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 December 12, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening, I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

CH: Tonight:

CO: Swift, but not Scheer. The announcement that federal Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer was resigning came abruptly today — but exactly why he resigned isn't so clear-cut.

CH: Soldiers of misfortune. For years, members of the U.S. military who have suffered from malpractice in military hospitals have been unable to seek compensation — but that is about to change.

CO: Holy See... what? The Vatican makes an annual appeal to observant Catholics to open their wallets to help the needy — but a Wall Street Journal investigation reveals that most of the funds are used to pay down the Church's deficit.

CH: Cuisine Ã la art. An Ottawa restaurateur transforms his collection of Chinese takeout menus into stylized uniforms — reminiscent of those traditionally worn by eatery wait staff.

CO: Sometimes you're a big deal, sometimes you're a bug. Author Ian McEwan's novella "The Cockroach" flips the script on Kafka's story of a man who becomes an insect — this time, the roach becomes the British P.M.

CH: And...he tried to give them the "mum" steer. When a Brazilian woman fails her driving test three times, her son tries to impress on the examiners that he is she — by taking the exam as, her.

CH: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that knows sometimes Mother is a necessity for invention.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Scheer resigns, Vatican donations

Scheer resigns

Guest: Michael Barrett

CH: Andrew Scheer is stepping down — after facing weeks of criticism around his leadership. But according to the Conservative Party Leader, the move had everything to do with family.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW SCHEER: This was a decision after many long, hard conversations with friends and family over the past two months since the election campaign. This has been an incredible challenge for our family to keep up with the pace that is required to lead a caucus and a party into a general election. My wife, Jill, has been absolutely heroic.

[Sound: Clapping and a cheer of here, here.]

AS: But in order to chart the course ahead, this party, this movement, needs someone who can give 100 per cent to the efforts. And after some conversations with my kids, my loved ones, I felt it was time to put my family first.

CH: Mr. Scheer, speaking in the House of Commons today. Mr. Scheer's office told CBC his resignation has nothing to do with another story that emerged today — that the Conservative party was paying some of the costs related to private school tuition for Mr. Scheer's children. The Conservative Party's executive director told CBC today, that the party agreed to pay the difference of tuition costs between Saskatchewan and Ottawa — and that, quote, "all proper procedures were followed." Unquote. Michael Barrett is a Conservative MP, and was a vocal supporter of Andrew Scheer's leadership. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Barrett, is Andrew Scheer's resignation today a good move for the Conservative Party?

MICHAEL BARRETT: You know, I think Andrew Scheer and his family decided that it was a good move for their family. And I think that that's the most important thing that we need to keep in mind. This job can be all-consuming. And we need to remember that we need to take care of ourselves and take care of our family. And I'm glad after his service to the party and with his continuing service that he's keeping that in mind.

CO: All right. But so you say that’s the priority. But it's a huge issue as well the fate of the party. Again, I'll ask do you think it's a smart move for your party?

MB: I think that members made a very smart decision in electing Andrew Scheer as our leader. And Canadians showed their confidence in our party by returning us to Ottawa with more seats after the last election. And I was vocal in support of our leader because that's who our members picked to represent our party. And Andrew had my support leading up to the April convention — and he has my support now until a new leader is selected. And whomever the members choose to be our leader, that's who I support. And our members — like voters — are very smart and we'll make the best decision.

CO: You know that the speculation is is that his resignation comes as a direct result of revelations that he was using Conservative Party money to pay for his children's private schooling. What do you say to that?

MB: There's a statement from the executive director of the Conservative Party that — as is the case with leaders of political parties — that they mitigate the added expenses of being a leader and moving your family to Ottawa from their constituency. And I think the differential between the costs for education for the Scheer family was the amount in question. And that was part of the offer made by the party and approved by the appropriate parties. And so if that is the case — as has been stated by the executive director — then I can't imagine why that would influence his decision.

CO: Do you think that's an appropriate use of Conservative Party funds?

MB: I think that's a decision for the Conservative Fund and for the executive director — and a conversation to have with whoever is the next leader of the party.

CO: If it was Justin Trudeau who’d done that, how would you respond?

MB: We don't know what the expenses are that are being paid for the leader of any of the other parties. Certainly, when you're the prime minister — when you're in government — more of the expenses for your family are covered by virtue of holding that office. But I think it's important that we recognize the pressure both emotionally, but also financially that come with holding public office. And it's definitely a conversation that we can have going forward.

CO: Just on the weekend, you and other Conservatives started what you call the grassroots movement called “Stand With Scheer”.

MB: Yes.

CO: So you felt very strongly that this was something that was going to remain. So how surprised are you that within days, your movement is moot — it's pointless?

MB: You know, I would say that it's very much, not pointless. And that what we demonstrated, what members of Caucus demonstrated, and we had lots of folks lined up to continue to add to the momentum that we were building to support our leader that was elected by members. And we have a process in place as a party that has an automatic leadership review following an election where we don't form government. And it's really important that we let our members make the decisions about who our leader is and not talking heads in the media or in the newspapers. And so that's really the effort that's important. And until Andrew hands the reins over to the leader that is elected by our members, he has my full support. And when we elect a new leader, I will stand with them. And if that means that we buy a domain and start a Twitter account for them, we'll do that to.

CO: I mean, you mentioned the talking heads, I think what you called them on the weekend: elite Toronto consultants. What's the message you'd like to send?

MB: My message to anyone who spoke in the media about their dissatisfaction with our performance is that those conversations are really important to have. But I think we need to have them behind closed doors and not on the front pages. Because it's important as an organization — as a political party — that we don't have public disagreements.

CO: Do you think those elite Toronto consultants drove Andrew Scheer out of office?

MB: I think that Andrew made a decision to make sure that he was part of a process that had a united Conservative Party going into the next election to defeat Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. And I don't imagine there's any one thing in particular or any one person in particular that led him to make that decision. It was one that was made with his family. And I have tremendous respect for the service that they've given to our party and to Canadians. And I have a lot of time for the Scheer family.

CO: Yeah, just finally, I mean, one of the main reasons why people believe Mr. Scheer failed was because of his position on social issues. Do you think that of Mr. Scheer had simply apologized for remarks he'd made about gay marriage, or said that he would attend the next Pride parade, do you think he could have turned it around?

MB: You know, it's obviously a subject that people have talked about and people will dissect and analyze going forward. And my experience — my interactions — with Andrew have led me to believe that he wanted to demonstrate to people that he is a man of action and not just of words. And that he believes that what we have put forward in terms of policy, in terms of respecting the rights of all Canadians, I think that he hoped that that would demonstrate to Canadians that their equality…

CO: Woah, woah, but you over and over again, he was simply asked do you want to just say something now? Just speak up, make a statement in support of gay marriage, make a statement in support of those rights, and he didn't he. He turned that opportunity down over and over again. It wasn't a small thing, was it? So why didn't he do that?

MB: I'm not sure. And I suppose that when framed that way, it would be a good question for the next opportunity that you have to have Mr. Shceer on your program.

CO: Do you think he should have?

MB: I guess that at this point, we weren't successful in the election and we're still looking forward to the outcome of John Baird's report. And I'm sure if that is a message from the people that Mr. Baird has talked with, I'm sure that that's something that looking back that we'll know that it should have happened. And going forward, it's something that needs to.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Barrett, thank you.

MB: Yeah, a pleasure. Thanks.

CH: Michael Barrett is a Conservative MP. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Hard out to next interview]

Scheer resigns: Kory Teneycke

Guest: Kory Teneycke

CH: Unlike Mr. Barrett, Kory Teneycke has not been Mr. Scheer's biggest fan lately. He's the former director of communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. We reached Mr. Teneycke in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Teneycke, why did Andrew Scheer resign today?

KORY TENEYCKE: Well, I think he resigned because of a rather damaging report was about to be released about him accepting payments from the party to cover private school tuition for his children.

CO: And what can you tell us about that?

KT: Well, it's something that's been circulating in Ottawa for a few weeks now with investigative reporters looking into it. And I think they made the determination that was going to be impossible to prevent the story from being published. And I think to try to pre-empt that, Mr. Scheer stepped down.

CO: How much money are we talking about here?

KT: Well, I think the party has yet to actually clarify exactly what amount of money. They're trying to make it sound like it's something very routine, but I must tell you, well, it's routine for party leaders to expense things like clothing or travel that are related to one's party leader activities. It's not normal for private school tuition for your children. It's in no way related to your duties as leader of the party. So I think it's disconcerting to find out that there's a secret slush fund subsidizing the leader's lifestyle.

CO: And where was this secret slush fund coming out of, what fund was it coming from?

KT: Well, it would be out of the Conservative Party of Canada’s Fund. So it's people making donations to the party. It goes to the Conservative party fund. The party executive director saying it’s a package of things. And they're trying to make it all sound standard. But if you were a CEO of one of the big banks in Canada, your compensation package doesn't include private school tuition for your children. Like, this is something that is not a part of compensation packages essentially for anybody in this country.

CO: These are allegations, is there evidence that it's true?

KT: Well, I think there is a partial admission by the party that it's true. But I think, you know, the proper thing for Andrew to do is to step down as party leader and allow a caucus to elect an interim leader to have some leadership renewal in the party apparatus itself.

CO: We just spoke with Conservative MP Michael Barratt, who is among those who supports — and has supported — Mr. Scheer. He said that the reason why Mr. Scheer stepped down was because of his family. That among many things, it was too difficult for him, and that they didn't appreciate the kind of bruising they took. What do you say to that?

KT: Well, I say that MP that your reference thing was in a very fighting spirit just a couple days ago when he was launching a website — a fake grassroots website — to support Andrew Shearer's leadership. And was telling anyone who would listen to him that Andrew would be staying on indefinitely as leader. So I think the notion that this was some long-planned thing is absurd.

CO: He said that while his website was called “Stand With Scheer”. It was in opposition to your site — which was “Conservative Victory”. And that he was trying to stand up to you. He regarded you and others as these Toronto elites who were pushing him around.

KT: Well, I don't know who he’s referring to for Toronto elites. But myself, I'm from Young, Saskatchewan, and I don't think I've ever been called from Toronto or an elite. I think last time we were talking, I was running the Sun News Network — which as you know was the bastion of Laurentian elitism in Canada. It's really silly. This this is a young MP. I don't know who he is. I spent 28 years in the party, and my loyalty is to the party, and having a Conservative Party that can win elections. That’s what my interest is in.

CO: He said that in our interview that he would have preferred that folks like you shared your concerns that you have about Mr. Scheer behind closed doors. That airing the laundry in public like that wasn't helpful, and that he regrets that you did that.

KT: I guess he's entitled to his opinion. But I'm not really going to take a lot of advice from some rookie MP.

CO: How then do you knit this party together? Given that there's all this this dissent and division, and that this big tent is pretty stretched from one end of the political spectrum to the other, how do you pull that together?

KT: There'll be many different competing views about what the right way is to move forward for the party. I think there'll be a vigorous debate. I think public debate is how we get the best ideas and the best leaders. And so I don't think we should shy away from that process. I think we should walk towards it.

CO: But you supported Maxime Bernier in the campaign that Andrew Scheer won.

KT: Yeah, and when Andrew Scheer won, I happily supported Andrew Scheer.

CO: But is there a better roster of candidates you're going to have than the ones that you had?

KT: Oh, I think for sure there'll be a better roster of candidates. In the last leadership race, basically the biggest names didn't show up. Jason Kenney chose to move to Alberta politics. Brad Wall decided not to run. Peter MacKay decided not to run.

CO: Do you think they will be in the next one?

KT: I don't know. We'll seeC

CO: There's an article you wrote in August 2018, you said, the headline is “Canada Needs Prime Minister Andrew Scheer”. And you wrote about what an intelligent, articulate man. You said Prime Minister Andre Scheer would be good for Canada and Conservatives of every stripe. And we should all come together to help make it happen. Were you wrong?

KT: No, that was my belief and my wish. What we got under Andrew's leadership was something far less than that, I think. It's a difficult process to be selected as a party leader. It's a very difficult job when you're there. If you don't succeed, you have to make way for someone else. And I think that's just true for Andrew in this case. I think that should be true after every unsuccessful election campaign. I mean, Carol, after all, if you were MP in any riding in this country and you did not win in the general election, you're not entitled to just be the candidate for the party again. You have to run again in a nomination again. And even if you are successful, you have to run it in nomination again.

CO: Right, but you wanted Andrew Scheer to step down long before these revelations today about the allegations about the tuition.

KT: Yeah, I wanted him to step down after he lost the election.

CO: But at one point, you thought he was going to be a great prime minister. But you were wrong then, so are you wrong now?

KT: I'm wrong at least twice a day. [CO gasps a little] But I’m not wrong about this.

CO: Mr. Teneycke, thank you.

KT: Thanks.

CH: Kory Teneycke is the former director of communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. We reached him in Ottawa. For more on this story — go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Horns!]

Vatican donations

Guest: Frank Rocca

CH: Every year, Catholics around the world are asked to open their wallets and give generously to a charitable appeal called "Peter's Pence". And they do. It's a fund controlled directly by the Pope. It brings in more than $72-million dollars a year. But an investigation by the Wall Street Journal has revealed that as little as ten per cent of the money raised in recent years ever goes to the needy. Francis Rocca — who also goes by Frank — is the Wall Street Journal's Vatican correspondent. We reached him in Rome.

CO: Frank, when the proverbial hat comes around in churches for Peter's Pence, what kind of causes are Catholics being told that money is going to?

FRANK ROCCA: Well, overwhelmingly, the message is that this is going to help the needy, the poor, victims of typhoons, other natural disasters. If you look on the official Vatican website for the collection, that's clearly the message for all of the illustrations, almost all the language. If you read very, very carefully between the lines, you might understand that legally, the Pope can do whatever he wants with this. But that's not really the message at all.

CO: And so the website explicitly says that this is a gesture of charity, and an invitation to pay attention, to be near to new forms of poverty and fragility, right? That's what basically it's claiming.

FR: Right, and that's typical of the language. There’s more along those lines.

CO: So you found that only ten per cent is being used to support charitable works. Where is the rest going?

FR: Well, that's been true at least of the last five years. Two-thirds has been going to plug the deficit in the Holy See. This is a deficit in the operations of the central administration of the Catholic Church, and the Pope's diplomatic network around the world — which has been running an increasing deficit in recent years due to rising wage costs and unsuccessful investments and inefficiencies.

CO: Just how bad are the Vatican's finances that they need to rely on charitable donations to support their budget?

FR: Well, I mean the Holy See — which is, again, the administrative part — doesn't make money. So it has to find it somewhere if investments have not been so successful in recent years. So that's part of the impact. Because the Vatican bank is able to give less, the other investments and other entities in the Vatican have just been doing poorly. And they haven't enacted the kind of reforms that Pope Francis was elected to enact by the cardinals in 2013.

CO: How large is the Vatican's deficit?

FR: Well, last year, it was over 70 million euro — which was a big leap from the year before — which was over 30 million. So it was a huge leap. Part of that was a one-time write-off of a bad loan of 30 million Euro. But, still, it went up into the 40s even exclusive of that. So it's really rising. And the Pope himself wrote to cardinals earlier this year and said this is an urgent matter. This could have grave impacts on the future of the Holy See, he said that.

CO: How has the Pope responded? What is he saying? How does he justify that this money is being used overwhelmingly to pay for budget needs?

FR: He hasn't responded. The Vatican didn't respond to our request for comment. And at this point, I don't know that they will. I think what you do hear unofficially from people is some people say, well, he has every legal right to do it. This is a longstanding tradition this collection. And it's meant under church law for the Pope to use in his ministry in any way he deems fit. And that's true. The problem is, again, it's about misleading advertising in this case. It's not about the law. So other people will privately say, yeah, we've got to change that. Because this is incoherent, it's inconsistent, and we're misleading people.

CO: They are using that money for charitable works though, aren’t they? I mean, there was the earthquake in Albania; this cyclone in southeastern Africa, the money does go to help people, does it not?

FR: About ten per cent every year, and over the last five years. So if they raised over 50 million euro last year and this, they spent 10 per cent, so that would be over five-million. Yeah, it's money. It's certainly, I’m sure appreciated by the people who get it. The question is only that it's the vast majority of what you give, or at least this has been the case in recent years of what you give, isn't going where you think it is.

CO: But these revelations come at a time when Pope Francis said he was going to clean up the Vatican expenses. When he came in 2013, as you know, issues about the Vatican Bank, issues of all kinds of corruption, money, big stories, mysteries all around, he was going to clear that up. So what efforts has he put in to doing that?

FR: Well, we're in the seventh year of a financial reform — a very ambitious one. He had a mandate, that's true, from the cardinals that elected in 2013 — because there had been a bunch of scandals preceding. And so when the new Pope was elected, everyone said, oh, he has to deal with it. So he had that coming in as his mandate. And he did create a number of institutions and entities. But things have really seemed to halt or even slid back in recent times. I mean, he only after a two-and-half-year hiatus, he finally replaced Cardinal George Pell — who is the head of the finance office who's been convicted of child sex abuse in in Australia. He finally filled that position, it was vacant. The position of the auditor general is still vacant more than two-and-a-half-years after the first person to hold that job resigned. He recently did refuse to renew the term of the top anti-money laundering watchdog. And the efficacy of that office has been thrown into doubt by the Pope himself — who criticized it. It's hard to avoid the impression that things are really sort of sliding back to the bad old days before the reforms began.

CO: And in addition to all of that, I mean, Pope Francis chose that name to be named for Francis of Assisi — because he was going to help the poor. That he was going to dedicate the Vatican's work to the poorest on earth. And so is it all the more egregious I guess that so little gets spent on the poor that Pope Francis is the guy in charge?

FR: Well, it is particularly certainly a problem for him given that he has put such an emphasis on that. Of course, the church has always been involved in that in charitable works. But he's put such an emphasis on poverty. In the first stages of his pontificacy, he said I want a poor church for the poor. And, of course, he himself lives austerely as we know, and rides a small car, and lives in a two-room apartment, and so forth. And so he himself is not living luxuriously. Yeah, and he has done some very high-profile gestures toward the homeless in Rome, for example, having meals with them, and giving them showers, and medical care, and so forth. So there is stuff going on, but it is true that this fund — which is his principal charitable appeal — because of the financial problems and the Holy See, isn't going to that purpose.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Frank, thanks so much.

FR: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

CH: Francis Rocca is the Wall Street Journal's Vatican correspondent. We reached him in Rome.

[Music: Ambient]

Mom driving test

CH: Heitor Schiave's mother drove him to attempt a daring scheme. She didn't literally drive him, though. She couldn't — she had just failed her driving test for the third time. And she was very upset about it. So her son hatched a plan — one that would require him to really use his head. To think, yes, but also to convincingly sport a wig. On the day of the driving test, in Nova Mutum Parana, Brazil, he didn't just try to make a good impression. He tried to do a good impression. The 43-year-old man showed up in a floral blouse, a patterned skirt, and a pretty decent wig — claiming to be his own 60-year-old mother. And the driving instructor — who says she wasn't paying very close attention at first — bought it — until she didn't. Look, his mother just wanted to be able to drive. And maybe not getting her license put her in a tight spot. So her son was just trying to bail her out. Unfortunately, now someone's had to bail him out. He was arrested, and charged with fraud. Now, it’s hard not to think this was an extremely kind thing to do, also, extremely misguided. But who knows — maybe his dressing up as his mother will turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

[Music: Elevator music]

Part two: U.S. military suits, Chinese menu artist

U.S. military suits

Guest: Walter Daniel

CH: Lieutenant Rudolph Feres was a hero. On D-Day, he parachuted into Normandy. From there, he fought right on through to the Battle of the Bulge — and victory. Two years later, he died. At home — in a barracks fire in northern New York. His wife sued the army. But the Supreme Court ruled against her — and established a precedent that came to be known by her husband's name. For decades since, the Feres doctrine has made it virtually impossible to sue the government over injuries sustained by active-duty military members. But yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill that makes it possible for families to seek compensation — at least in cases of medical malpractice in military hospitals. For Walter Daniel, that would have meant a lot. He's a retired Coast Guard member whose wife Rebekah died during childbirth at the Naval Hospital where she worked in 2014. We reached Walter Daniel in Dublin, California.

CO: Walter, what does it mean for you that the House has passed this bill?

WALTER DANIEL: I think it's a great step in the right direction for our country and our service members. I think through my case — and cases in the past — we have gained attention on this on the Feres Doctrine. And I think it's a step in the right direction. I look forward to Congress and our judicial system ultimately overturning Feres. But overall, it's a good first step.

CO: I'm going to ask you more about the Feres Doctrine in a moment. Cut can we just ask you about the night that your wife, Rebekah, died? What has the naval hospital where she worked, what have they told you about what happened?

WD: They haven't told me anything. And that's the sad part of there. In my opinion, in the military medical system, there's a lack of transparency and accountability. So I haven't gotten any details about what happened that evening.

CO: What’s your understanding of what went wrong?

WD: I used an independent doctor to review the medical records. Basically, Lieutenant Rebekah Daniel — my wife — she bled to death while giving birth to our daughter. There was several protocols that were missed by the personnel there at Naval Hospital Bremerton. And, in my opinion, if those protocols were followed, she'd be alive today.

CO: But basically, you became a widower only hours after you became a father?

WD: Yes.

CO: And so if you were in another kind of hospital, would you have been able to sue for malpractice?

WD: Absolutely. So if we were at a standard hospital not on a military base, we would have been able to file suit against that hospital for medical malpractice. Now, under the Feres Doctrine, military medical personnel are exempt from any tort claims or any malpractice lawsuits. So that's the crux of what feres is about.

CO: And I guess had you heard of the Feres Doctrine before this happened?

WD: No, I hadn't.

CO: And what do you understand that it does? In a nutshell, can you explain it to us?

WD: In a nutshell, it protects medical folks — doctors, nurses, medical assistants — from being seen by members of the military or their estates. So, for example, if a military member goes for an ankle surgery, and the doctor operates on the wrong ankle, that person cannot sue that doctor or that medical facility — which is a tragedy. The military members are the ones that defend our country and provide freedom. And so the fact that they can't, in my opinion, receive the best care is an absolute shame. And it should be corrected.

CO: It goes further than that though, doesn't it, the Feres Doctrine? It includes that you can't for anything that happened — including what happened to Lieutenant Rudolf Feres himself, who died in this fire — that his wife discovered — this back in the 1940s — that he couldn't sue as she would have been able to do if he had been employed in some other capacity. She couldn't sue for what had happened to him, right?

WD: Absolutely. And I would say a lot of the defence from the military side is that there is a Veterans Administration Compensation Program — which allows for certain benefits. But it's not about the benefits or the money. It's about the accountability. And it's also about providing transparency to improve the medical facilities and the personnel that work in them.

CO: So you decided you were going to do something after what happened to your wife, after your wife died. What did you pursue?

WD: I tried to basically get Feres overturned. And we went the route through circuit court — and ultimately to the Supreme Court — where our request was denied. So I contacted a lawyer right after Rebekah’s death, and tried to see what legal action we could take. And luckily, we had a law firm that was willing to take it on. But ultimately, we weren't successful in overturning Feres — or even make an exemption to Feres. We were trying to make an exemption to include procedures that happen at military hospitals in the United States.

CO: How difficult was it for you even to get a lawyer that would deal with the case, given that there had never been any success challenging the Feres Doctrine in the United States?

WD: It was very difficult. I talked to a few lawyers around that time, and they just they didn't want to take it on because they knew that it was a long shot. By luck, we found a legal team in Seattle that they were willing to take it on. And I really appreciate their efforts. And I think based on some of the attention our case got now we're starting to see some changes in the legislation.

CO: And tell us about that. This is not a complete cancelling of the Feres Doctrine. What has actually been accomplished at this point?

WD: I haven’t actually read the bill, but I think there is a small exemption in there where if it's within two years, you can claim medical malpractice up to a certain dollar amount. So it's a step. I mean, this is a huge change that affects everybody in the military healthcare system. So I think it's a great first step. The conversation is open. But ultimately, I hope, and I believe, that Feres will be overturned one day, and this is just a small step in that direction.

CO: Does the bill though allow you to seek compensation now?

WD: I don't think so. I think it's only for within a two-year window. And my wife died in 2014.

CO: And it allows for compensation in cases of medical malpractice, but still not covering things like what happened to Lieutenant Rudolf Feres back in 1947 in that barracks fire.

WD: Right, that's the way I understand it.

CO: And do you think that will you still be active trying to get that law changed?

WD: Yes, I've worked with a few advocacy groups. So I'm definitely a supporter of it. And I will help any way I can.

CO: How's your daughter doing?

WD: She's doing great. She's living a five-year-old life. She's very active in swimming and gymnastics. And she's very happy. So although, obviously, it was a tragic event, we’re people of faith, and we believe that everything works out in his timing. And maybe this is a small step in the right direction. And when you have tragedies, you try to find purpose. And I think this legislation was a little glimmer of hope or purpose for what happened on that night.

CO: Walter, thank you so much for speaking with us.

WD: Thank you.

CH: Walter Daniel is a Retired U.S.Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander — whose wife, Rebekah Daniel, died at a military hospital in 2014. We reached him in Dublin, California.

[Music: Jazz]

FTR: Racism flight follow-up

CH: Dave Beck and Thomas Scott had a lot to say on a recent flight in Newfoundland — most of it consisting of racist and derogatory comments. But now they're speaking out again — this time to apologize. As we told you earlier this week, Indigenous passengers — including former MP Peter Penashue — were shocked and hurt by the men's comments on a PAL Airlines flight. Reaction to those comments has been swift. First, the airline banned both men — then they lost their jobs, after their employer lost a contract because of their bad behaviour. Dave Beck spoke to CBC about what happened. Here's part of what he had to say, for the record.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVE BECK: it's been a nightmare for myself and my family. I've been called everything from dirt, to a white supremacist. Can't eat. Can't sleep. I've lost everything. I'm losing everything. I lost my job. There's not much else to say about that right now.

TERRY ROBERTS: This incident on the plane, can you explain yourself?

DB: I was intoxicated. I know that's no excuse for the remarks I made — my words that hurt so many people — especially Indigenous people. I'm not a racist. I'm culturally uneducated, culturally illiterate. I did say the word “Eskimo”. I'll admit that. I didn't even know that was a racist term now. Derogatory is the word for it, I believe? I had no idea until now. Because I can remember eating Eskimo pies. There’s football team called the Edmonton Eskimos. I didn't know it was slang. I don't know if you can tell, I have a lot of remorse for this right now.

TR: Where do you go from here? You've lost your means of employment?

DB: I have no idea, like I said. I'm married. My job is gone; one of the best employers I ever had. I’ll live on my savings until that’s gone and. And we’ll from there I guess.

TR: [your company] got evicted from the site in Churchill Falls. There were probably other workers there besides you and your colleague. What's your message to the owners and to your colleagues?

DB: Oh my God, I sincerely apologize for everything I did. I’m remorseful, and I regret everything. There's no taking it back. But all I can do is apologize. And I did that several times.

TR: So this is not a pattern of behaviour in your life?

DB: No, it's not.

TR: Do you know you treat people with respect?

DB: I try to, yes. I try to.

TR: And what's your message to your family, and those around you?

DB: Oh my God, the embarrassment that I’ve caused them all — my sons, my daughter, my wife, her family, my family. I'm truly sorry — mostly to the Indigenous people — from my comments that I am truly sorry.

CH: That's Dave Beck speaking to the CBC's Terry Roberts, For the Record. Mr. Beck and his colleague Thomas Scott lost their jobs after making racist and derogatory comments aboard a PAL Airlines flight in Newfoundland this week.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Chinese menu artist

Guest: Don Kwan

CH: For the past few years, Don Kwan has collected takeout menus from Chinese restaurants. He then sews them together into the kind of uniforms which, for generations, were worn by waiters in those restaurants. Mr. Kwan is an artist whose family has run the Shanghai Restaurant in Ottawa for nearly fifty years. This evening, one of his creations — a waiter's vest — will be on display at the city's art gallery. We reached Don Kwan near Lapasse, Ontario, in the Ottawa Valley.

CO: Don, can you just describe this work of art that's at the Ottawa Art Gallery?

DON KWAN: The work of art is called “Vest”. It's from a series called “Invisible Identities”. It's one of many pieces of clothing that I made out of Chinese restaurant takeout menus, so paper, ephemera, and also, I printed black and white photographs of my family. So it’s a very personal piece.

CO: I understand that buttons are made out of the Styrofoam of a takeout box?

DK: Yeah, my family, we own and operate the Shanghai Restaurant — which is going on 48 years. So I was kind of like raised in the restaurant business — the Chinese restaurant business. And I use a lot of materials like takeout containers and objects I find at the restaurant like a cash register or a lantern. Like, an old traditional Chinese lantern. And I incorporate that into my different art pieces. And in that particular piece with the vest and the dress shirt, all the buttons are like the Styrofoam caps from the takeout containers.

CO: You mentioned Shanghai Restaurant. This is the one on Somerset Street in Ottawa. It’s been there for decades. So when you say this is a personal work of art, what's the message that you're putting in to this work of art?

DK: I'm trying to kind of highlight and engage in a conversation about Chinese-Canadian identity. Chinese-Canadian links to history. You know, I grew up knowing, you know, going to school, learning English and French. And then I would go home, and then my parents would talk to me in their mother tongue, so I was always kind of conflicted in any of things like in history, what I was taught about my own culture in school wasn't the same what I was taught in the community and my parents. So there was always like a divide there. And I kind of struggled with that my whole life. And now that I'm older, and I can research more about Chinese-Canadian history, it kind of like awoke something in me that helped me transform and changed the way I perceived the struggles that my parents and my grandparents and my ancestors — like the first Chinese immigrants that immigrated here — went through.

CO: Obviously, the connection to the numbers of Chinese immigrants who came and worked in the restaurant business, opened restaurants. Clearly, it's part of the message. What do you want to say about that?

DK: Well, I want to say like I'm like certain foods, you know, like sweet and sour chicken balls and egg rolls and fried rice or a North American Chinese food was always labeled and mistreated as like you know not authentic, or it was put down a lot. Like, and treated like a secondary kind of piece of food. But now, because of what I learned from history, and the stories that I hear from other Chinese business owners, and things like that, my attitude towards that has shifted. So instead of like the shame that was attached to that kind of attitude has kind of turned more into like pride with my artwork.

CO: And it reflects that effort on the part of Chinese Canadians to try and make businesses work. And when you look at those menus, they have so many items as you just mentioned that are not Chinese foods. These are things that people in Canada wanted, and they adapted for that.

DK: Yeah, that's exactly one of the things I'm interested in is how like the Chinese adapted to that whole business of restauranting and creating foods that were attached to their culture, but also was, you know, they could sell.

CO: one of the photos — if it's on this vest or one of your other vests — is a photo of Pierre Eliot Trudeau, a young man, being served I believe by your grandfather. This is a photograph of him being in the restaurant.

DK: Yeah, it's my grandfather and the waiter at the time. That was a big moment for my parents. It really transformed how they felt about being a Canadian. It brought so much pride into their lives. And I remember growing up ever since that happened, like that Pierre Elliott Trudeau started eating at the restaurant, I remember dad kind of lighting up and really feeling like he was embraced by Canada — where I think a lot of his stories and a lot of his experiences were negative ones.

CO: So this work that the city has purchased of yours that’s now on display tonight. So I understand your mother passed away recently. How do you think she would feel about your work being part of Ottawa's permanent art collection?

DK: I feel like, you know, both my parents, my dad passed away in late January of this year, and my mom passed away recently on Sunday. So I feel like, you know, their spirit is still here, and they're both kind of looking down at me very proud. And I can envision a smile from ear-to-ear on their faces.

CO: Well, Don, congratulations for this. And I thank you for speaking with us.

DK: Oh, thanks so much, Carol.

CH: Don Kwan is an artist and part-owner of the Shanghai Restaurant in Ottawa. And if Mr. Kwan is looking for more art materials, he might consider visiting the University of Toronto's Scarborough Campus. They have world's largest collection of Chinese restaurant menus. In 2016, history prof Daniel Bender spoke to As It Happens guest host, Helen Mann about the collection. The Harley he mentions is Harley Spiller who donated ten thousand menus to the university.

SOUNDCLIP

DANIEL BENDER: You know, I was actually down in the archives yesterday, and wow! It's a big stack of boxes right now. And that's the hard work that the library is doing in just getting these ready for use by scholars, and really by the public.

HELEN MANN: Right. Now, it's not just menus, right? There's some other things in there?

DB: Not just menus, no. The lot of the collection is some rather mark of remarkable material culture that Harley collected over the years — including some oversized chopsticks, and more.

HM: How oversized are we talking about?

DB: I haven't seen them, but I gather they're bigger than a person.

HM: Wow! Now, what's your favorite piece from the collection?

DB: It's so hard to figure out the pieces. One of the things that I like the most is seeing the stained menus, or the menus where something has been crossed out, and something written in. It really shows that a menu is not just a… it's not just a list of something for sale. It's something that gets passed back and forth from waiter to customer, from customer back to the waiter, back to the cook, to the owner. It's the evidence of a relationship, of a conversation.

HM: When you look at those stains, do you try to figure out what made them?

DB: Oh, all the time.

CH: From our archives, that's history professor, Daniel Bender speaking to As It Happens in 2016 about the world's largest collection of Chinese restaurant menus, at the University of Toronto, Scarborough.

[Music: Folk]

FOA: Olivia Newton-John

CH: She gave it up for a good cause, and that meant giving it away for good. Or so she thought. Actress and singer Olivia Newton-John was happy to donate the black leather jacket she made famous in the film "Grease" — if it meant raising money for the cancer research centre she started. And did it ever: the item sold for about 320-thousand Canadian for it at a charity auction last month. And then, just this week, the anonymous buyer would return the jacket to her. In a video — in which is face is obscured — the buyer tells the actress that the jacket, quote, "should not sit in a billionare's closet for country club bragging rights." Unquote. In August, when the auction was announced, Ms. Newton-John spoke with As it Happens guest host Rosemary Barton. From our archives, here's part of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN: Well, it seemed like the perfect time to hold an auction because “Grease” — which is 40 year anniversary of “Grease” — I planned on auctioning off the jacket and pants for my Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness Research Centre. For number of years I've been thinking about it. And it seemed like the perfect year. And then I ended up that year not being able to really work on it because I broke my sacrum. I was in hospital for a while. So here we are, a year later, and it started out just with the jacket and pants. And now it's gone to my clothes from different movies — “Xanadu” and things I wore in “Physical” and jewelry and just stuff from my whole life. It's been actually a wonderful adventure going through all my past.

RB: Well, I bet. And I want to talk more about that. But obviously I want to talk about the pants and the jacket. Because that's the thing that everyone would covet, I think, right? Are you willing to part with them?

ONJ: Absolutely, because I mean they've been hanging in my closet for a long time. RB and ONJ laugh] And we're using one stage up to about 15-20 years ago, but then my publicist said I can't believe you've got this out on the road with you. I think you should preserve them. And I hadn't really thought about it. I didn't believe that “Grease” would still be coveted after 40 years. I mean it was just unbelievable. And the money, much of the money, will be going to my Cancer Wellness Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia. So it has a purpose, and people are going to enjoy it. I'll have a wonderful photo. And it won’t be sitting in a closet. So it all makes sense to me.

CH: From our archives, that was Olivia Newton-John speaking to guest host Rosemary Barton in August of this year. Earlier this week, the buyer of the jacket returned it to Ms. Newton-John.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Part three: Fred Christie history, Feature: Ian McEwan

Fred Christie history

Guest: Kathy Grant

CH: The case has largely been forgotten. But in 1939, eighty years ago this week, Fred Christie went to court after a Montreal bar refused to serve him because he was black. That 1939 case reached the Supreme Court of Canada. But in a 4-1 decision, the court ruled in favour of the York Tavern — arguing that merchants were free to serve whomever they please. Now, activists are trying to persuade the federal government to declare Mr. Christie a person of national historical significance. Kathy Grant is the founder of Legacy Voices Project. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Kathy, how did you come to learn about Fred Christie?

KATHY GRANT: Oh, I learned about him from my dad. I was born in Montreal, and my dad was one of the directors of the Negro community centre there. And he always taught about black Canadian history from the Negro community centre part of the Union United Church.

CO: And was Fred Christie one of those names — one of those figures — from that history that people talked about?

KG: Yes. Because the person Reverend F., he was one of the people who helped gather up the money or get the community to go and donate to the fund for Fred Christie when he was challenging the decision to go to court over the over the incident.

CO: Well, let's go back to that Saturday night in 1936 — where all this begins for Fred Christie. What happened at the York Tavern in Montreal that night?

KG: Okay. He went to order beer for himself and his friends, and they refused to serve him because he was black. They called him a Negro back. They didn't serve Negro customers was what he was told. So he complained, and they called the police, and he was escorted out. He felt embarrassed. And then he decided to take it to court.

CO: And was this a tavern that he knew? Was this a place…

KG: Yah, he had he'd been there previously and had been served. I don't know why on this particular evening, he was not served. But he felt embarrassed. He was a customer; he’d been there before. And he felt it was because he was black. Well, it was because he was black.

CO: Well, that's what they said. But he went to this tavern, it was close to the Montreal Forum — where he was a season ticketholder for hockey in Montreal, is that right?

KG: Yes.

CO: And so he went there often. Would you have any idea why he didn't get served this time? What was the reason for that?

KG: I don't know the reason for it. But I know that he wasn't served, and he took it to court. And the first time, he actually won he took it for 200 dollars. And he was awarded 25 dollars, plus cost. And the tavern challenged that decision. And it went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada. It took a number of years. It took it a lot of money that was contributed by the black community to challenge it. And it got overturned.

CO: It got overturned for what reason? Let’s just go through what he was saying? He's saying that he had a right to be served. That he’d walked into this tavern — as he had many other times — he put 50 cents on the counter. He ordered his beer. And they said no, we're not going to serve you. And then he took that to the Supreme Court. What was he what was he motivated by? What have you heard from people who were around him as to why he was going to take that on as a court battle?

KG: Okay, he took it on because he felt he was being discriminated against because he was black — and he was. And he took it to court because he had initially won. There was a certain act that said that you couldn't discriminate against people because of colour. If you were a traveler, and you were seeking food, there was already a decision that was already laid down. But when they challenged it, they said, well, he wasn't really a traveler, or he wasn't seeking food. And because of those reasons, they were saying that the establishment could discriminate at will in regards to their business.

CO: They could decide who they were going to serve?

KG: Correct.

CO: So this is something that people don't know enough about, do they? That there were laws that discriminated against people, and this is what Mr. Christie was up against. And so where did he get his support to in his fight against it that went to the Supreme Court?

KG: From the black community, from the black churches, from the black businessmen, they all contributed. So some contributed five cents, ten cents, a dollar. They believed in the cause of justice.

CO: So what became of Fred Christie after he lost this case?

KG: I know he was disgusted. And as far as I know, he moved to Vermont. I think for the longest time, people have been trying to determine what happened to him afterwards. And I know that's part of our whole project. We want to find, well, where did Fred Christie end up?

CO: And so what do you want people to know? This project is to tell people what? What do you want people to understand about who Fred Christie was?

KG: I want them to understand that this is a moment in Canada's history that more people should know about. It was discriminatory. And it was just wrong. And we want children to find out more about his story, what they went through, and how you have to fight for your rights.

CO: Do you want the Canadian government to recognize Fred Christie as a person of national historical significance?

KG: And also a stamp. We’d love to go and have a stamp. And you could say it's like stamping out racism. I would love to see a stamp.

CO: Well, Kathy, I hope you get to learn more of this story, and you can gather those facts. And it's fascinating story. Thanks for speaking with us.

KG: You're welcome.

CH: Kathy Grant is the founder of the Legacy Voices Project. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music: Ambient]

Feature Ian McEwan

Guest: Ian McEwan

CH: Hard Brexit. Soft Brexit. Blind Brexit. Bespoke Brexit. A "Canada model", a "Canada-plus model", or the "Norway model". And, of course, "the backstop". Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, the lexicon has exploded with words and concepts that are, at best, complicated, and at worst, utterly incomprehensible. Today, three years later, British voters went to the polls. And whatever the result, the UK will still be dealing with the staggering complexity of Brexit for years, if not decades. It's not just confusing. It's Kafkaesque. So is Ian McEwan's satirical novella, "Cockroach". Not just in the sense of being strange and nightmarish — but in the sense of actually, and deliberately, resembling the work of Franz Kafka. One work in particular: "Metamorphosis", in which a man wakes up to find he's a giant insect. Except Mr. McEwan has put Kafka's "Metamorphosis" through a metamorphosis: in his book, a cockroach awakens "from troubled dreams" to find himself a human. A human who's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Carol spoke with Ian McEwan in October. Here's an encore presentation of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Ian McEwan, Welcome back to As It Happens.

IAN MCEWAN: Thank you.

CO: I'm sure that many people in the United Kingdom are wishing they could wake up and discover that Brexit has just been a dream. At what point did you wake from your troubled dreams to find yourself with the idea for “The Cockroach”?

IM: Quite recently, actually. I think it must have been in June or July. I was just doodling around in a large notebook, and I found myself inverting that famous opening of Kafka's “Metamorphosis”. And almost immediately just wrote two three paragraphs, and thought oh, this is a short story — a humorous short story — about Brexit. But by the time I was a page or two in, I knew I was writing a short novella.

CO: And you say inverting by virtue of which that as in with Kafka, the man wakes up to find himself —this is Gregor Samsa — finds himself to be an insect on his back. In this case, a cockroach wakes up to find himself to be the prime minister of Great Britain.

IM: Yes, he wakes up in a small bedroom at the top of 10 Downing Street. He doesn't know straight away that he's the prime minister. It's only when an aide comes in and tells him. But he's rather pleased because he actually lives behind the skirting boards in the House of Commons, and he's listened to many parliamentary procedures. And he rather fancies himself with the despatch box.

CO: You have I know expressed despair, frustration, whatever else about Brexit since the vote. What made you feel that the best way to try and maybe purge that or deal with it or just explain it was through satire?

IM: [laughing] Well, there comes a point in in despair of this kind where you meet laughter coming the other way. And laughter stops to talk to despair. And out of that conversation comes this little story. I have been immensely frustrated. I cannot see the point of what we're about to do. Whether it's to do with immigration — which isn't going to change — sovereignty — which we're not going to get more of — every indicator suggests we're gonna be a little bit poorer. It's just so pointless. But many people are very committed to it, and it's going to happen. And I think just over half the country is now I think if we had a poll, the poll of polls suggest we're about 52 per cent for just remaining in the EU, but we're not going to get that chance, I think.

CO: At the same time, when you turn to commit this to satire. And we mentioned the absurdity of the Kafkaesque aspect, but it's also Jonathan Swift that has, I think, inspired quite a bit [laughing] in the Swiftian sense though life often outdoes you, doesn't it? No matter how outrageous you are in satire. And in this case, the bar is very high in the United Kingdom, is it not?

IM: Well, it's almost as high as the country just to the south of you [CO giggles], absolutely. I suppose this is more Swiftian in than Kafkaesque — apart from that opening. And Swift knew that a modest proposal or even the satirical sections of “Gulliver's Travels” was going to change nothing at all. I don't think this is going to change anyone's mind about anything. But I just had to make my mark in mockery — and some grotesquery, I suppose.

CO: [chuckling] “The Cockroach” is the government isn't trying to negotiate the departure from the European Union. It's not Brexit. It's something even more ridiculous, which is hard. Can you explain reversalism? This is what he is campaigning for, right?

IM: Yes. I mean, I was struggling to find something as absurd — if not more absurd — than Brexit. And I'm not sure I've succeeded. But it is pretty absurd. Basically, reversalism is the government's idea of making the money flow in different directions. So when it's your payday, actually you're the one handing over money to your employers. How do you get that money? Well, you have to go to the shops and buy things, and you come away not only with the goods, but the money with which you can afford your job. And the idea is that reversing the money flow will somehow revivify the economy. And it's all very well, but it gets a bit difficult when it comes to trading with other nations. So it rapidly devolves round the notion of reversalism in one country. And the government's floundering. And so the cockroaches come and take over the prime minister's role and all his ministers, and put a bit of stiffness in their back [CO chuckles], and push the project through. And actually, they succeed.

CO: This we're talking about, of course, Jim Sams is the prime minister. And [chuckling] we could be forgiven for comparing him to Boris Johnson. In fact, for me, I have to say the news started to blend with your book. Now, was that your intention?

IM: Well, I mean, you will have noticed that Jim Sams has brown hair, not blonde. So it's not mapped directly onto present circumstances — although, of course, it reads in parallel. And it could be any disastrous government project for which they've held a plebiscite and can go round saying the people have spoken. So yes, it's a Brexit tale. But I think if it ever happens that we've long forgotten Brexit — or just resigned ourselves to it — it could have a life still in application to other circumstances where a government seizes a terrible idea to please the populace and pushes ahead with it.

CO: There is an American president in “The Cockroach” and this is Archie Tupper, who has a tendency to tweet irritably. But Jim Sams is quite fascinated with his rhetoric and tweets. And at one point, he speaks of President Tupper's cranky, insulting tweets, and thinks from the land of the free, here was a lesson in imaginative freedom.

IM: Yes, float free of reality. And Jim Sams — the prime minister of Great Britain — rather sits at the American president's feet. I mean Sams’s own first attempt at tweets are pathetic. He says things like in my view. Well, of course, [CO Chuckles] that's to concede that there might be other views. Now, you don't find that in Trump in or Tupperish tweets. And also, he admires the punctuation, that triple exclamation marks, the caps. But I think you know Americans probably have a tougher job even than us living with Brexit. And I know that Dave Eggers has just produced a marvelous satire in also novella lens. And we've swapped. We sent each other our pdfs and enjoyed each other's anguish.

CO: Well, this is obviously companion literature, so I will look this up — but now, going back to Archie Tupper, at one point, Prime Minister Jim Sams starts to suspect that the president of the United States might be a fellow cockroach.

IM: Well, he says to him, I don’t know how to ask you this, but you know, how many legs do you have? [CO laughs] And the phone goes dead at that point, so you can draw your own conclusions.

CO Ian, there are several breathtaking instances of the kind of stirring empty language used by politicians. And in one case, it's the prime minister's manifesto for reversalism. How much fun was that to write?

IM: Well, I just looked at Hansard, to be quite honest.

CO: [chuckles] Ouch!

IM: And, more-or-less, lifted it straight out of there. I worried a bit about copyright, and then I thought what the hell.

CO: But how does he describe it? How does his sell reversalism?

IM: Well, he says that we will be free, and we will make our own decisions, and we will pitchfork the incubus of clockwise economic thinking off our backs. Now, here in Britain, everyone would know that Boris Johnson said that we would pitchfork the incubus of the EU — European Union — off our backs — an outrageous remark. That's the closest I think my cockroach gets to our current prime minister.

CO: But some of the wealthier people start to worry that this means that the unemployed — people who have no money — will actually become very rich because they don't have jobs, and so they can acquire wealth simply by shopping, and then getting money for shopping, and then never have to do anything for it.

IM: I know, but it's illegal to have a lot of money.

CO: Oh, that's right. You have to keep getting rid of it.

IM: You have to get rid of it. And the only way you can get rid of it is to get a job, [CO laughs] so everyone's got to keep working. And if you go and buy yourself a new fridge, and it's a really good one, then you're going to have to work a little harder because you cannot keep more than 25 pounds in your bank account. So, you know, it might catch on. Then I'll be really desolate.

CO: I was just going to say, any concerns that someone might read this and think oh, this is a manual, not a piece of satire?

IM: I think the current government would be most liable of all the 200 nations of the world to take this seriously and put it into action [CO chuckles].

CO: There’s a scene when Jim Sams — the prime minister — meets with the German chancellor, and she appears to be the first person to ask why are you doing this? [laughing]

IM: Why? She can hardly say anything else. And, in the end, poor Jim can only say because, because, because we said we would, because people said they wanted it. But then it just boils down to because he has no answers.

CO: This is As It Happens, and speaking with the Ian McEwan about his outrageous new book “The Cockroach”. In “The Cockroach”, there is also a referendum. And this one's on this idea of reversalism. And you write in the book that the result of that vote on reversalism is an unexpected one. And it comes out largely out of an alliance between the working poor and old people from all classes. So is that your view on Brexit? Is that how you see the Brexit result?

IM: Well, there are many factors. But yes, if I look at this sympathetically and seriously, Carol, I think that many people who are not flourishing within the status quo had no good reason to vote for it. Older people had, I think, a rather rosy image of some remote past where maybe they were invoking the Second World War when they say you know we stood alone. We never stood alone. We had Canadian troops, and Indians, and New Zealand troops, and Polish free fighters and the free French, [chuckle] and we never stood alone. But it's strong in the national narrative. And I think that's also another powerful element for people who are not particularly poor at all. And the other thing was immigration. London voted overwhelmingly to remain because we live alongside immigrants. We know them. We like them. It was people who didn't who voted to leave. But actually, as European Union migrants stopped coming here because they think it's unfriendly, we're getting more migration from Commonwealth countries. So migration will go on. And I think many leavers within a few years will have conveniently forgotten which way they voted.

CO: But since the vote, so much has been revealed about how the campaign was conducted, what people were told that wasn't true. There has been so much laid out since then.

IM: Yes, it's an emotional thing, Carol. And remember that we've got quite a vigorous and clever tabloid press here who have been banging on about the European Union as an oppressor for 30 or 40 years. Even the Treasury — the government's own economic departments — are quite clear that the economy will shrink — not only in the short term. That doesn't seem to play very much with those who want to leave.

CO: But why not? I mean, still after all of this, you said just maybe slightly 52 per cent would actually vote against it. After with all that's known, how are not more people discouraged by the idea of Brexit?

IM: Well, nearly everyone I know is a remainer. And we all live in our little echo chambers, I think. So no, I'm a Brexit junkie. I must have read three or four million words in the last three or four years. But, you know, I listened to the vox pops, and I've been in conversations with people who want to leave. And from my point of view, they are seriously misinformed about what benefits we've derived from the EU. And I think the campaign to remain led by David Cameron was very, very weakly conducted. It mostly played on the negatives of leaving, rather than the positives of remaining. And I'm surprised — as surprised as you are — that the more people have not changed their mind over time. One or two per cent have shifted. We're now launched on a Christmas election as it's called. It could well be that we'll be back with a hung parliament. I don't know. But I've got a feeling that even people who want to remain will vote for Boris Johnson because he's charismatic in their view. So I think those of us who passionately feel we’re making a great mistake finally are just going to have to shrug, and hope that like many things in life, it's never quite as bad as you think. We're going to spend the next 15 years slowly working our way, getting back all the trade deals we already have. We have about 74 trade deals around the world. We'll slowly work our way back with all the necessary institutions in the EU, security, cultural links, and it'll be a great waste of political, intellectual, emotional capital.

CO: And Boris Johnson and his ministers will go on to write their memoirs. But to return to Jim sams and his cabinet — which he discovers all but one to be fellow cockroaches — they are successful in getting reversalism passed and completing this. And then they scuttle out of Parliament and away [laughing]. But the question is what is in it for the cockroaches? Why do they do this?

IM: Well, Jim gives a speech at the end to his cabinet. They've left the bodies of the ministers and the prime minister, and they've all assembled in the cabinet room on the floor behind a wastepaper basket, before trudging back Downing Street along to the House of Parliament. And he give very stirring speech. He says generally cockroaches have flourished whenever there's poverty. Whenever the massive economic downturn. Wherever the squalor and filth, and war and famine, and all kinds of human adversity have always been good. And he says some of the great disasters of our past has been the discovery of the germ theory of disease, and the discovery of hygiene, the stupid longing for fresh water. And we think now, he says, I think we're on the path to really flourishing again as the country gets poorer. And if the good-hearted, decent people of Britain find that they are less happy, they can console themselves that the cockroaches are happier. And the net amount of happiness in the universe will stay constant.

CO: But it will just be with the cockroaches, and not the people.

IM: Yeah, but he rather feels it's the cockroaches turn. Anyway, there's the motive. I mean the thing about cockroaches, I mean, they are objects of ugliness and disgust for us. But they're much more organized than we are — much more socially cohesive. So I think they were just the right kind of creature to come and sort this matter out.

CO: Of course, cockroaches are everywhere. So we are not immune from a cockroach takeover anyway. We shouldn't be smug about this.

IM: No, no, I think just as you know institutions in the States are fighting back, I've been on two of the enormous marches in London — pro-European Union marches. And I've never felt prouder of my country and countrymen and country women. And, you know, one of the tabloids described us, and by us I mean one-and-a-quarter million people, as a hate-filled crowd. It was so far from the truth. This was a merry crowd, inventive, funny with their banners, but just deeply saddened. And, you know, I think there is a very, very good solid streak of the British population that has been generally very, very welcoming to migrants, have been extremely tolerant. And I would put them in the tradition of Tom Paine in “The Rights of Man”. And governments will come and go. And I think the pendulum will swing the other way.

CO: Can we trouble you for a reading?

IM: Ye ah, sure. Hold on, let me just reach for my copy. So here is one of Jim Sams’s aides talking to him. In fact, Jim is going to sack him after this conversation. The whole thing's a mess, Jim. Time to call it off. And then he added softly. It's in your power. The prime minister stared into his advisor’s face, taking it in for the first time. It was narrow and long, hollow at the temples, with little brown eyes and a tight rosebud mouth. He had a gray three-day beard and wore trainers and a black silk suit over a Superman T-shirt. What you're saying is very interesting, the PM said at last. Well, it's my job to keep you in office, and this is the only way. It’d be a… Jim struggled for the word. He knew several variants in pheromone, but they were fading. And then he had it: a U-turn. Not quite, said the advisor. I've been back through some of your speeches, enough there to get you off the hook. Difficulties, doubts, delays, sort of stuff the hardliners hate you for. Surely you can prepare the ground. Very interesting, indeed. Jim stood up and stretched. I’ll need to talk to Shirley myself before the cabinet, and I'll need a few minutes alone. He began to walk round the long table toward the door. He is coming to feel some pleasure in his stride and a new sense of control. Improbable as it seemed, it was possible to feel stable on only two feet. It hardly bothered him to be so far off the ground. And he was glad now not to have eaten a blue bottle in another man's presence. It might not have gone down well. Simon — the advisor — said I'll wait for your thoughts then. Jim reached the door, and let the fingers of one strange hand rest lightly on the handle. Yes, he could drive this new machine. He turned, taking pleasure in doing it slowly until he was facing the advisor, who had not moved from his chair. You can have them now. I want your resignation letter on my desk within the half-hour, and I want you out of the building by 11:00.

CO: Wonderful. Ian, It's great to speak with you. And thank you very much for “The Cockroach” [laughing].

IM: Well, nice to be in touch with you again, Carol, and maybe until the next time.

CO: All right. Take care.

IM: You too. Bye.

CH: Ian McEwan is the author, most recently, of the novella "The Cockroach", a satire about the Brexit crisis. It's published by Alfred A. Knopf Canada. That's an encore broadcast of Carol's conversation with Mr. Mcewan, which first aired in October.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

December 12, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This