sea. After getting fed up with dating apps, a single-minded North Carolina man single-handedly made one of his own, featuring just one single single male: himself.

DF: And...ankles away. When the Winnipeg Blue Bombers finally win the Grey Cup, one fan greets the news warmly — because, just in time, he can wear pants again for the first time in 18 years.

DF: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that guesses he's heaving two thighs of relief.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Hong Kong election, Toronto pedestrian armbands, Bombers pants guy

Hong Kong election

Guest: Lo Kin-hei

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A protest chant]

DF: That's the sound of dozens of newly-elected pro-democracy politicians, celebrating their election victory the same way they campaigned — on the street. That campaign has an extra boost today — after pro-democracy candidates won an overwhelming majority in yesterday's district council election, winning 389 out of 452 elected seats. Meanwhile, pro-Beijing politicians suffered a massive blow, plummeting from 300 seats to just 58. One of yesterday's winners is Lo Kin-hei, who was re-elected in the city's southern district. He's also Vice-Chairperson of The Democratic Party of Hong Kong — which is where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Lo, how would you describe yesterday's victory for the pro-democracy candidates like yourself?

LO KIN-HEI: Well, I think is extraordinary. Is this a landslide victory, but that I will not be too happy about that because we see a lot of bloodshed in the past few months. And I think it all builds up to this poll. And so this result is built by a lot of beating, protesting, and bloodshed — and tears as well.

CO: How unusual was it to see the numbers of people who turned out? And overwhelmingly young people came out to vote. Have you seen a percentage like this — 71 per cent of eligible voters — were at the polls.

LKH: Yeah, that is never seen before. And I have never seen so many young people queuing up outside the polling station early in the morning. I think it is some extraordinary scene that we have ever seen in Hong Kong. I do believe that young people are very keen to voice their message, to voice their views that we are not satisfied with the government and how they deal with the protests for the past five months.

CO: It's interesting because we were hearing in recent weeks, pro-Beijing leaders who were saying that people in Hong Kong were fed up with these protests, with the violence. That the tide was turning. That the people turning out didn't have support from the general population. What message does this now send to those pro-Beijing leaders?

LKH: Well, of course, the result tells the silent majority is not with them. The silent majority is with us. The people are with us. The people are with the protesters. And I think, of course, there are a lot of violence in the past few weeks. But I think people still believe that. And they still think that the origin of the problem — the cause of that problem — is from the government and from the pro-establishment side and from Beijing. So I think this result tells a lot about this.

CO: At the same time though, these were elections for district councils. And that's a very low-level of Hong Kong government. So really, what can they actually accomplish? And it's only for a small percentage of those seats, right?

LKH: The District Council itself is it's not very politically-sensitive in it’s function because we deal with livelihood issues mostly in district councils. But I think Hong Kong people treat this election as a referendum to the recent spills in the society. So I think it's the political message that sends to the Beijing government and the Hong Kong government as well.

CO: And we know though that the district councils — which you have been elected to — this is it's probably the most democratic body of Hong Kong's politics. But your legislature — where there's just only about half of the seats are actually elected — and, of course, the person in charge — the chief executive — is not chosen by the voters. Carrie Lam and whoever has that office is chosen by a committee that's stacked in favour of Beijing. So do you think they have any obligation to listen to these elections? Will it have any influence over those other bodies of government?

LKH: Of course, I think they should listen because this kind of landslide result. I think if that happens in anywhere in the world, the administration have to admit that there must be a very big problem within them. So although this district council election is not causing much political influence in our daily works, I think the government should still listen. And, of course, the district councillor we make up 117 seats of the election committee. So it means that in the future, one-tenth of the election committee of the chief executive election will be our side. And we have a bigger say on that. And I do believe that it creates some problems solve for Beijing government to consider who will be the next chief executive. And they have to take our views into account as well.

CO: Do you really think so? Do you think that Beijing will say woops, we better start listening to these pro-democracy activists. We maybe will change our mind about who should be leading Hong Kong?

LKH: I think there is a chance. Of course, I'm not too optimistic about that. But we're closer to the 600 threshold that’s needed to elect a chief executive. So the room for manoeuvre for the Beijing government is less. So I think they may not be listening to us. But the pro-democracy side and the Hong Kong local business sectors, the bargaining power is big enough for Beijing government to actually respond to either side.

CO: It must seem to Beijing though that they have lost control of what's going on in Hong Kong, or it appears to us that that's the case. At what point do you think that Beijing will do something dramatic in order to regain control?

LKH: We are not quite sure. Because in the past few months, Hong Kong people have spoken or act in a lot of ways and to express our views. But the Beijing government seems that they didn't see us. So at this point of time, when this kind of landslide election result came out, I think the Beijing government has to reconsider whether they have to stick with their or regional hot line approach in Hong Kong. Because it seems to us that the Beijing government has chosen a very hot line approach to Hong Kong.

CO: Just finally, you mentioned of there are a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, and a lot of people have been hurt. There are still a number of students at the Polytechnic University. There was talk that you and others might go try and get those last demonstrators out because they're there they're surrounded by police. Are you doing that?

LKH: Yes, I was there this afternoon, and I think a lot of us was keep on doing that — trying to make the Hong Kong police stand down from the sick around the Poly U campuses, so that the people can go free and the people inside there and can actually find their lives again, and not to be trapped there. We don't know how it will unfold. But we will try our best.

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

LKH: Thank you.

DF: Lo Kin-hei is one of 389 pro-democracy candidates to win in yesterday's district council elections. He's also Vice-Chairperson of The Democratic Party of Hong Kong — which is where we reached him. And there's more on that story on the As It Happens website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: World music]

Ottawa child welfare

DF: Ottawa says it's moving forward. But critics say it's moving in slow-motion. Today, the Trudeau government announced that it's planning to settle a six-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of First Nations children affected by the on-reserve child welfare system. At the same time, Ottawa lawyers are asking for a stay on a Human Rights Tribunal decision, ordering tens of thousands in compensation for those same children. The reaction to today's session has been swift — condemning the government of dragging its heels. Walter Naveau is the deputy grand chief of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. He was in the courtroom today. Here's some of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

WALTER NAVEAU: You could say one thing and do another thing. So I wish you would come across and do what is right for Canada and what is also right for the Indigenous people — in particular, for our children, who are they don't have a voice here. But in one tiny room, we can make a decision that's going to affect mass number of people — especially our young ones — that are waiting for an answer out there. The impact is significant because we're left at the back. How do we move forward? Yet, we are the first people of this great land we call home. And yet, we are treated as third-class citizens. We've always been waiting for something that's tangible that we can have for the children because we don't come here as beggars. Rather, we come to have something for our children that you can have a future. So the decisions they make here is really going to affect all the First Nations — in particular, NAN (Nishnawbe-Aski Nations). We have so many issues, and this could be a healthier working relationship with the government and with the court system that look how do you deal with First Nations Indigenous people and within in the NAN territories.

REPORTER: Deputy Grand Chief, when the court says the discrimination is not ongoing, what in your view, how does that make you and others in your community feel that the government says they've addressed the problems of discrimination for child welfare?

WN: No, that's so incorrect. They haven't addressed it. I think we're only at the point now where we're starting to look and turn a new page over and to try to make our self a richer nation by addressing these inequities.

DF: Walter Naveau is the deputy grand chief of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation.

[Music: Ambient]

Toronto pedestrian armbands

Guest: Cynthia Lai

DF: The streets of Toronto are dangerous for people on foot. So far this year, more than 1,100 pedestrians have been hit by cars. More than 30 of those people have died — many of them seniors. And many of those deaths were in Scarborough — on the east side of the city. That's why, this weekend, a city councillor in Scarborough took action — and handed out reflective arm bands to seniors. It's in an effort to protect them from cars. But it's not sitting well with everyone. Critics and street safety advocates are calling it victim-blaming. They say it puts the onus on the pedestrian — not the driver — to stay safe. Cynthia Lai is the city councillor for Scarborough North, who was handing out the arm bands. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Councillor Lai, what does it say about your city that you're telling seniors to wear reflective armbands in order to go for a walk?

CYNTHIA LAI: [laughing] Well, this is not just about wearing the armbands. We’re telling seniors how to prevent accidents when they are pedestrians. An armband is just one of the, you know, solutions. And even on our website, you know, about vision, about traffic, about road safety, we suggest people to wear reflective clothing.

CO: Okay, so you're telling to wear reflective clothing. What else are you telling them to protect themselves when they go out for a walk?

CL: We are telling them that they should maintain eye contact with the driver. They should be aware of what's going on around them. And also, as they grow older, they may have some challenge with hearing or maybe with eyesight or something they are at greater risk. So be more aware of what's going on around them. And maybe they shouldn't be crossing the street when the light is flashing, you know, yellow when, you know, it's about time that it's going to turn green again.

CO: How do you mostly get around the city yourself?

CL: I do driving.

CO: How often do you walk?

CL: I walk too, but not a lot. I walk to the plaza close to my home to go shopping.

CO: Right. Do you ride a bike?

CL: I don't bike, no.

CO: Do you have any idea what it's like for pedestrians and cyclists in the city?

CL: I do I do. Yeah.

CO: How do you know that?

CL: Well, because some of my friends actually they got hurt. You know, they were biking up in Scarborough. And we don't have any a dedicated bike lane in Scarborough yet. And that's, you know, probably another issue that we have to deal with.

CO: Okay, so these are the things you think you should do: we should wear reflective clothing. Seniors should wear armbands. They should be very careful, maybe not even cross the road at all if the light is flashing. I haven't heard you say anything about what the driver should do.

CL: Well, the drivers, I mean, you know, they should watch about the speed limit. And they should, you know, be very, very obeying all these signs and all that kind of thing. I mean, I'm a driver myself, and that's, you know, what I should be doing.

CO: And now, at the end of October, if I get this straight, there was an effort recommended in a program called Vision Zero to reduce the speed on Markham road in your community.

CL: On three streets. Three streets in my ward, yes.

CO: Right, to reduce it by ten kilometres an hour — just by that much. How did you vote in that?

CL: I actually made a motion to exclude Markham Road because I did a lot of consultations through my ward because it's very important that I seek, you know, consultation from all the local residents. And most of them don't seem to think that it’s a speed limit thing.

CO: Okay, I thought you just said a moment ago that the drivers should reduce their speed. But you're saying it's not a speed limit thing that's causing people to get run over?

CL: Well, I mean, from the statistics, from the fatalities in my ward, and none of them are about speed limits.

CO: The city has committed to eliminating pedestrian deaths altogether. Can you understand that people are frustrated that 31 people have died on Toronto streets this year?

CL: I am very frustrated. And that's why any initiative for me to educate, and for me to do to reduce the amount of fatalities on the street is very important to me.

CO: So then why did you vote against reducing the speed limit by ten kilometres an hour?

CL: Well, because the people in my ward, I am their voice there. I'm just representing their voice.

CO: Right. How about policing the roads? Because we learned last week — and people were quite shocked to learn — that for the past five years, there has not been officers whose duty it was among the police to enforce traffic, and to be supervising that. And over that same five years that the police removed that traffic enforcement squad, that's when we've seen this spike in fatalities and injuries.

CL: Well, that's exactly the point.

CO: What’s the point?

CL: The point people are making was why would you reduce speed if there's no enforcement? The reality is that the police don't have any budget to increase their staff to do enforcement. And that's exactly the point when people were saying that, you know, speed limit, if were going to reduce it, how much more, you know, we have to reduce it? And then where is the enforcement?

CO: Okay, I'm not following. You're saying that there's no point in reducing the speed limit because there's no police to enforce it?

CL: I didn’t say that. I mean, at the community meeting, people are raising this point.

CO: Right. Not you, but others said that was one of their arguments that there's no point in reducing the speed because there's no one to enforce it.

CL: That's right.

CO: Well, the police have now said that they are going to return that traffic enforcement, after people were so shocked to find out that that had happened while this spike in fatalities had happened. Do you see why people might consider what you're saying as victim-blaming? That the people who are actually the victims of these accidents are the ones that have to take responsibility for them, and not the drivers?

CL: It's never meant to be victim-blaming. You know, just like when you are asking kids to go out Trick-or-Treat, you ask them to wear reflective clothing. Is that victim-blaming? Is nothing. That’s never. never meant to be a victim-blaming. And it's meant to be raising awareness, and meant to be education, meant to be communicating and work together to make sure that our streets are safe and improve the safety.

CO: Okay. But you think roads can be safer as if people wear reflective gear and safety gear to go out for a walk — that would make us safer?

CL: Well, at the end of the day, if we can save one more life by doing that is a worthwhile initiative. And actually, is a very well-received. I've got requests from other senior homes that we are going to repeat our presentations in their senior homes. I've got a couple of requests already in my ward.

CO: I'm sure they do, they don't want to be run over.

CL: Well, I mean, like I said, you know, I wish we can do more things proactively to teach and to educate our seniors. And I just wish people will give it more positive energy to make sure that we work together to save more lives, and to make sure that our pedestrians are safe.

CO: I think, well, if you were giving these instructions to the drivers they might feel safer.

CL: Well, I mean, like I said, everybody has the responsibility, the drivers, the bikers, pedestrians, the city staff, the police, and including myself as their ward Councillor. Everybody has the responsibility to make sure to ensure we have safe streets.

CO: Councillor Lai, I thank you for speaking with us.

CL: Thank you.

DF: Cynthia Lai is the city councillor for Scarborough North, in Toronto. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music: Horns!]

Bombers pants guy

Guest: Chris Matthew

DF: A lot of people got very excited last night about a man putting on a pair of pants. That man was Chris Matthew. If you haven't heard, he's the Winnipeg Blue Bombers fan who vowed back in 2001 to wear shorts until his team won the Grey Cup. And, if you haven't heard, they won. Moments later, Mr. Matthew took to the field in Calgary to don pants for pretty much the first time in 18 years. We reached Chris Matthew at the airport in Calgary.

CO: Chris, I’m going to ask you the same question I asked you when we spoke one year ago. Are you wearing pants right now?

CHRIS MATTHEW: Yes, I am.

CO: [laughing] What does that feel like?

CM: It's very, very odd. And it's a whole lot warmer than I remembered.

CO: And so this is the first time you have worn pants in 18 years, right?

CM: Yes. Yes.

CO: So what was more exciting for you seeing the Bombers win, or finally getting into a pair of pants?

CM: Oh, watching the Bomber's win, absolutely. The pants are secondary. In fact, I may get rid of them. Now that I can wear them, I probably still won't.

CO: [deep laugh] But come on, winter is setting in! You're going to still wear your shorts?

CM: Yeah. But if it gets cold enough now, I can legitimately put pants on and be all right with it.

CO: You're able to do that. I mean, before we go on more about your clothing choices, what a game. I mean, you were there. I mean they clobbered the Ti-Cats, right? I mean, of all the wins that you should get your pants back on for, I mean, this was the one, right?

CM: Absolutely. It was a phenomenal game start to finish. They absolutely dominated. And I was just so happy to see it for them, and for all the Bomber fans.

CO: That's 33-12 was their win. What was the highlight for you? What was the big moment?

CM: Just the final gun, and knowing that we had won. That's probably the biggest thrill of the whole game.

CO: And what was it like? You were with a lot of Winnipegers, I imagine. What was the response like?

CM: Oh, the crowd was definitely pro-Bomber. Because I think everybody out West was cheering for us. So we had a lot of support, not just from Winnipegers, but from most of the stadium.

CO: Right. So, okay, now back to your pants, what did you choose for the occasion of wearing pants for the first time?

CM: Well, something that my wife will say I shouldn't have. I have a pair of the old Zubaz pants, you know, like the Hammer pants. They used to call them parachute pants. And I picked those because they had a stretchy waist. And after 18 years, I didn't know if anything else would fit.

CO: [laughing] Let me talk to your wife. Put Darla on your phone here.

CM: Okay, just a second.

DARLA ROBINSON: Hello?

CO: Hi, Darla. It’s Carol

DR: Hi.

CO: [laughing] You finally get your husband back into pants, and he's wearing Zubaz pants. What do you make of that?

DR: They're ugly [laughing]. He can go back to the shorts. I'm okay.

CO: Do you think he's doing that deliberately to make you say that?

DR: No, he wasn't sure if he could still fit into his dress pants. And he thought, you know, I'm gonna have to put these on in front of people, and they're stretchy, and they're easy, and he likes them.

CO: Now, did he pack a pair of pants with his luggage with this possibility?

DR: Well yeah, these are his. These Zubas one he's wearing, he's had them since the ‘80s [CO laughs]. He doesn't get rid of stuff.

CO: But he brought them with him to Calgary because he was hoping he was going to be putting them on, right?

DR: Well, he wasn't hoping to put them on. He was hoping the Bombers would win.

CO: Right, the same thing.

DR: Well, not really. He's not totally comfortable wearing pants. But he really wanted the Bombers to win. And the offshoot of that is he was going to have to put on pants.

CO: Okay, so he just said to me that he may just continue to wear shorts. So you're prepared for that?

DR: Oh, he will. Oh, I don't care. If he's stupid enough to keep wearing shorts, he's an adult, and I I'm not going to. I like to dress nicely [laughing].

CO: But you've gone out for special occasions. You've got you're going out with this guy in shorts all the time. I mean, don't you want to see him wearing his dress pants again?

DR: Well, now he can occasionally. And, you know what? He looks cute in his shorts. Like if he seen pictures, he really does look quite cute in his shorts, and he does have dress shorts, and he has a kilt.

CO: You know there was a #doitforDarla trying to get the Bombers to say, look, if for no other reason, let this long-suffering wife be relieved and see her man in pants again. DR laughing] So do you think they did it for you?

DR: Oh yes, of course, it was all about me [CO laughs].No, a friend of ours actually printed up tons of tags, and he was here at the Grey Cup too — and we ran into him. And he was handing these out. I gave one to Brian Pallister, and to Brian Bowman, and to the mayor of Calgary. And, in fact, the mayor of Calgary was so adorable. He was being introduced, and he pushed Chris aside, he said I don't care about you. I want to meet Darla [both laugh].

CO: And he had this “ Do It For Darla” thing with him, did he?

DR: Yes.

CO: Wow. Okay. Well, maybe that's what happened. The Bomber's just said we have to do it for you.

DR: [laughing] You know what? It's just been so much fun. I'm ready to go to sleep, though.

CO: All right. I'll let you go. And I'll just say another word to Chris, if I can?

DR: Okay then.

CM: Hello.

CO: Hi, Chris. Just you made this vow, as you know, way back 18 years ago. And you didn't know it was going to 18 years. Are you gonna make any more bets that they're going to win again? Are you done with this?

CM: Oh yeah. I might just have my mouth sown shut. I'm not saying anything again ever. No.

CO: Chris, congratulations with your team. Thanks to you and Darla.

CM: Okay, thank you very much.

CO: Safe travels home.

CM: Thank you.

DF: That was Winnipeg Blue Bombers fan Chris Matthew and his wife, Darla Robinson. They were at the airport in Calgary, making their way home to Winnipeg from the Grey Cup.

[Instrumental]

Part two: Guatemala deportation, Joe Biden stutter

Guatemala deportation

Guest: Nina Torres

DF: He flew from El Paso, Texas to Guatemala City on a nearly empty plane. And when Erwin Ardon arrived, he became the first asylum seeker to be sent from the United States back to Guatemala. Mr. Ardon is not from Guatemala. He's from Honduras. But he passed through Guatemala on his way to the States. And according to a so-called "safe third country" agreement signed by both countries earlier this year, that means that the States can send him back there. And so back he went. It's an approach Washington says it will be taking with more asylum seekers in the weeks ahead. Norma Torres is a Democratic Congresswoman, who is originally from Guatemala. We reached her today at her district office in Ontario, California.

CO: Congresswoman Torres, is Guatemala a safe third country, in your view?

NINA TORRES: Absolutely not. Guatemala is far from being a safe third country. Right now, they are experiencing a lot of violence. And not just violence, but, you know, a turbulent time with their government. The current government of Jimmy Morales has brought on a lot of governmental corruption. And I think Guatemala has gone to an era where the rule of law is no longer being obeyed.

CO: Right, but the United States has declared it a safe third country — which is why people are able to be sent back there. So what is likely to happen for asylum seekers who are deported back to Guatemala?

NT: We will soon find out. I think asylum seekers will find an environment that is not friendly. It's not a place where you can easily find a good job. And it certainly doesn't have the housing that they need for their own people. You know, much less for asylum seekers that are being returned.

CO: This man who has just been recently returned or deported to Guatemala as a safe third country, he's probably not the best example of what you're describing because he says himself that he wasn't really an asylum seeker. He wanted to move to United States to be with his family. And he is not under any immediate danger in his native Honduras. He's even chosen to return to Honduras. So what does that say about possible people who are going to be sent to Guatemala or another country?

NT: I don't believe that Guatemala is prepared to receive people that would be returned back to the region. I think we have to remember that they don't necessarily have to be from the Northern Triangle. But anyone, you know, crossing through that area, making their way north to our southern border, could be returned to any one of those three countries.

CO: You mentioned the Northern Triangle countries. You're talking about Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador — all three of whom have been declared safe third countries. And many people have been coming from there with more dramatic stories, more threatening stories, than the man who was just recently sent back. So do you have any idea how many people might be sent to those countries declaring them as safe third countries?

NT: I think it will be thousands of people returning. And what I am very, very concerned about is how that these agreements came to be. In the case of Guatemala, I think that President Morales was sort of bullied into signing on to an agreement in exchange for the U.S. turning a blind eye to, you know, the corrupt issues that have been alleged against him. An investigation that was started by CICIG [the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala] is still pending. And it will never be completed because they don't have a government or a judicial system that could sustain an investigation of, you know, one of the highest people in their elected office.

CO: So do you believe that that President Morales of Guatemala was given some kind of signal, some assistance from the United States in his legal troubles?

NT: Absolutely. The U.S. has in recent years — since President Trump came to office — we have turned a blind eye into, you know, a lot of the things that they have done. When they began personally attacking the commissioner for CICIG, defunding CICIG, canceling the visas of investigators that were critical to an investigation of the family and allies of President Morales.

CO: Now that President morale is leaving office, and his successor is Alejandro Giammattei. Do you think things will change? Do you think the agreement that was struck with the Trump administration will hold?

NT: I’m not sure. I think, you know, the incoming president has signaled that he would like to revisit those terms. He wants to ensure that there is something, there some assistance that these refugees will need. Certainly, the ones that are not Guatemalan. You know, they need an infrastructure of safe places for them to stay. You know, they need an infrastructure of jobs that they could, you know, possibly qualify for while they are there in the country. I think it's smart for him to make those signals. How much of it is he going to be able to negotiate with this administration? You know, we'll soon find out in January when he takes office.

CO: You know that Canada has a safe third country agreement with the United States. We regard the United States as a safe third country. Many people now disagree with that. They think that we shouldn't have an agreement with your country. What do you make of that?

NT: You know, I think I regard Canada as, you know, one of our best trading partners. And a country that holds up to its moral values. And, you know, I'm sorry Canadians feel that way. I would say this administration is here. But presidents come and go. Americans will continue to embrace Canadians and the Canadian culture the way we have for many, many generations. And I hope that we can get back to those terms that we were before Mr. Trump came to office.

CO: But President Trump says that the United States is full, that they can't take more people. He seems to have a lot of support within his base, his constituency. Do you think this is a political decision?

NT: It is absolutely a political decision. It is President Trump’, racist way of keeping people that, you know, that don't look like him from coming into the U.S. This country was founded by immigrants, and I think that, you know, we will continue to uphold those values. You know, whether this president is here or not, the Congress and the Democratic Party that I am part of will continue to fight for those principles.

CO: We'll leave it there. Congresswoman Torres, thank you.

NT: Thank you so much, Carol.

DF: Norma Torres is a Democratic Congresswoman from California. We reached her at her district office in Ontario, California. For more on this story, visit our website at www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Joe Biden stutter

Guest: John Hendrickson

DF: Joe Biden is used to speaking in front of thousands of people. When you see him on TV, the political veteran seems fairly comfortable behind a mic. But during this campaign, people have noticed Mr. Biden tripping on his tongue. At last week's Democratic Debate, it happened during his first remarks on stage.

SOUNDCLIP

JOE BIDEN: The next president of the united states is going to have to do two things: Defeat Donald Trump. That's number one. And number two, be able to go into states like Georgia and North Carolina and other places and get a Senate majority. That's what I'll do.

DF: Joe Biden's choppy style of speaking — and a growing list of headline-making verbal gaffes — have some people worried about his mental fitness for office. When John Hendrickson watches him speak, he hears something that he can empathize with. Both he and the Democratic presidential candidate have a stutter. Mr. Hendrickson is a senior politics editor with The Atlantic. He confronted Mr. Biden about the way he talks — and wrote about it in a recent article for the magazine. We reached John Hendrickson in New York City.

CO: John, when you hear Joe Biden, as we just did, what do you make of that? What do you hear in his stutter?

JOHN HENDRICKSON: In that example, Biden seemed largely fluent. I heard what sounded like a few very small blocks, and then a little difficulty on the letter “M”. When I interviewed Biden at his office, he also appeared to have little difficulty with the letter “M”.

CO: That's quite common, isn't it, with people who stutter. That there's usually specific sounds at the beginning of the word that will be their trip. Do you find that for yourself as well?

JH: Absolutely. Typically, it's consonants. Because of the way your mouth moves and airflow and just the facial muscles you using forming a consonant. They’re tighter compared to the ones used in a word that begins with a vowel.

CO: You went to see Joe Biden to talk about his issue with stuttering. What did he tell you? Was he pretty honest and frank with you about what he goes through?

JH: This is a very difficult subject to talk about at all. And I commend Joe Biden for agreeing to sit down with me and address it. Most of the stories he told me had to do with childhood or adolescence. That was really when his stutter was at its most well prominent. And I think those memories are the most vivid for him.

CO: Full confession here, I had a terrible stuttering problem as a child that I say I overcame it. And yet, there are times when it comes back. I hear it often. And there are conditions — stress and whatever else can sometimes resurface the stuttering. Do you think that Joe Biden sees that in himself — because we’ve certainly onstage scene times over his campaigning where it seems to have returned?

JH: At no point in our interview did Biden say the sentence I still stutter. But he told me about certain techniques and tricks he employs to make public speaking easier for him. One of those is marking up his speeches with diagonal slashes that are meant to signal to him to reset, pause, take a breath, and to really speak in cadence. That's easy when what you're saying is fed in to a teleprompter in a certain way. But in high pressure situations, such as a debate, particularly on rebuttal questions or follow-up questions, those are the moments when Biden's lingering stutter occasionally resurfaces.

CO: He is also though he's been called out for, or I guess mocked, for other gaffes. He said things like poor kids are just as bright as white kids — and has mixed up dates and countries. Can that be attributed to stuttering?

JH: Mixing up names, dates, and facts —overall issues with accuracy are not related to stuttering. Stuttering is most easily defined as a repetition, block, or prolongation in the course of producing a sound. But it's also circumlocution — which is just a fancy word meaning word-switching, word avoidance. Sometimes, Biden appears to pivot midsentence. Perhaps because he's a void in certain words, letters, formations. And what comes out then is sometimes just mangled syntax. But mangled syntax doesn't justify or explain getting the facts wrong.

CO: You know, there was a Canadian politician — former prime minister Jean Chretien — who was mocked by his opponents, much in the same way that Joe Biden is being mocked by his for his stutter. Because this politician had Bell's Palsy, and part of his face was paralyzed. And so they mocked him in a TV ad. And he confronted it direct lines and spoke about having Bell's Palsy. And it had enormous effect. In fact, Jean Chretien had a landslide victory. Do you think that Joe Biden, if he were more straightforward about it, actually people might be more sympathetic, understand that he struggles with this sometimes?

JH: People I interviewed in this article, stutterers, pathologists, professors, they all wish that Biden would disclose that he appears to intermittently stutter at the very least. But politics is a punishing, unforgiving ecosystem. Biden has presented the same life story for decades. Were he to quote/unquote come out now as an adult stutterer, people may view it as a cop out. I'm an journalist, and my job is to just write empathetic and honest stories.

CO: You did write a very empathetic and on a story about Joe Biden and his stuttering. And you talk a lot about what it's like. What do you want people to take away from your article?

JH: What's so challenging about stuttering is that it's in visible until the moment it occurs. So you may be walking around or waiting in line at a coffee shop. And you may look like a you know normal person. And then you walk up to the counter, and you try to order a coffee and it comes out mangled. It comes out jagged and awkward. And the barista may look at you, and the other customers may look at you, and they may recoil, or they may laugh at you. They may mock you. And it's hard because sometimes you don't know when it will come out. What I hope people take away is really is just a better understanding of us of a stuttering as a whole.

CO: Well John I think you accomplished that. And I really appreciate it. Thank you.

JH: Thank you for having me.

DF: John Hendrickson is a senior editor with The Atlantic's politics team. He recently wrote about Joe Biden's stutter — and his own — in a piece for the magazine called, "What Joe Biden Can't Bring Himself to Say."

[Music: Folk]

Michelin suit

DF: When you wish upon this particular star, it makes a huge difference who you are. Everyone who runs a restaurant desperately wishes for a Michelin Star. It is the greatest honour in the culinary world. Unless you hate it and everything it stands for. Writing about Ristorante Eo in Seoul, South Korea, the guide exults, quote: "Chef Eo Yun-gwon...delivers highly accomplished modern Italian cuisine through two set menus." Unquote. That restaurant has been in the Michelin Guide since 2016. And now, that chef is insisting it take him out. In a Facebook post, he writes, quote, "Including my restaurant Eo in the corrupt book is a defamation against the staff at Eo and its fans." Unquote. He says it doesn't list nearly enough restaurants in Seoul. He denounced its reviewers as "garbage critics". And he describes the Michelin Star as a "mirage" that chefs are "wasting away their soul" to pursue. Chef Eo says he demanded his restaurant be excluded this year. He was ignored. So now, he's suing. He wants a relative pittance in damages. What he really wants is for Michelin to leave him alone. Not sure he'll win the case: praise doesn't count as defamation. But it's a pretty bold statement that Chef Eo isn't intimidated by some fancy food philosophers. When it comes to Michelin, most chefs are star-struck — but he just wants his star struck.

[Music: Jazz]

Part three: Indiana University professor, Singularity dating app

Fort Mac fires insurance

DF: It's been three-and-a-half years since flames ripped through Fort McMurray, Alberta. Hundreds of homes were destroyed by a wildfire in May 2016. Others were filled with so much toxic smoke that their contents were unsalvageable. Nearly 26-thousand insurance claims were filed. And 190 residents are still waiting for theirs to be settled. Christine Burton is working on about 40 unresolved cases. This morning, the lawyer spoke with CBC host Mark Connolly about her case load — and why it's taking so long to get through these claims.

SOUNDCLIP

MARK CONNOLLY: Is there a case you're dealing with right now that stands up for you?

CHRISTINE BURTON: There's a number of cases that stand out. And I think one of the biggest frustrations is the inconsistency of how these claims have been dealt with by the insurance companies. For example, you have neighbours one house right by the others who are treated totally different — even though they may have suffered exactly the same damage in the fire.

MC: And how do insurance companies explain that?

CB: Oh, they don't [sighing]. I think that's the biggest frustration is that you know, people were expecting consistent treatment by the insurance companies, and it just didn't happen. You know, you might have fire damage to your roof. And one neighbour would get their roof replaced, and the others wouldn't. And the cost to the clients of trying to prove those damages has just been overwhelming. And meanwhile, most of them are out of their houses because of the chemical contamination only because their house has been so damaged it's not safe to live in. And yet, some have moved back and have had all their repairs done, and others haven't.

MC: And so what are the issues here? Like what is the process, and whereas kind of the hold up or the sort of bottleneck?

CB: Well, I think that's the problem. There is no consistent process. It depends very much on the individual adjuster you might get. Or on the individual policies that the insurance companies. There's just no consistency across the board.

DF: Christine Burton speaking with "Edmonton AM" host Mark Connolly. Ms. Burton is a lawyer who is helping dozens of families resolve insurance claims after the Fort McMurray wildfire in 2016. It's the most expensive insured disaster in Canadian history. A total of 25 thousand, 498 residential insurance claims were filed — and 190 remain open.

[Music: Ambient]

Indiana University professor

Guest: Mandy Novicoff

DF: They say his views are "vile," "bigoted" and "ignorant". But Indiana University won't fire Eric Rasmusen. Last week, the American professor came under fire, after several offensive social media posts about women, people of color, and gay men came to light. The school's provost, Laurel Robel, strongly condemned Mr. Rasmusen's views. But she said the university could not — and would not — fire him for the posts, citing the First Amendment. She did, however, announce concrete steps to ensure that students, as she put it, "not add the baggage of bigotry to their learning experience." Mandy Novicoff is a student at Indiana University, and the president of the school's Women in Business organization. We reached her in Kansas City, Missouri.

CO: Mandy, what is your reaction knowing that Professor Rasmussen will continue to teach at Indiana University?

MANDY NOVICOFF: I feel that because he does have this first amendment right, we can fire him. He does have the right to continue to teach. That doesn't mean that I feel good about it. Obviously, I don't agree with what he's saying.

CO: Can you just give us a sense of what he what he said and implied that you find most disturbing?

MN: Yes, he had reposted an article that women are destroying academia. And to me, this was the most shocking and disturbing — especially because essentially what he reposted discredits and isolates all of the women that he teaches and that he works with. So once this whole tweet went viral, a lot of people kind of went back, and he's been saying things of this sort since 2003.

CO: Like what are some of the other things that they have found that he's been saying?

MN: Right. I know in 2003 he made incredibly bigoted remarks about homosexuals and that they should not teach — which I found this to be incredibly disgusting.

Co: In fact, what he said was that gay men shouldn't be permitted to teach at the high school or elementary level because they are, quote, generally promiscuous. And, quote, should not be given the opportunity to satisfy their desires.

MN: Um-hm, he did say that.

CO: At the same time, he will continue. So how do you feel about knowing that that's the case?

MN: For me, I don't feel comfortable with it. And I personally would never take his class. It is unfortunate that he's choosing to use his first amendment right to say these incredibly offensive things. And it's disturbing that he chooses to use his power to create this sort of environment. But then again, he has a First Amendment right. So he can say those things. But I want to keep my First Amendment right as well.

CO: And being your First Amendment right to speak out against him.

MN: Um-hm.

CO: Is the university in a bit of a bind, do you think? Because it is a public institution, and so it has to abide by First Amendment, but at the same time, the university's provost Laurel Robel, she says, this quote, we cannot — nor would we — fire Professor Rasmussen for his posts as a private citizen as vile and stupid as they are because of the First Amendment. So it's a bit of a bind for the university, isn't it?

MN: Um-hm, absolutely. And I think that really this whole situation sparks a bigger conversation about the First Amendment with the onset of social media and the power of social media.

CO: What do you see as being the solution to it if someone is able to use their First Amendment rights to post things of this nature and say things and continue to teach?

MN: Yeah, I believe that for institutions and universities, they must guarantee this First Amendment right to everyone and honour that right. But beyond that, I believe that universities should be able to choose how they react the situations. So, for example, I'd like some of the things that IU has done to combat this issue because, I mean, school is supposed to be an environment where you feel comfortable, where you feel that you're able to grow. And I don't believe that what he's said is conducive to this sort of environment that the university tries to promote and that we try to promote in general. That's why I think it kind of sparks this whole conversation for the First Amendment, civil rights, and kind of where do you draw the line. Because if you fire him for saying one thing, then where would you draw the line for firing someone for saying something else?

CO: The provost is saying that even though the school won't fire him, they will take steps to ensure that students, quote, not add the baggage of bigotry to their learning experience. So what is she going to do to give the students an alternative?

MN: Right. So basically, they're not making his course a required course. And there's an alternative professor if students don't feel comfortable taking him as a professor — which I think is great because maybe one day no students will take him as a professor. So I think then the university would go from there.

CO: He's been told to use a double blind grading on assignments to ensure his prejudices are not reflected in his grading. Does that reassure you?

MN: It would make me feel better if he wasn't able to see the name on the test, so that I know that there's at least equality in the grading system.

CO: Is there any evidence though that Professor Rasmussen has shown any discrimination, or done anything within the class? Is it entirely in the arena of social media where he has made these offenses?

MN: Yeah, I believe it just kind of stays in the realm of social media.

CO: So if it's not in the classroom. If his views about women and gay people are not reflected in the way he teaches, or in the classroom, why does it matter?

MN: I think it's the general knowing that, for example, he reposted an article that said women are destroying academia. So then I would personally feel comfortable taking a class with him because he doesn't believe — or at least the article that he reposted — doesn't believe that I should be in that classroom.

CO: I understand you also have employed your First Amendment rights. Can you tell me about that?

MN: Yes. I wanted to disagree in the most inspiring and positive way possible. So representing Women in Business, me and my V.P. of Membership created these hoodies. They say “female genius” on the front, and “support women in academia” on the back. And I know people about hoodies from coast to coast. So, honestly, seeing the support and encouragement during this whole terrible situation has really given me hope.

CO: And this is based on the fact that the article that the professor retweeted, and his own comment “geniuses are overwhelmingly male”. You're responding to that material, right?

MN: Yes, exactly.

CCO: Mandy, it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

MN: Thank you so much.

CO: Bye.

MN: Bye.

DF: Mandy Novicoff is a student at Indiana University, and the president of the school's Women in Business organization. We reached her in Kansas City, Missouri.

[Music: Ambient]

BoJo laughing

DF: The BBC has learned that laughter is no laughing matter — at least when it comes to Boris Johnson, and the truth. On Friday night, Britain's Conservative leader took part in a leaders' debate on the BBC. Here's what happened when one audience member asked Mr. Johnson a question.

SOUNDCLIP

AUDIENCE: How important is it for someone in your position to always tell the truth?

[Sound: Laughing and clapping]

DF: You probably noted the audience responded to that question first with laughter, then applause. In case you haven't been paying close attention to Mr. Johnson's career — there was a reason for that reaction. Boris Johnson lies regularly. And, if the enormous lead his party has in the polls is an indication, with little consequence. But when the BBC rebroadcast that clip on the news the next day, this is what that debate exchange sounded like:

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: While the Prime Minister faced questions on trust.

AUDIENCE: How important is it for someone in your position to always tell the truth?

BORIS JOHNSON: I think it’s absolutely vital. And I think that the issue of trust in politics is central to this election.

DF: At least one listener noticed the laughter had been edited out. And Nick Flaks let Twitter know about it. Today, the BBC admitted it made a mistake in cutting out the laughs, saying it removed the 1-point-5 seconds in question for timing reasons. After all, the truth, as Mr. Johnson says, is vital.

[Music: Instrumental]

FOA ISIS Netherlands families

DF: For hundreds of children whose parents joined ISIS, a camp in northern Syria is the only home they've ever known. A handful of European countries are trying to change that. They've started bringing back the sons and daughters of citizens who travelled to Syria to fight with the extremist group. But the Netherlands won't be joining those countries. Last week, an appeal court overturned a lower court's decision to repatriate 56 Dutch children detained in Kurdish-run camps. Most of them are six years old or younger. Earlier this month, we spoke with a lawyer representing these families. From our archives, here is part of Andre Seebregts's conversation with As It Happens guest host, about why these children should be brought home to the Netherlands — and what happens to their mothers.

SOUNDCLIP

HM: Mr. Seebregts the court called the conditions these children are living in "a serious and acute emergency situation." What is life like for these children right now?

ANDRE SEEBREGTS: Hundreds of children have died in the last year and a half in these camps. A lot of children have died because of the cold, the lack of medicine. And one of the major problems right now is there's a lot of violence. There are many women there who are very pro-ISIS still. And they have killed other women who are trying to get back to the west. They have burned other people's tents. There are a lot of threats. And especially the women who were trying to get back to their home countries are very scared.

HM: The court, though, did not require the Netherlands to accept those women -- those mothers back, rather the children themselves. Do you expect that the mothers will return as well?

AS: I do. I do. What the court said is that the children have the right to come back to the Netherlands, to be picked up -- but that the mothers do not have that right. But the court also said that to bring back the children if it is necessary to also bring back the mothers then the mothers also have to be brought back. Now, what you need to know is that these women and children are in Kurdish camps. And that the Kurds have said time and time again that they are only willing to give back the children if the mothers are also taken. The Kurds don't want these women to be left behind because if not they'll never be able to get rid of these women.

HM: So if the women themselves also returned to the Netherlands, what will happen to them?

AS: They will be arrested immediately. They will be placed in a terrorism department in one of the prisons. They will be criminally prosecuted. Most probably they'll get a sentence of about two years if there is not that much evidence that they use violence themselves. And after they're set free, they'll have an ankle bracelet for about three years. They won't be allowed to contact quite a few people for three years. There are places where they won't be allowed to go -- like airports. So they'll be very strictly monitored after they've been set free.

DF: From our archives, that is part of lawyer Andre Seebregts's conversation with Carol about a Dutch court ordering the Netherlands to repatriate 56 children whose mothers joined ISIS. The government appealed that decision — and won. While the Netherlands won't be taking back these children, the UK has already begun. On Friday, the first group of orphaned British children arrived in London from Syria.

[Music: Sombre]

Singularity dating app

Guest: Aaron Smith

DF: By now, most of us know at least one happy couple that met through an online dating app. But chances are we know far more people who have had ... less than positive experiences with the likes of Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Grindr, and OkCupid. Aaron Smith certainly knows what that's like.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Online dating is terrible, and getting more nonsensical with each passing year. Sure, you can meet people the old-fashioned way by going outside, but that feels like a lot of work. So instead, you navigate this bleak dystopian hell escape sifting through the dregs of humanity through your smartphone, while each day brings you closer to the cold hard hands of death.

SPEAKER TWO: There's got to be a better way.

SPEAKER THREE: Well, there isn't. But let's pretend. Introducing Singularity.

DF: Singularity is a dating app designed by Aaron Smith. Featuring: Aaron Smith. That's right, he's the only man on Singularity. But he hopes that will make the experience better for everyone involved. We reached Mr. Smith in Greensborough, North Carolina.

CO: So, Aaron, let me get this straight, you are the only guy on this dating app?

AARON SMITH: Yes.

CO: Okay. How does that work?

AS: Well, I mean, I just designed it that way to begin with.

CO: Obviously [laughing]

AS: Yeah, I figure if I'm the only person on there, then it really saves you lots of time because you don't have to go swiping through an endless amount of guys trying to figure out are you compatible. It's all right there for you.

CO: So you did this to help the women?

AS: Oh, no, no, no, this is this is for my benefit. What are you talking about [CO laughs]. No, no, the whole thing was a couple of months ago, you know, I'd been on a couple of dates from online. And it wasn’t really working out. I was just kind of bummed out about it. So one day, I had an idea for a sketch about like a dating app in which I'm the only option. It's me or nothing — which is a ridiculous idea on its face. It's not gonna help anyone at all. But that was kind of the joke like, you know, what are you supposed to do in these situations? [CO giggles] A buddy of mine from college is a web developer. I’m like Dude, can you help me like actually make this app? So we spent a couple months working on it. It could have been done in like a week or two if we weren't so like lazy and unmotivated [giggle]. But yeah, so we put together the app, and then I shot the commercial for it. But there is a functional web app out there on the Internet.

CO: Now, if anyone who goes on the Singularity dating app, which is just about you. But there is more than one image, right? So tell us as they swipe sideways to see what else is there, what do they see?

AS: Yeah, there's ten total profiles. So the first six are just me in different you know different profile descriptions and different profile pictures. And then after a while, if that Aaron guy's not doing it for you, there's me in disguises. There's Corey, who is an acoustic singer-songwriter, who loves trash beer. There's a Jeremy, who is trying to make his money through pyramid schemes. There's me again with a dog. And the last profiles this guy Artyom, who's me posing as a Russian troll farm operative, posing as an American. I got it from a video game.

CO: Okay, so Corey, Jeremy, Artyom, and guy with a dog that's just you again.

AS: Yeah, it's Aaron again is the name.

CO: Variations on Aaron. So, okay, I guess the most important question. What success has your app had?

AS: Well, like in the last 24 hours since this whole thing’s really been spreading, I've been getting friend requests from random people on Facebook. Some I have mutual friends with. Some I don't. So, I mean, I haven't actually met anyone like after launching it or anything.

CO: [laughing] Okay, so you're getting people contacting you. Like us getting interviews, right?

AS: Probably with this one, yeah.

CO: But you have not had a single date from your Singularity dating app.

AS: No. I mean, I think with the trajectory of this thing, it's possible that I might get a date out of it, who knows. But, I mean, I'm just glad that everyone was kind of in on the gag. That's assuming they know it's a joke to begin with.

CO: Okay, but now you have been trying to date online, right? You have tried all these other apps. And so what's that been like?

AS: It's one of those things where it’s like you don't really know how much chemistry you have with someone until you meet the person. Because even if you vibe really well just by texting back and forth and so on, there's always something that's missing. Like the face-to-face kind of communication and see like how you're vibing together, you know? You can't really know how well that's going to work until you meet in-person. So I've gone on a lot of dates where it seems like oh yeah, this person may be really cool. And then you get there and then we've got like nothing substantial in common. Or, you know, there's just not a spark. And, you know, it's no one's fault. It’s just it is what it is. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm an extrovert. I go places all the time. I've got lots of friends I'll hang out with people, go to live music shows, and stuff. I meet new people all the time. But it's like it’s just not really happening.

CO: [laughing] Okay, so you've now put out your own app. I know you're joking, but do you think that actually would help if people put out their own apps?

AS: Well, if everyone had their own individual app, oh no, it kind of reminds me of how like streaming services it used to be like just Netflix. And now you've got Netflix, and Hulu, and Disney Plus, and HBO Max. That’s just a nightmare for the consumer. So it's like why would a dating app for like one for every person work? [CO laughs] It's just an abject nightmare.

CO: You know that this show, As It Happens, that you're on right now, it's 52 years old.

AS: Yeah, I saw that.

CO: Back in the 1970s, we actually had a segment called The Lonely Hearts Club. And we actually got couples together. We had successful matchmaking on this program.

AS: Oh wow!

CO: So if you want to make a pitch here, I can't promise you anything, but go for it.

AS: Okay. If you want a green card, then again, no, okay. This isn't going well. Um, if you're like a socially-anxious cat lady that likes Harry Potter and video games, and doesn't like to go outside. Well, statistically, I work well with those. So maybe that's… I don't know.

CO: [laughing] All right, Aaron that was great. We'll let you know.

AS: It was technically something.

CO: Yes. Yes. We’ll let you know. It's good to talk to you. Thanks.

AS: Yeah. www.singularitydating.com

CO: Word is out. Thank you.

AS: Thanks so much.

CO: Bye.

DF: You heard the man. If you like cats, Harry Potter, and videogames, give us a call. And maybe we'll give Aaron Smith a call to let him know. In the meantime, you can read more about Mr. Smith and his new dating app on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Rock]

Missing bunny

DF: It's a common sight on social media — people looking for help finding a cherished stuffed animal, that a child may have dropped in a park. That's sort of what happened to Victoria and her dad, Jim Maginnis, earlier this month — except her beloved stuffed rabbit, named "Bunny", was dropped out of a plane — a vintage World War Two Lancaster bomber, which was flying above Burlington, Ontario. Mr. Maginnis is squadron leader in the Royal Air Force in the UK. While he was visiting, the two took a flight, courtesy of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum. Along with Bunny, who had turned into a bit of a good luck charm for the family. But then Bunny took an unscheduled flight — out of the plane's gun turret, and straight down. Two weeks later, Kevin Vanderwal was doing some HVAC work on the roof of a long-term care home in Burlington. Here he is, talking with Dan Taekema of CBC Hamilton.

SOUNDCLIP

KEVIN VANDERWAL: We just kind of walked on the roof to do the service, and the first unit we just walked past the bunny is sitting on the ductwork — sitting right there on the unit. It was covered in snow, but actually, you know what? It was sitting upright, almost looking at us. It was kind of creepy. So my co-worker, Rob Pierce, he said, Dude, he says that's the bunny from the Lancaster. So as soon as he said that, we looked it up online. And sure enough, it was the exact picture of that bunny. So as soon as we figured that out, we went to the staff at the home there and let him know like, you know what? We just found this on the roof. The odds of finding that there were just like a million-to-one because it's all surrounded by bush. Like there's nothing around. It’s just one of those things where it’s right place right time, right? Keeping it inside right now until the owner comes and picks her up on the weekend.

DF: Kevin Vanderwal is a technician for a heating and air conditioning company. He helped Victoria Maginnis find her cherished stuffed bunny, "Bunny", after it took an unscheduled tumble out of a World War Two Lancaster Bomber in Burlington, Ontario.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 25, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This