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 2020

The AIH Transcript for January 27, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight...

CO: Standing on guard. A Toronto doctor who worked through the SARS epidemic says his small clinics not getting enough help to prepare for the coronavirus -- so he's picking up what supplies he can find himself.

CH: Bolton's version. A leak, reveals former US National Security Advisor John Bolton's take on the story at the center of the impeachment trial -- a former Republican congressman says the new details should be hard for his party to ignore.

CO: Epiphany at last. After years of toeing the Conservative Party line on illegal drugs, a former advisor to Stephen Harper tells us why he's had a complete change of heart and hopes others will too.

CH: Basketball legend Kobe Bryant's life was extraordinary and complex. A reporter tells us about the highs and the lows and about the daughter who died alongside him, who he says was also the star's, best friend.

CO: Handle with care. Quebec puts the brakes on a plan to offer medical aid in dying to people suffering as a result of their mental illness -- a doctor in the province tells us why the issue is difficult to navigate.

CH: And the devil is in the details. Parents in Iceland want to name their baby "Lucifer." Government officials say no, in part because there is no "C" in the Icelandic language. So they respond with some crafty spelling. As It Happens. The Monday Edition. Radio that knows that Beelzebub has a devil put aside for "c."

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Why this former Harper adviser had a change of heart about supervised injection sites

Coronavirus: Canadian cases

Guest: Paul Caulford

CH: The first cases of Corona virus have landed in Canada. Public health officials have confirmed that a man who traveled from Wuhan, China to Toronto last week is infected. He's being treated in isolation. His wife is believed to be the second case. This morning, Ontario's chief medical officer, Dr. David Williams, spoke at a press conference. Here's part of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID WILLIAMS: In many ways, this new case isn't surprising. It's the case of the wife of the first presumptive case. This individual has been in close proximity to her husband. I like to stress that since arriving in Toronto, this individual has been in self isolation. As such, the risk to Ontarians remains low. Indeed, all necessary protocols are in place to actively monitor, detect, and contain the spread of this virus. We are working closely with all levels of government to ensure a coordinated and effective response. Preparedness is such that we are well ahead of where we were back in 2003. Everybody who thinks about SARS, it's a different world, a different era now.

CH: That was Ontario's chief medical officer, Dr. David Williams. Meanwhile, Dr. Paul Caulford is busy preparing his Toronto refugee health clinic for possible coronavirus cases. He ran an assessment center for the SARS virus when it hit Canada in 2003. And this time, he's not taking any chances. We reached Dr. Paul Caulford in Toronto.

CO: Dr. Caulford, how worried are you that the next case of Corona virus could walk in the doors of your clinic?

PAUL CAULFORD: Well, I am significantly concerned about that. We're concerned that it will come through the front doors of a community based primary care office like it did in SARS. And the only physician to die was a family doctor in the community. But it's a public health and public safety concern I have.

CO: And so what are you doing then at your clinic to get ready for that possibility?

PC: We have put up all sorts of information. We have policies regarding -- all sorts of information for patients coming in. We now are screening at our door and are we're not going to turn anyone away. And that's where the challenge becomes, is to define who is at risk and to get them referred off to wherever we're getting them referred to the hospital. So we've taken every reasonable precaution that we can to protect our patients, to protect our staff, and their providers, and to try to ensure that our centre, our clinic does not go down and become quarantined because then what use is it to anyone?

CO: You've been comparing this to the situation of the SARS debacle in 2003. And as many have pointed out, it was just so badly handled in Ontario and that's why there ended up being so many cases. Is it any better? Are you seeing that the province of Ontario is handling this any better than it did during SARS?

PC: The short answer is no. And I don't want to create alarm. But the NO is because, for example, we as of Friday did not have any information sent our way by public health or by the hospital. We didn't receive that. And this was very early deja vu all over again like SARS. And the community level has not received what the hospital levels and the airport -- and we had to once again go looking for information as we did during SARS. And the other problem that we've had is after over a week ago, early last week -- three weeks into this -- ordering and deciding we're going to do something, ordering supplies, at the end of last week they were promised again over the weekend, promised again for today, nothing has arrived in terms of masks for our staff and patients, that sort of thing.

CO: So you haven't received any of that -- we are talking about masks here, talking about basic kind of public health requirements for your clinic. You haven't got that from the province -- from the health department?

PC: No. And we don't know where to get it.

CO: I understand you went to Home Depot to get some of this supply over the weekend.

PC: I did. I went there primarily for the physical barriers we were putting up. And when we talk about barriers, these are safety measures. And I got thinking about it. And it's on my mind about all of the eye-glassware because it can enter through the eyes very easily, the virus. And I thought, hey, wait a minute here. And I went over to the safety goggles area and was able to find good quality eye safety masks, a respirator mask -- that was in 95. And when I spoke to the worker at the Home Depot, he said it's been flying off the shelves. So I suppose we're not alone.

CO: What do public health authorities say in response when you draw attention to this inadequacy?

PC: Well, we drew the attention in an official phone call with our hospital on Friday last week, and there was not a reassuring reply that they were set up to handle supplies, infection protocols. And I'm sorry to say that, but it is what it is. They weren't able to talk about where we would find the information. For example, as in SARS, about how to decontaminate an office, a community office. And I say that because during SARS, it was left up to us to go into the office that fell to SARS and do the disinfecting. And I don't think that that's acceptable.

CO: If I may, you sound tired, maybe exasperated. Is that an accurate assessment?

PC: It has been a very...yes it is. But so are others, I'm sure. And our staff. We have gone to skeleton staff this week with the second announcement. So our non-essential medical services are those staff who are working the telephone lines with their patients and other methodologies to not necessarily have to be at the centre here. Because the fewer the number in here, the less risk and the less commotion and spread of any potential virus. And it is tiring. And the masks are tiring. And the extra processes are tiring. And the clean up, and the disinfecting and involving our cleaner, and her safety is tiring. But it is absolutely essential right now. And last time in SARS, the post-mortem -- pardon my pun on SARS --was that the communication was a major problem. And it was stressed that the next time round, which is here now, this needs to be different. It hasn't been different.

CO: You're saying that no lessons have been learned from SARS. You're saying that this is just as bad as it was in the SARS communications.

PC: On the line of communications to community offices where patients come for their care. Not since -- I haven't seen an improvement from when SARS hit.

CO: Dr. Caulford, we will leave it there. And of course, we're following this story and I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

PC: Thank you Carol. Take care.

CH: Dr. Paul Caulford runs the Canadian Center for Refugee and Immigrant Health Care. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music]

Ben Perrin: safe injection sites

Guest: Ben Perrin

CH: Not long ago, Benjamin Perrin says he subscribed to Conservative Party thinking about supervised injection sites and illicit drug use in general. That is, the drugs themselves are the problem and that criminalizing those drugs is by and large, the solution. But Stephen Harper's former criminal justice advisor says he's had a major change of heart. In an editorial published this weekend in the Calgary Herald, Mr. Perrin says he now believes safe injection sites are a much better prescription than prohibition or policing. We reached Benjamin Perrin in Vancouver.

CO: Mr. Perrin, what's brought you to this epiphany -- if I can use that word -- on safe injection sites?

BENJAMIN PERRIN: Well, like many people over the last few years, I continue to follow the news stories and they started looking kind of isolated. People were dying of overdose deaths in our city of Vancouver, where I live now. And as I saw the numbers continue to grow, it started to concern me for two reasons. One, I'd, you know, been part of a Conservative government that had set up the current approach to drug policy in Canada. It was clearly not working. And the second thing was that we were really as a country going about our business and not doing anything really beyond talking about it. And it bothered me -- it seemed to affect me, that so many people were dying in my community. So I did something that I hadn't really done before. And I prayed about ask God to kind of give me a heart of compassion. I prayed for him to take my heart of stone and turn into a heart of flesh. And I started talking to people about the issue and then I decided I was going to do something about it. I realized no one else in the law school that I've met was researching it.

CO: You got into the data, the information, the actual reviews, the peer reviewed studies, the evidence. And so at what point did you start to consult that and realize that your view on this had been ill informed?

BP: The problem with people like me is that I had allowed my own political ideology to take the place of evidence. And the problem we have right now in the country as well in sort of antiquated views towards drug policy is that it's really based on, you know, blaming people. It's very critical and harsh of people who use drugs. And that sort of spirit of, you know, that we're better than them -- it was something that that I suffered from too. And it was only when I had this change of heart, I could be open to changing my mind.

CO: But this evidence didn't show up in the past year or so. This has been around since the first safe injection sites were developed. And they've been doing these reviews -- as you point out in your article -- more than 100 peer reviewed studies overwhelmingly showing that safe consumption sites have saved lives and that there haven't been any overdoses at this safe injection sites. Why was it so difficult to get that evidence?

BP: What I've come to conclude is that we as a society view people who use drugs as less worthy. We as a society don't care what the evidence says. We have treated them with condemnation. And I went through a journey of actually speaking with people who use drugs. Meeting with them. Family members of people whose children have overdosed and died and seen their tears. I talked to the police and the judges and the prosecutors and the border guards who all say that the current system is failing on multiple fronts.

CO: Right. But you advised the Stephen Harper government. And when Stephen Harper vowed to continue to fight expansion of safe injection sites, he said the data are very mixed on the results and that this was going to bring drugs into communities if they allow these sites. So what was that based on? You were in that government from 2012-2013. Where were they getting the ideas from?

BP: Well, I would love to know. I've never seen any Conservative politician ever provide any evidence to back up any of those claims that you just mentioned there. The fact is there is no evidence. That's why. I was essentially someone who was raised going to church. But politics was really my god. It was power. And people get in power and they want to keep power. And when you join a political party, you sign on for the whole smorgasbord. So I had never given any thought to drug policy. It was dogma. It was drugs cause crime and destruction. That was the conservative mantra. And therefore, we need to make them illegal. And anything that could possibly facilitate them needs to be quashed. That's the mindless thinking that goes into that form of policy. And it is costing lives. And we need to emphasize here, the opiate crisis began under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and accelerated and is continuing under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who similarly refuses to follow evidence on best practices of what to be done. There's been some change, but he still is said that he is more concerned essentially about politics than he is about the scientific evidence. But the Conservatives take the prize for having the absolute worst drug policy we could have imagine. You know, Trudeau has gone and seen some of these place I believe. I don't believe Premier Kenney or Premier Ford have gone and met with family members whose loved ones have died, if they've talk to addictions experts. Like where's their information coming from? The fact is that, you know, we as a society are treating people who use substances like garbage. And I believe that more people need to stand up who have not yet spoken out on this issue, who are politicians currently and former, and say that our current approach to dealing with drug policy is costing lives.

CO: I just wanted to point out, though there has not been enough to allow for a safe injection sites, as you point out, that the Trudeau government supports the safe consumption sites and that he has been critical of Doug Ford in his resistance to that. So that's there. But the policy, the anti-drug strategy of the decade previous that led to more arrests, longer sentences, compulsory minimum sentences. What effect do you think that had on people who continued in that lifestyle and all the people we lost lives because of that?

BP: The post-mortem -- and that's not an appropriate term -- the post-mortem on the opiate crisis is going to be written years from now. And we're in the middle of this crisis now. And I have come to conclude both from my head and my heart that our current approach is wrong and it is costing lives today. People are dying today because of what we still haven't done and what we're continuing to do. And that's really the priority that I have is to hopefully engage Canadians in this conversation that people use drugs because of many reasons. But the science shows that many of them are horrifically suffering from things like childhood trauma, which drastically increases the likelihood of people becoming addicted to substances. Genetics. Mental health disorders. You know, intergenerational trauma. People just can't stop using. And blaming them and demonizing them -- and politicians, conservative politicians, trying to win votes off doing that is unconscionable. It is sick and wrong and we need to stop it. And people need to stand up within various conservative parties and within the constituencies to support these leaders and let them know they're not willing to tolerate these policies of ignorance that continue to cause people to die. It has to end now.

CO: All right. An extraordinary admission, quite the epiphany. And Mr. Perrin, I really appreciate hearing about this from you and speaking with you. Thank you.

BP: Thank you.

CH: Benjamin Perrin was Stephen Harper's top criminal justice adviser from 2012 to 2013. He's now a law professor at the University of British Columbia and the author of the forthcoming book "Overdose." We reached him in Vancouver. And there's more on this story on the As It Happens website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Pun Alert

CO: As you know, Chris Howden is my new co-host here at As It Happens. But before he joined me on the airwaves and sits beside me here, he was our writer and pun-master extraordinaire.

CH: Okay. I was a pun-maker ordinaire.

CO: [Chuckles] You know, you're being modest and I don't appreciate it because, you know and I know how great you are at this. And to celebrate your new gig, we made a couple of videos showing off your punning skills. In one of them we play -- you and I play -- a little game we like to call the As It Happens Pun Challenge that is inspired by that card game, Punderdome.

CH: Which was grueling. Not your company, the game. We also made a video showing off the best pun submitted by our listeners.

CO: To see those videos head to cbc.ca/aih. And have a laugh. Or check out CBCAsItHappens on Twitter or Facebook.

[Music]

Kobe Bryant obit

Guest: Arash Markazi

CH: He was described as a prodigy, a hero, a villain, and an icon. But whatever you thought of Kobe Bryant, there's no doubt that he changed the game of basketball. On Sunday, the former LA Lakers legend was killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California. He was 41. All nine people onboard were killed, including Mr. Bryant's 13 year old daughter, Gianna. The other victims included two of Gianna's basketball teammates, Mr. Bryant's assistant coach, a junior college baseball coach, and the pilot. They were all on their way to a game at Mr. Bryant's basketball academy, northwest of Los Angeles. Kobe Bryant signed with the LA Lakers at the age of 17, and stayed with the team for 20 years. During that time, he won five NBA championships and two Olympic gold medals. After his retirement in 2016, Mr. Bryant ventured into writing children's books and making films. In 2018, he won an Oscar for his short film "Dear Basketball" inspired by a poem he wrote announcing his retirement after the 2015-2016 season.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Dear, basketball. From the moment I started rolling my dad's tube socks, and shooting imaginary game-winning shot in the Great Western Forum, I knew one thing was real: I fell in love with you. A love so deep, I gave you my all -- from my mind and body to my spirit and soul. As a six year old boy, deeply in love with you. I never saw the end of the tunnel. I only saw myself running out of one. So I ran. I ran up and down every court after every. After every loose ball for you. You asked for my hustle, I gave you my heart because it came so much more. I played through the swear and hurt. NOt because challenge called me, but because YOU called me. I did everything for YOU. Because that's what you do when someone makes you feel as alive as you've made feel. You have a six-year-old boy his Laker dream. And I'll always love you for it.

CH: That was part of "Dear Basketball" -- the Oscar-winning animated short film written and narrated by Kobe Bryant. Arash Markazi is a sports columnist with the Los Angeles Times who covered Mr. Bryant's life and career throughout the years. We reached him today in Miami.

CO: Arash as you know, since the crash, there have been so many testimonies, so many people very emotional online talking about this. What effect did it have on you to learn that Kobe Bryant had been killed in that helicopter crash?

ARASH MARKAZI: It was tragic. I mean, he was someone that I covered during the course of his 20 year career. He was someone that I got to know a little bit more as a friend in retirement. I knew his family. Gigi as well. I mean, she was always there with him. I mean, she was always by her side towards the end of his career and in retirement. So just devastating. Still doesn't seem real.

CO: You have written in your columns about retirement for Kobe Bryant that the speculation was this is not the kind of man who retires. But you found that he found something else in his life. He had sort of found himself to be a family man more than ever before. Is that right?

AM: Exactly. You know, one of the things that we talked about prior to the season, I sat down with him in October and I said, you know -- I can probably count on one hand the number of games he had gone to since he retired in 2016. And he said, if I go to a game, that's one night that I can't spend with my kids. And I love being with my family and I love being with my kids. And so he lost a lot of those moments during the course of his career just because of the demands of playing. And so he said, you know, they're my focus now. And so he wasn't one of these former players who wanted to go on to be a coach or a general manager or a team executive. He wanted to be a father. And in he loved the fact that Gianna loved the game that he loved.

CO: Gianna is the one of his four daughters who was with him and died in that helicopter crash as well. He was very involved with his kids and their sports ambitions, all being girls. What was that all about?

AM: Exactly. You know, Natalia was a volleyball player and Gianna was a basketball player and he had two younger daughter that I'm sure would have played something at some point. But he allowed them to go choose whatever sport that they wanted to play. And because of Gianna he began to go to more games and he would sit courtside with her and they would talk about the game and they would talk about player movements, and adjustments. And she would always ask very specific questions. You know, that was his best friend. I think if you were to say, you know, he loved his family, but the one person he spent the most time with was Gianna.

CO: What do you know about his life, his ambitions? We know that he was very ambitious. People say he was stitched together with ambition. And he didn't make any secret of the fact that he wanted to to exceed the legendary Michael Jordan. What drove him on the court and in life?

AM: Yeah, I mean, he was the hardest worker that I had ever seen. And you're talking about a player who had God given ability and talent and things of that nature. But he was always the first one on the court. He was always the first one at practice. I mean his stories about his practices are legendary. How before the sun comes up, Kobe's already in the gym and working out and getting in his shots. Kobe did everything in his power to put himself at least in that conversation.

CO: Shaquille O'Neal at one point called him a showboat and others said that he dominated the ball. What was his relationship with other players?

AM: Yeah, that was part of his legacy. You know, I mean, I think he had a a very high standard and he was very hard on his teammates. And I think not a lot of teammates maybe got to know him personally the way that they would get to know Shaq, for example. But that was just who he was that he demanded a lot of his teammates. And when you performed well and you met his expectations their was no better teammate. But he was extremely hard on the players that he played with. And sometimes it would rub some people the wrong way. But he was an ultimate competitor. And I think that's why I always thought that it would have been a mistake for him to be a coach, because there was no way he was going to coach players to have the same intensity that he did.

CO: He had controversy in his life too, as you know. There was the charge of felony, sexual assault in Colorado in 2003. The case was later dropped when the accuser decided not to testify. And he settled a civil suit with her out of court. And did he ever talk to you about that?

AM: No. You know I covered him that season when he didn't really comment on that. But that 2003-2004 season where he would, you know, go to the courthouse in Colorado and get on a plane and play that night or practice that night, it was a very surreal season just to see someone in a court room in Colorado and then come back. I think he always knew that it would be a part of his story on how he like overcame that or got past that -- was a big turning point or a cross roads in his life and his career. You know, I will say that the player and the man that I covered towards the end of his career and in retirement was not the same player. I think there was a moment in life where maybe he felt that he was above it all. And I think, listen, being a father, being a husband changes you. It was a part of his life that he knew that he could not totally erase. But I think he made it his goal moving forward to kind of re-shape his whole life.

CO: Do you think, through having daughters changed his view of what happened in that Colorado hotel room in 2003?

AM: I can't speak to specifically about the hotel room that night in Colorado. But I think having daughters did change in the way that he behaved maybe and just his outlook on life. I know one of the things that some fans would always tease him about is like, well, when are you going to have a son to carry on your name? He looked at Gianna one time -- and we were together in Las Vegas -- and he goes she's going to be the one that does that.

CO: Arash I really appreciate you sharing your memories of Kobe with us. Thank you.

AM: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

CH: Arash Markazi is a sports columnist with The Los Angeles Times. We reached him in Miami. Kobe Bryant, a five-time NBA champion with the LA Lakers, died yesterday in a helicopter crash. He was 41. The Lakers were supposed to play their next game in Los Angeles on Tuesday. But tonight, the NBA announced that it's postponing that game out of respect for the team, which it says is still deeply grieving. And you can read more about this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: Bolton leak

Bolton leak

Guest: Mickey Edwards

CH: In the US Senate today, Donald Trump's defense team laid out its case. But after new revelations on the weekend, it's hard not to think that case just got a lot harder to make. In a piece in The New York Times yesterday, there were details of an unpublished manuscript by former national security advisor John Bolton. According to the article, Mr. Trump told Mr. Bolton that he wanted to withhold hundreds of millions in military aid from Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into his political opponents -- which, of course, is the issue at the center of the impeachment trial. Mickey Edwards has written about the trial for the Times today. He's a visiting professor at Princeton University and a former Republican member of the US House of Representatives. We reached Mr. Edwards in Washington, D.C.

CO: Mr. Edwards, what did you think when you read these revelations in The New York Times about John Bolton?

MICKEY EDWARDS: Well, my first thought was that Bolton -- the indication was I think in putting out the story, that it was got leaked. But it didn't get leaked. You know, John Bolton wanted this story out there and he was frustrated because he'd been saying he would honor a subpoena. You know, in other words, please please call me. And that didn't happen. And so I think the timing was perfect because he was present. He was in the meetings with the president. And he was very offended by what was happening. And he wants to be able to tell the Senate about it.

CO: I mean it's the same stories we've heard. But what does this leak of what's in his book -- what he reports on -- how does it change it or how does it advance the case against Mr. Trump?

ME: Well, it changes it tremendously because the president's lawyers in the Senate, in the impeachment hearings have been saying that, well, it's all out of context or this is not what he said. And, you know, it's all second hand. Somebody says they heard somebody else say this. And this is direct.

CO: But the same arguments to refute or to challenge what Mr. Bolton is saying exists, don't they? That, in the end, Ukraine got the money and there was no investigation into the Bidens. You have President Trump's claim that, yes I wanted to investigate corruption. What's wrong with that? So does Mr. Bolton in any way give a value judgment to this? Is he condemning it, in your view?

ME: Well, first of all, he doesn't need to condemn it because withholding the money without congressional approval is illegal. Secondly, what Bolton is able to say is that the withholding of the money was not what Mulvaney or what the others would have said, which we do that all the time. You know, we want to make sure they're following certain policies. You know, he can verify that the president said this was in order to get the investigation of Joe Biden and Biden's family.

CO: How is this going to change that impeachment trial?

ME: You know, if we lived in a rational world, if we had never created political parties or if we had, you know, some members of the US Senate who had some spine and cared about the country more than they care about their re-election, it would change it tremendously. Because I think this would almost certainly guarantee that the president would be convicted and removed from office. As it is -- will it really make a difference? Looking at the behavior of the people in the Senate, Mitch McConnell saying he's coordinating everything with the White House: it's probably not going to make a big difference. It will certainly tell the American people who have, by and large, been in favor of having witnesses and, you know, get material and hear the truth -- I think it might make some of those who might have otherwise voted for Donald Trump to be much more reluctant to do so when it comes out that, you know, he's been lying and that there is a very well-respected conservative eyewitness who can prove, you know, he was lying. But, you know, in a long run I wish I had more confidence that the Senate or the Trump supporters generally in the country were going to be swayed by this.

CO: But is it more likely that John Bolton will testify? Will there be enough senators who say, yeah, we want to hear some witnesses, we want to hear from John Bolton in particular. Do you think that's more likely now?

ME: I think it could be. You only need, you know, a very small number to come forward and say, yeah, we're not saying that we're going to find him guilty, but we want to hear the witnesses. So, yeah, it probably marginally increases the chances of that. But it's amazing how impervious these Republican senators seem to be to fact, to concerns about the Constitution or the law. So I don't know. But I think yes, marginally. I think it puts more pressure on the Susan Collins' and the Corey Gardners and others like that to say, okay I will go along with saying that we must have witnesses.

CO: I mean you're a Republican. You see the evidence the Democrats produced in the House makes sense. So when you say that Republicans are impervious to facts -- why do you think they don't see it the same way as you do?

ME: I think there are two different reasons. One is policy related. I think there is one group of senators, maybe a large group, who say I cannot stand this man, I cannot stand what he says, and he lies all the time -- but, you know, these policies we think are right for America and that if we remove him from office, you know that Mike Pence won't be as strong. The Democrats will be stronger. And we won't get the policies we want. But there's another group I mentioned. You know, the problem of political parties is that they like being senators. They like having people say, yes, sir Senator, let me get the door for you. They like standing up in front of an audience and getting applause. And, you know, they know that with our political system, they could be taken on in a party primary. Even if the general public overwhelmingly supports them -- in a primary, they can be taken off the ballot.

CO: But ego aside, I mean, you...

ME: It's cowardice.

CO: But isn't it that the stakes are so high? I mean, when do you think to go along with the impeachment process, then it's to lose everything. You lose the White House, you lose possibly the Senate, you already lost the House as Republicans. I mean, are not the stakes just too high to see it this way?

ME: It depends on whether what you're concerned most about is your party and your policies or whether you're concerned about the United States and its Constitution.

CO: But if you believe that your party and your policies are the right ones for the country, then wouldn't that contribute to the idea that I have to just turned a blind eye to this because the ends justify the means?

ME: Yeah, actually, they took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. And the Constitution means, you know, it is about process and how you make decisions and what decisions are not permissible. And so, you know, God help us if we ever get to the point that nobody cares about the rules, nobody cares about the law -- all they care about is whatever I have to do in order to hold power.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr Edwards, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

ME: Yeah. Thanks Carol. Bye.

CH: That was Mickey Edwards in Washington, D.C. He's a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma. He's also a visiting professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. In a statement, John Bolton denied any, quote, "coordination with The New York Times or anyone else regarding the appearance of information from his book."

[Music]

Quebec MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying)

Guest: Yves Robert

CH: Quebec's government has decided it was a little too hasty about expanding access to medical aid in dying. Last week, the provincial health minister announced that under some circumstances her government would allow people to apply for a physician assisted death to end suffering caused by a mental illness. The announcement came as both the provincial and federal governments grapple with a court ruling. The ruling struck down a requirement that applicants be near the end of their lives and suffering from conditions that will cause their deaths. But this morning, the minister backtracked. Plans to expand the policy to include mental illness are now suspended indefinitely. Dr. Yves Robert is the secretary of the College des medecins du Quebec. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Dr. Robert what do you make of the health minister's reluctance to make medical aid in dying available to people who are suffering from mental illness?

YVES ROBERT: Well, it's really a new chapter with the renewal of the criteria of being at the end of life obviously, it raises the issue of mental health. So that was already under discussion when the Chamber of Commons had discussed the issue they change in the criminal law in 2016. But it was removed because there is no mental ill condition that leads directly to death. So removing this criteria, it raises the issue again. And the real difficulty with this new chapter is that there are many conditions, mental health conditions, where the hope of death is one of the symptoms of the disease itself. So it's very hard to make a difference between a clear and informed consent to make and that symptom of the disease itself.

CO: For people who don't know or don't remember the rules for this or what -- how it's possible to get a medically assisted death. The Canadian law that successfully challenged was the idea that you had to have something, that your death was imminent, that you were going to die from whatever condition you had. And so that you could get an assisted death in advance of that. But that's been struck down. So now the issue is that, well, what do you do with people who are suffering, severely suffering, from mental illness?

YR: Yeah, that's the issue. And the question is, how much is their suffering and how much is their no cure to that sufferance? To be sure of that, there is really no way to help the patient coping with this suffering. So we have to think about that before offering the possibility of a patient to ask for MAID for these particular issue. So these clinical guidelines are required but are not yet developed.

CO: We will just remind people MAID is: medical aid in dying. Now, you point out another complication, which is that a symptom or a result of mental illness quite often is a desire to die. So how do you resolve that in making this decision?

YR: We are not going to do that alone. And we already to asked Quebec Association of Psychiatrists to develop a working group to try to develop these kind of criteria, clinical criteria that will help the clinical position to assess this difference between the desire that's linked with their mental health disease with a real clear and informed consent to have MAID. And the one of the main issue here is to be sure that the patient has tried unsuccessfully to control these sufferance with other scope of treatments that are made available up to now.

CO: Is there any jurisdiction, any state that allows for a medically assisted death for someone who is suffering from mental illness?

YR: Well, there are -- in our knowledge -- two countries where this is possible: Netherlands and Belgium. And that's for decades. And what we see, even if it is possible for that, it is very few patients who have access to that. Over 20 years for instance, in Belgium, 400 patients had access to that because of mental health troubles that were resistant to treatment. So we expect that it will be really a few persons for which demand of MAID will be accepted. And we need to define these persons to help the clinicians in accepting or refusing to provide MAID in these circumstances.

CO: The Quebec minister's original announcement was met with dire warnings that people who are already vulnerable because of mental illness could actually be put at risk of being killed. What kinds of safeguards would Quebec doctors want to see in place to protect the vulnerable?

CO: Well before safeguards, which is probably required more by patients and families to be sure that they will be no abuse, is to have clinical baseline and clinical guidelines to know how to assess these demands and on what basis we can accept or refuse these demands. So this is precisely the kind of guidelines we have to develop and that will be developed over the next few weeks with the help of psychiatrists. And having these criteria, we'll have to discuss if there's something acceptable for the society. So this is why we see with it a good eye -- the decision made public this morning by the minister of health saying that we will take the time to do the consultations with everyone, to be sure that we have a consensus here on not only the principle of offering MAID to mental health patients, but also to be sure on how it will be done. And I think it's wise to do that and it will help physicians to be more at ease and receiving this kind of demand if there is a social consensus over that.

CO: But we know it was already difficult for patients to find physicians who would agree, who would help them with a medically assisted death when the criteria were that the death had to be foreseeable. So without that criterion, how much more difficult is it going to be for people to find physicians who are willing to perform this operation?

YR: Well, I think that for the physicians, if the rules are made as clear as possible, it will be more easy to seek some physicians that will be willing to do that. But if we are in that gray zone, well, the kind of problems that are very complex and take time to resolve will probably make physician less willing to do that. So it is, I think, as a society and person in charge of decisions to define the best way possible and the more clear as possible the situation for physicians. And it will probably comply with these points as soon as they feel that they have the support of the general population of the decision makers and also that they have the tools to do that and their resources to provide the service.

CO: All right. We will leave it there for now. Dr. Robert I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

YR: My pleasure.

CH: Yves Robert is the secretary of the College des medecins due Quebec. We reached Dr. Robert in Montreal.

[Music]

Icelandic Names

CH: Let me play devil's advocate for a second -- and say they probably shouldn't have bothered playing devil's advocate. Recently, someone in Iceland attempted to name a child "Lusifer" -- with an "S." And that diabolical plan didn't come out of nowhere. See, Iceland has something called a naming committee, which is in charge of ensuring all names are acceptably Icelandic. That means they have to conform to Icelandic grammar and history and not be ridiculous. Well, last November the committee rejected the name "Lucifer" -- spelled the regular way. Of course, it has bad associations. The worst associations, actually. But also there is no "C" in the Icelandic alphabet. Well, then someone tried again, this time by trying to name their baby "Lusifer" with an "S" -- but the naming committee followed its instructions too and passed the letter and rejected the modified version too. Because almost clever as it was, the devil is not just in the details. This all reminded us of the time Carol spoke with a 15 year old Icelandic woman, we could not name. Or rather a 15 year old Icelandic woman who was not allowed to use her name. In fact, thanks to a disapproving naming committee, her official name was just "Girl." So in 2013, she and her mother sued the Icelandic government. Here's part of their conversation from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Well, first of all, I have to ask you, who are you?

BLAER: Me?

CO: Yes. What's your name? What do you call yourself?

BLAER: Blaer.

CO: Blaer. And according to the government, is that a legal name?

BLAER: No, it's not. According to the government, my name on my passport and everything, it stands "Stulka" -- which means "Girl" in Icelandic. And that's what it comes up when my name isn't illegal.

CO: It just says Girl? Stulka -- just Girl. That's all you're called: Girl?

BLAER: Yeah -- on my card and passport and everything.

CO: Now, why does the government control the names that people are able to call their kids?

BLAER: I think it's always been like that. And it's just the old way of Iceland. And I think it's also in Germany and Denmark.

CO: That's right. In those countries, and other places as well, they say it's because they want to avoid parents naming their kids things that are kind of stupid names or embarrassing names. That they're trying to protect the children.

BLAER: Yeah. I was watching an interview and he said -- a man said -- that we shouldn't be naming our kids something that we would get beaten up by. But there are like so few people that ask me about my name -- everybody thinks it's so normal.

CO: Does it mean anything in Icelandic?

BLAER: It means wind.

CO: Wind?

BLAER: Yes. It's like a breeze.

CO: Like a breeze. All right. Yes. Blaer -- breeze. And do you like your name?

BLAER: I'm so proud of my name. I love it.

CO: Yeah, it's worth fighting for. And you are going to be the first person who is going to challenge this name business in court.

BLAER: Yes. A 15-year-old against the government. It's pretty scary. Like when you put it like that. But I want this so bad. It's so annoying when I use my card or anything like that -- I always have to write "Stulka."

CH: From our archives, that was Carol talking with Blaer Bjarkardottir in January of 2013. Less than a month later, she won that court battle and the right to call herself Blaer.

[Music]

Reva Gerstein

CH: It was not uncommon for Dr. Reva Gerstein to show up to work in a string of pearls, a croft hairdo, and a fur shawl. The Toronto psychologist worked in homeless shelters and mental health clinics. And she stood out. But it didn't take long for her clients and her colleagues to trust her implicitly. Dr. Gerstein, a trailblazing woman in what was once considered a man's field and a staunch advocate for mental health supports, died this month. She was 102 years old. 50 years ago, Barbara Frum, who would, of course, later host As It Happens, interviewed Dr. Gerstein for a local radio segment. It was June 1970, and officials in Toronto were warning about the transient youth phenomenon: young people who hitchhiked into Toronto, did lots of drugs, and caused trouble. But Dr. Gerstein was calling for calm and for a bit more compassion. Here's part of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

REVA GERSTEIN: So many people fall in love with the people and hair. And they think it's just beautiful in the flower children. But that's 3 and 5 years old. In terms of what has been happening with young people -- there still are remnants of flower children, but there are a lot of young people and people who have become involved with drugs or have their own kinds of problems which reflect in paranoid behavior and deep depressions and pretty unpleasant kind of behavior. We're not trying to say that all these children are like the children here. We have to be careful. We don't generalize on all this because so many people are so quick to, you know, pull the long hair and the elaborate outfit or whatever the unique way is that the person is living or the different lifestyle. And that doesn't really mean that they're highly disturbed people. Our group has not really -- I've said this before -- approached this as a drug disaster area. And how do we quickly eradicate this with some short you know quick solution? Because we don't believe it. We don't believe that this is the way one goes -- the [inaudible] has insight in what this problem is all about.

BARBARA FRUM: This is very interesting. I think if you could just be good enough to do that -- you're sort of defining that you're not a hurricane approach. We've had Hurricane Hazel. We quickly sandbag and solved the problem -- that that's not your approach. What's wrong with that approach?

REVA GERSTEIN: Well, we feel that it's a very superficial one. It's the same way if one publishes a million pamphlets or one has a very terrifying frightening film on TV. And everyone knew goes: how terrible, how terrible -- we must get rid of it or put them all in jail or do something. Somebody should do something. And now it may be that they think the police should do that something.

BARBARA FRUM: Is your attitude a recognition of the fact that we can't cure it and therefore we've got to deal with it? We can't get rid of drugs. We can't get kids to stop experimenting.

REVA GERSTEIN: No, I don't know whether they will disappear or fall into a different kind of perspective any more than alcoholism or cigarette smoking or these other things. We can't cure it. We're not going to eliminate it. But any trick or gimmick. We are under 1970 -- it is not 1925, it is not 1950. And the temple, the complication of young people or all people having a place in this society are part of it. The whole communication world. The pill promotion all around us and always be happy and I'll always be glad and never be sad. You know, all these things that a child of two years of age can tell you about what the man said about some pill.

CH: That was Dr. Reva Gerstein speaking with host Barbara Frum in 1970 before Barbara became the host of As It Happens. Dr. Gerstein, one of Ontario's most renowned psychologists, died earlier this month. She was 102 years old.

[Music]

Part 3: Super Bowl Saturday? Teen starts petition to change game day for 'bigger party'

Pompeo interviews

Guest: Nancy Amons

CH: Heated interviews are one thing. And this weekend's conversation with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly certainly wasn't Mike Pompeo's first one of those. But the aftermath has been something else altogether. After recording a conversation with the US Secretary of State for NPR's "All Things Considered" Ms. Kelly says he lashed out at her in an expletive filled rant. Mr. Pompeo's office then published a statement publicly accusing Ms. Kelly of lying to him twice by telling him that their post interview conversation was off the record and in setting up their recorded interview. From that interview, here is part of an exchange in which Mary Louise Kelly asks Mike Pompeo to talk about something he clearly doesn't want to discuss.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY LOUISE KELLY: Change of subject: Ukraine. Do you owe Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch an apology?

MIKE POMPEO: You know, I agreed to come on your show today to talk about Iran. And that's what I intend to do. I know what our Ukraine policy has been now for three years of this administration. I'm proud of the work we've done. This administration delivered the capability for the Ukrainians to defend themselves. President Obama showed up with MREs. We showed up with Javelin missiles. Previous administration did nothing to take down corruption in Ukraine. We're working hard on that. We're going to continue to do it...

MARY LOUISE KELLY: I confirmed with your staff last night, that I would talk Iran and Ukraine.

MIKE POMPEO: I just don't have anything else to say about that this morning.

CH: Part of an exchange between NPR's Mary Louise Kelly and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recorded for All Things Considered. After that interview, Ms. Kelly says Mr. Pompei lashed out at her verbally. Nancy Amons is a reporter with the Nashville NBC affiliate WSMV who had her own encounter with the Secretary of State when he visited Nashville for an event last October. We reached her today in Nashville.

CO: Nancy, what was your reaction when you heard Mary Louise Kelly's recorded interview with Secretary Pompeo?

NANCY AMONS: I thought that she did a really good job pinning him down. It was contentious and it was awkward. But that's what the news is. It's contentious and awkward. And when you have people, high public officials, who don't want to answer questions, you keep pressing. I thought she did a great job.

CO: The controversial part is what seems to have happened after he ended the interview abruptly -- left -- and that his aide asked Ms. Kelly to come into the private room where apparently he unloaded on her for about as long as he had done the official interview. What did you make of that?

NA: I was totally shocked by that. That would signify to me somebody really losing their temper. I would love to know what happened in that back room. Because if there was a promise that there was going to be an off the record conversation, you know, that's a really weird situation because I don't know that I would have promised that. I don't know that most reporters would have promised that. I wouldn't have gone back there and said it was going to be off the record.

CO: Right. And she says she never does that and wouldn't have agreed to that. But he also later on accused her of not only just revealing what he'd said to her as he apparently yelled and used the F word, but that also claimed that she had agreed only to talk about Iran and not Ukraine. But in fact, emails show later that they actually had the exchange with Mr. Pompeo's office, agreeing to that, right?

NA: Yeah. And if the staffer did not convey that to the Secretary of State, that's on them. But clearly, you know, anytime you have an official of that rank, you are pretty much open to whatever questions you want to answer. And I don't think there's any reason to explode if another topic is in the news and you ask about it. It's just sort of expected.

CO: What do you make of that he asked Mary Louise Kelly to find Ukraine on a map?

NA: Why is that germane? I mean, whether she could find it or not, whether I could find it or not. What was that all about? I thought that was very odd. And I think the statement is saying, you know, the question I think that he raised was, do you think the Americans even care about Ukraine? What a bizarre thing to say.

CO: I want to play a part of the interview you had with Secretary Pompeo in October -- and very early on in this controversy about Ukraine and already quite prickly about it. Here is part of your interview with Mike Pompeo.

SOUNDCLIP

NA: Text messages show that diplomats under your authority told the Ukrainians had a good relationship with President Trump -- it was only possible if they investigated his political opponent and theories about what happened in 2016. Were you aware that this was happening?

MIKE POMPEO: Again, you've got your facts wrong. Sounds like you're working at least in part for the Democratic National Committee when you phrase a predicate of a question in that way. It's unfortunate that it does a real disservice to the employees and the team at the United States Department of State. Our team was incredibly focused. We wanted a good relationship with Ukraine. We wanted it before the election when Poroshenko was in charge. And we want it now with Mr. Zelensky in charge.

CO: All right. That was the interview, part of the interview, you did with Mr. Pompeo. What did you make of that exchange?

NA: Well, when I left there, my impression was that he was very patronizing and very condescending. And as far as, you know, being an arm of the DNC, I had expected that because I heard him say that to Judy Woodruff the day before. So, you know, I wasn't surprised that there was going to be a personal attack. But overall, you know, his overall tone was not answering questions, and being very condescending. He was staring at me where people were saying, did you feel like sharp knives flying at you just from his stare?

CO: And that is also something that Ms. Kelly mentioned about the leaning in and the glaring. But it's interesting that the subject matter that seemed to get under Secretary Pompeo skin in your interview is the same area of questioning that Ms. Kelly had the issue with. And it's interesting, your interview was back in October before impeachment, way before a lot of what we now know. And as soon as you ask about the possibility of a parallel foreign policy that Mr. Giuliani may have been having, it seemed to rattled him. What do you make of that?

NA: That he was completely unprepared for that question being asked. And I don't know why. Because certainly you'd think that, you know, even though I am a local reporter, I'm going to reach out to my colleagues at the network and I'm going to ask them, you know, what kinds of questions should I ask? I think he was taken completely off guard by that.

CO: You also asked about -- as Ms. Kelly did when she said change the subject do you owe Marie Yovanovitch the ambassador an apology? And you're asking about the same thing. So you think that by the time he's got to this weekend, he's had this question enough to have a better answer?

NA: I would think so. And I love that she gave him the opportunity to say, will you do it now? And you know, that went nowhere. And that was that is very telling, I think.

CO: Where do you put the blame? Because the reaction has been that well the media is like this, they're hostile, they're against Mr. Trump, they're against his administration. Is there any truth to that in the United States?

NA: I don't know. You know, I can't say that I feel that way. I can't speak for all reporters. But I'm not anti-Trump. Most of our audience is not anti-Trump. Tennessee was a win for Trump. I think that President Trump certainly has an anti-media bias and that he has very much created hatred towards the media. I do resent that. I don't like that.

CO: Nancy, we're going to leave it there. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

NA: Thank you.

CH: Nancy Amons is a reporter with the NBC affiliate WSMV in Nashville. That's where we reached her today.

[Music]

Batsheva Dagan

CH: Today, nearly 200 Holocaust survivors gathered at Auschwitz to mark the 75th anniversary of the camp's liberation. As members of the audience wiped away tears, former inmates of the camp spoke about their memories and implored the world not to forget the atrocities committed there. 95-year-old Batsheva Dagan was the first to speak. Here's a brief excerpt of her address.

SOUNDCLIP

BATSHEVA DAGAN: Welcome. Let me say Shalom from Israel. It is difficult for me to hide my feelings -- I'm standing here in front of you, I'm not sure whether it's real or whether I'm dreaming that I am here with you. 75 years after what happened here -- this great suffering that took place here. There was one more thing that helped us to live in this hell: friendship. You could find a group of people who would help one another. Sure the Holocaust, not only about the terrible things what else should I say? Maybe that I would like to cry because only with tears I can tell you about this past. I can see so many people here. You are a source of comfort to us. I hope you will all try to preserve the memory of this place and other sites where people, innocent people, died -- people from various nations. I hope that you will make sure, you will bear this responsibility, so that this terrible thing will never happen again.

CH: That was 95 year old Holocaust survivor Bathsheva Dagan speaking today at a memorial to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

[Music]

Lina Ben Mhenni

CH: By writing about the unfolding uprising in her country, blogger Lina Ben Mhenni didn't just document history -- she helped to shape it. A decade ago, Ms. Ben Mhenni chronicled the unrest in Tunisia from its inception on her blog, "A Tunisian Girl." Protests throughout the country soon led to the ouster of the country's long-time president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. And the revolution in Tunisia sparked a series of uprisings across the Middle East in what came to be known as the Arab Spring. Lina Ben Mhenni died today after a lengthy chronic illness. She was 36. She was the first blogger to travel to the city where the revolution began after a street vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest police corruption. In early 2011, a month after Mr. Bouazizi's death, Lina Ben Mhenni spoke with the CBC's Linden McIntyre, who was guest hosting The Current. Here's some of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

LINA BEN MHENNI: Life is back to normal. People are working. But students didn't go back to their schools. And there is a movement on the streets. But there are also some demonstrations against the ex-president's party.

LINDEN MCINTYRE: How important -- how big a factor was the social media in bringing this about?

LINA BEN MHENNI: Internet played a big role in uncovering the lies of the government. It was through the media that information was spread and disseminated to Tunisians and to the whole world. We used Internet to share videos and pictures showing what was happening and also to organize the demonstrations.

CO: President Ben Ali was obviously following the social media because he moved fairly quickly to get out of there after running the place for 23 years. How big a surprise was that for you?

LINA BEN MHENNI: It was a surprise, a big surprise, because we didn't expect him to leave so fast. We were expecting that he will leave. But things happened so fast. And we know that he was following the media and he was aware of the importance of the Internet and social networks because he worked on censoring many websites, many blogs and even some profiles on Twitter and Facebook. He was aware of the importance of the role of the Internet.

LINDEN MCINTYRE: Now you have a job. You're a teacher. How do you think life will change for you?

LINA BEN MHENNI: Well, actually I'm satisfied with my position as a teacher. My personal problem was the problem of censorship. I was writing. My blog got censored and everything. Now I can speak freely. And my other problem was the injustice I see that people are experiencing. I keep writing and try to help people through giving them a voice.

CH: From January 2011, blogger Lina Ben Mhenni, who blogged as "A Tunisian Girl" speaking with guest host Linden McIntyre on The Current. Ms. Ben Mhenni died today. She was 36.

[Music]

Super Bowl teen

Guest: Frank Ruggeri

CH: One New York teenager wants to do away with Super Bowl Sunday. Not the Super Bowl part. He loves that game. The "Sunday" part. Frank Ruggeri thinks it should be moved to Saturday. We reached him in Avon, New York.

CO: Frank, as you know, the Super Bowl always happens on Sunday. What's wrong with that?

FRANK RUGGERI: People don't get the right sleep or they eat too much and they don't feel good for Monday. Why not make it Saturday? So they can recover more.

CO: Okay. So you think that they need another 24 hours to recover from the Super Bowl?

FR: Yeah. My problem is 17 million people are calling [in] sick in the US.

CO: Is that for real? Is that something you found out?

FR: 17 million people. Yeah.

CO: And what about kids going to school?

FR: They're very grumpy. They want to go to sleep. Just like me -- I want to go to sleep after a late night game like that. Or even if it goes overtime. I can't wake up. I just want to go to bed and stay home type thing. And when I get up and I go to school, there's always kids -- when my Rams lost last year -- people were in my face that I wanted to call in sick.

CO: But Monday morning isn't usually a bad morning for you going to school?

FR: No, not really. I don't stay up that late. And on the Super Bowl Sunday I stay up late because I go to a party.

CO: Okay. Now, where did you get the idea to do this? Where did it first come to you?

FR: Conversing over dinner. And my dad was talking about: why not put it Saturday? My dad talked about playoffs. I said, Why not Saturday? I said it. Why not Saturday of the Super Bowl? And I started that petition.

CO: And what did your dad say when you came up with this idea?

FR: Go for it.

CO: And so you did. And so you started a petition. How many people have signed on?

FR: 35,000.

CO: Are you serious?

FR: I'm serious.

CO: Wow! Do you have any idea why it is on Sunday?

FR: I think it's because of the Broadcasting Act or something like that.

CO: It goes back to the 1960s, right. So it was actually an act of Congress...

FR: Yeah -- with the Green Bay Packers and the Chiefs in that game. That was placed on a Sunday early in the afternoon.

CO: Aha. And so why did then they decide to stay with Sunday?

FR: Because of the TV views and the revenue. But my idea Saturday will be more TV views.

CO: Well, apparently there was some problem with -- the act of Congress was put in place because it didn't want to overlap with college football and compete with that -- with the NFL, right?

FR: Right. I heard that. That didn't come to my head for a second.

CO: So there's reason for having it on Sunday.

FR: [Person talking in background] It would be better on Saturday.

CO: Who's that prompting you in the background?

FR: That's my father.

CO: [Laughter] Who shares your view.

FR: Yeah.

CO: And he shares your name, right?

FR: Yeah, he shares my name.

CO: You're both Franks.

FR: Yep.

CO: Now, let's just go back to the game thing. I mean, is it possible the NFL would actually listen to you, just a 16-year-old?

FR: You and everyone. I think that they would. And everyone will be on with it for it.

CO: If you could get it changed to Saturday, what would that be like for you and your party?

FR: There would be a bigger party.

CO: What's your favorite part about the Super Bowl party?

FR: Eating a lot of food.

CO: [Laughs] What is your favorite food at Super Bowl?

FR: I think the dips and stuff -- chips and the hor d'oeuvres.

CO: Buffalo wings?

FR: Oh yeah. It's turning my stomach all right.

CO: [Laughs] But, you know, also people drink a lot of beer at Super Bowl. So is that also a problem for people going to work the next day?

FR: Intoxication, yeah. I was going to mention that. Alcohol sales are up because of Sunday. People getting drunk and they drive, they can't sleep in and get sober up pretty much.

CO: Okay. Is your team in the Super Bowl this year?

FR: No. The LA Rams and the Buffalo Bills.

CO: Okay. And so we've got the San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs. So who are you going to be rooting for?

FR: I think the Chiefs.

CO: Do you actually think the Chiefs are going to win or do you just kind of...I kind of want to have a team to cheer for?

FR: I would like Patrick Mahomes to win their first Super Bowl -- the Super Bowl Ring under one quarterback.

CO: What team is your dad [rooting] for?

FR: The Rams.

CO: Is he backing any of these teams in the Super Bowl?

FR: The Chiefs.

CO: He's with the Chiefs -- so you're both going for the Chiefs.

FR: Yeah.

CO: Okay. Well, we'll see how you do. Maybe if I see the Super Bowl change to Saturday, I will know where this started, where this idea came from. It came from you.

FR: [Laughs]

CO: Frank, thanks for talking to us.

FR: Thank you so much.

CO: And thanks to your dad.

FR: You're welcome.

CH: 16 year old Frank Ruggeri has started a petition to ask the NFL to move the Super Bowl from Sunday to Saturday. We reached him in Avon, New York. And you can find more on that story on the As It Happens website: cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 27, 2020 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This