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 May 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: Sit tight. A judge orders Meng Wanzhou to stay put while the Chinese executive's extradition hearing goes ahead. Former Canadian ambassador to China David Mulroney says that's going to make for a bumpy road ahead for Canada's relationship with China.

CO: Duly warned. Ontario's premier says he had no idea things were so bad in the province's care homes. A lawyer behind a detailed inquiry into those homes said the province knew everything it needed to know last summer.

CO: Preventable causes. Benito Quesada, a worker at the Cargill meat plant in Alberta, died earlier this month of COVID-19. We hear from his daughter, who says his death shouldn't have happened.

CH: As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that understands even the most seasoned traveller can be surprisingly gull-ible.

Meng Wanzhou

Guest: David Mulroney

CO: China has insisted that there's no link between Meng Wanzhou and her situation and the arrest of those two Canadians. And yet, at the same time, all the signals coming out of Beijing and its agents were that if Meng Wanzhou is released, if this is dismissed, then the two men will be home pretty soon. What does that tell you?

DM: When they often mention it in the same breath, it says that this is really, in effect, a hostage taking. And China is trying to underline that for us. And they know that, you know, in a democracy, in a country like Canada, the safety of our citizens means an awful lot. I think they can understand the pain they're inflicting. But I thought the Minister Champagne, Foreign Minister Champagne's, remark today, he issued a statement saying, you know, the court has spoken. And the best thing that the government can do is to encourage everybody, those in China as well, to read the judge's decision, which was very, very carefully written. And I think gives some very clear indication as to why we are where we are, that this is a serious issue that has to be resolved. It wasn't something cobbled together on the back of an envelope by someone in President Trump's office. There is a problem here that needs to be resolved.

CO: There have been a number of statements coming out of China that this decision, this court decision isn't at arm's length. It's not independent, as Canada insists. China says this is really we're doing the behest of Donald Trump, who's in a spat with China. And that's really what we're doing. Do the Chinese authorities actually believe that, or is that a position?

DM: I think a lot people in China probably believe it. Chinese authorities and those who have any exposure to the West don't believe it. But not only is it not opportune, it's not part of their current messaging drive to say that, they know that that has an impact in Canada. They can't give advice back to headquarters. That headquarters doesn't want to hear. The approved line is that Canada’s carrying water for the United States. And that's how they will treat it. This is where the release of the statement, and I've read through now the decision, is the best possible antidote to that to encourage as many people as possible to read it. When I was ambassador, there was a very controversial case where a Chinese fraudster was seeking... He was seeking refugee status in Canada. And when the judge finally determined that he could be returned, we published on our Weibo, which is like Twitter in China, the full text in English and French of the judge's decision. And people in China read it and said, gee, we still don't agree with it. But it's really remarkable that your judge has to publish a decision like that and we can understand what the case is about. So, in this case, I think I'd let the facts speak for themselves.

CO: You're right. The language is very interesting, very precise. Of course, this is just one stage of this, isn't it? This is just defined that this would be a criminal act in Canada. And it’s liable for extradition hearings, now to have extradition hearings. And then finally, what we understand is that the government, the minister, justice minister, can, in the end, decide that the extradition would be contrary to Canadian values and dismiss the whole thing. So does China have a case that there is a political component, that ultimately this is in the hands of the politicians?

DM: Well, that's always been the great problem at the heart of this, that there is a judicial process. And then the minister makes his decision. David Lametti makes his decision based on what the court has determined. And it takes a fairly sophisticated mind to see how the Canadian system allows both the political and the judicial processes to play out. That won’t be given much rift in China. And, of course, the road was already muddied by things like Ambassador McCallum’s statements, the statements are very high-placed Canadians, that we should just treat this as a prisoner exchange. So all of those things give the Chinese some hope that if they keep squeezing us and pressuring us, something is going to come loose. Whereas this is going to take now as long as it takes. And ultimately, it will end up on the justice minister's desk. But having been given a very, very throe judicial review.

CO: There’s an awful lot going on now, isn't there, in relations between Canada and China, and China and the world. And, of course, Hong Kong, the new security law. We are seeing the Canadian government seemingly talking strong about condemning that security law and what it potentially might do. What position is the Trudeau government in at this point as far as relations with China?

DM: Well, you know, I think I cannot remember a time maybe go back until Tiananmen when China had so many countries opposed to it in the recent past. Normally, if China has a problem with one country, one big country, notably the United States, they try to patch things up or to be nice to others. But right now, because of its aggressive behaviour in Hong Kong and its efforts to suppress freedom, it's got the United States today announcing that they're going to suspend the special trade deal that applies to Hong Kong. It’s treated differently from China because it seemed to be autonomous. And what they're saying today is it isn't. They have, in addition to what they're doing to the Uyghurs is in the far west of China. They've got a military standoff with the Indians, and a very serious military standoff, one of the worst we've seen in a number of years. And then they've got all of the fallout from COVID-19. So one mitigating factor for Canada is that as mad as the Chinese will be, they've got their hands full at the moment. And this is something that is potentially problematic for President Xi Jinping, because those who aren't his supporters in the Chinese leadership are going to say, you've got us into many more squabbles than we can handle. I think Ottawa needs to keep this in mind.

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

DM: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

DM: Bye-bye.

CH: David Mulroney is a former Canadian ambassador to China. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music: Ambient]

LTC lawyer

Guest: Mark Zigler

CH: Not enough staff. Not enough medical equipment. And not enough PPE for those who take care of patients, or for the patients themselves. Today, Quebec released the Canadian military's report on what soldiers have found since they started assisting at the province's COVID-plagued long-term care homes. The descriptions echo yesterday's damning report of homes in Ontario. And while the Quebec report found that conditions have improved since mid-April -- there are still crucial shortfalls. Today in Ottawa, Prime Minister Trudeau was asked about the Quebec report.

[sc]

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I was able to read the report last night in its entirety in regards to Quebec. Obviously, there are many things that were troubling that highlighted the very need that we had to send in our armed forces to help, whether it was lack of personnel or difficulty in following the strict separation and isolation and PPE rules. There was a need for our Canadian armed forces. And obviously, there are difficult things that we need to continue on. But we've seen significant improvement in many of those centres. And there continues to be a need for us to work together. And I certainly spoke about that this morning with Premier Legault in our conversation.

[/sc]

CH: Prime Minister Trudeau in Ottawa this morning. Problems in our long-term care homes are nothing new to Mark Zigler. Mr. Zigler was the lead counsel for a public enquiry into Ontario's long-term care homes. It was called after the nurse, Elizabeth Wettlaufer, admitted to killing eight people and trying to kill six others while working in several care homes in southwestern Ontario. We reached Mark Zigler in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Ziglar, after the work that you and your colleagues did, what is it like to see this report of what Canada's military has found in these long-term care facilities?

MARK ZIGLAR: Well, in many ways, it confirms things that the Justice Gillesee Inquiry found last year. In other ways, it shows that when you add the layer of the tidal wave of COVID-19, it exacerbates things terribly in terms of things like the standards care and the staffing problems that have led Ontario to now want another public inquiry.

CO: When you read through what the military report had to say, what echoes did you hear from your own work on the report that you did?

MZ: Well, you have to remember, the Gillesee Inquiry dealt with a serial killer and misuse of medications and harm and safety and threats to residents. There are many familiar things about overdosing of medication and dosing errors involving narcotics and insulin and not following the right protocols. People falling, ulcers, that sort of thing, and not getting proper care in terms of hygiene and bathing. And most importantly, we heard about staffing problems because serial killer, Wettlaufer, was involved in lack of supervision during evenings and night shifts. And again, we saw no people available during evenings and night shift. Of course, exacerbated when COVID-19 led people to have to be quarantined and more workers who basically wouldn't show up for work.

CO: And in this case, a lot of new people had come in who weren't getting any kind of training at all. They were afraid for their jobs. And they were afraid even to use supplies because they were told they cost money. Is that something that you found in the home that you looked into?

MZ: Well, we looked at a number of homes that Wettlaufer was in. And there were issues there pertaining particularly to agency nurses who were brought in just because they couldn't find regular staff. People were very part-time, inappropriate handover of information about the residents from one shift to the next. In that respect, it's not new.

CO: We’ve heard from Ontario's premier, Doug Ford. He said that he had no idea that this was going on in these homes until he saw the report on the weekend. Should he have known?

MZ: Well, I can't speak for him individually, but certainly the government knew when they got this report about staffing problems, about what had been found. The hearings are public. in 2018, of course, it was under the previous government at the time, but all of this was provided in a report. It’s got four volumes, thousands of pages. So a lot of this was known. And, in fact, there were recommendations that were made by Justice Gillese, particularly on staffing, requiring the government to respond by July 31 of this year, if not sooner, and other things they should be doing sooner on staffing and other issues pertaining to the home.

CO: And if they had followed through, if the government had followed through on the recommendations that your report had made last year, how might things have been different during this pandemic?

MZ: Well, I don't know. I think that's purely speculative, especially because a report came out at the end of July, but also a pandemic wasn't part of what was contemplated. But what was of concern, though, was the safety of residents, and the inadequacy of staffing and supervision of medications. And something I don't know what initiatives came forward in terms of those issues in the six months following the issue of the report, or the eight months. So it's hard to say that anything would have been different, but obviously there wasn't a sort of a backup plan if there was suddenly a shortage of staff due to them becoming ill in terms of what would happen to help look after these residents. And you have to remember residents in these homes, one thing that Justice Gillise did point out, 90 per cent of them, based on the statistics we had, have some sort of cognitive problem. Something like 85 percent of them need extensive help with activities such as eating or using the washroom. Seventy-five per cent of them have heart recirculation issues. The acuity in these homes has grown tremendously in recent years because the number of beds hasn't grown. So only the most seriously ill are in these homes.

CO: The bottom line is money, isn't it? It has to be financed better.

MZ: In part, yes, money, but also training and monitoring. We have a very extensive regime for regulating long-term care at homes in Ontario. But you have to have the wherewithal and the will to enforce that and have the people to do the work.

CO: Because in your report, you do cite that these systems put in place to oversee the homes is there. Do you find that it was your conclusion that they just weren't monitoring them accurately?

MZ: Well, there were concerns about the inspections at the time in the Wettlaufer situation. I can't comment on what's happened right now, although from what we hear in media and reports, there seem to have been some failures on the inspection side in terms of responding to COVID-19. And that certainly is part of the problem.

CO: Andre Picard, the Globe and Mail columnist, said today that we don't need any more inquiries, we don't need any more investigations. We have what we need to know in order to act. And that the government should simply do that. Do you think that we need another inquiry, another investigation, or do you think that they have what they need in order to move on and improve this situation?

MZ: [chuckle] Well It doesn’t really matter at this point. The government's determined to do it. And I think they want the families whose loved ones have been affected by COVID-19 to get some answers. But at the same time, if one is having an inquiry, it shouldn't be using it as an excuse not to deal with the recommendations that have already been made. So whether he's right or wrong, it does matter. The government has decided on this course. And more importantly, there are families, and these are human beings, who've gone through terrible events and many of whom have died. And the government feels that they and their families are entitled to some sort of public accountability. But that doesn't mean that the government can't act on a whole lot of things that have already been recommended. And another inquiry shouldn't be an excuse not to act. If that's what he's saying, he's quite right about that.

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

MZ: All right. Thanks.

CO: Bye.

CH: Mark Zigler was the lead counsel for the public inquiry into Ontario long-term care homes that followed the murders by the nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer. Mr. Zigler is in Toronto.

FOA: Pepperoni seagulls

CO: Oh, does she listen to the show? She might find out.

NB: Oh, she will.

CO: All right let's go to the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C. 17 years ago, and a story about what happened to you when you went back to your hotel room where you had left a whole bunch of Brothers pepperoni by an open window. What did you find when you got back?

NB: Not what I expected. I put the pepperoni out just to keep it cool. It was in the fridge of my room and I was gone for number of hours, like probably four or five hours. I opened the door, I was tired, I wasn't really paying too much attention, I just kind of walked into the room and shut the door behind me. It was just sort of an explosion of everything in the room. There were a lot of gulls. They'd come through a very small opening in the window.

CO: How many seagulls are in your room at that point?

NB: My guess would be somewhere between 20 and 40.

CO: And what were they doing?

NB: They'd been eating Brothers TNT pepperoni — I’m specific with the TNT because it's hot — they'd been eating that for about five hours and you can imagine what the room looked like.

CO: No I can't imagine, what did the room look like?

NB: They were carrying on their life processes in there for about five hours. So there were feathers, there was guano, there was everything. The shocking thing for me was the saliva. I didn't know that seagulls drooled. This slime was covering everything and they were whipping it up into the air and they were flying around. It was like a tornado. They were knocking things down — the curtains, the lamps, everything in the room was covered with feathers or one form of excretion or another. It was not pretty and the smell was pretty overwhelming.

CO: Why did you decide you should take this on? Why didn't you immediately call for hotel security or something to deal with it?

NB: To tell you the truth I thought that I could handle it. I opened the remainder of the windows and most of them left immediately. I had problems with a couple.

CO: A few of them were left, and so tell us how you managed to lose your shoe?

NB: Well, first I lost my temper and then I lost my shoe. I threw a shoe at one that was kind of bouncing around the windowsill — both the seagull and the shoe went out the window. What I didn't know they have this great thing in the afternoon called high tea at the Empress, and a lot of people line up to get in there and they pay a lot of money to go to this thing. Apparently there was a line of tourists directly below my front-facing window. Apparently I struck one of them with the shoe.

CO: But wasn't there also a hotel towel you heaved out the window?

NB: That was the last seagull, yes. I was trying to catch it. It had a piece of pepperoni and it was jumping around the room and it was a fairly large room. I went into the washroom, I grabbed a large bath towel and I jumped the seagull and I threw it out the window. The only thing is seagulls can't fly if they're wrapped in a towel. And it also plummeted into this group of tourists. So, I didn't know about the tourists at the time. I'm just trying to you know regain control of the room. So that was the last seagull.

CO: But it wasn't the end of your story because you were there at the hotel to start a new job and you had to get ready to go. How did you finally get this cleaned up, and, I guess, get your shoe back?

NB: Yes, I was trying to make a good impression during all this and I'd only be with my company for three months. And I only had one pair of shoes, I had to go to dinner, they were kind of a light brown leather shoe. I went out, I retrieved my shoe and the towel and I went back to my room. Now the shoe had become dirty, it had fallen into the garden down there so I cleaned it off with some water. But now I had one dark shoe and one light shoe, one of the shoes was wet. In retrospect I should have just got the other shoe wet, but I tried to dry the wet shoe using the little hairdryer. And the phone rang went into the next room to answer the phone, when I was in there the power went out and I realized that the hairdryer had vibrated free of the shoe and fallen into the sink full of water. And I don't know how much of the hotel's power knocked out. But yeah, at that point, sitting there with all that the mess from the seagulls and no power, I realized I needed help.

CO: A cleaning person arrived. How did she respond when she came to the room?

NB: It was just kind of a look of shock really. She was really underprepared for what she saw. I didn't even know what to tell her. And when I came back The Empress had moved me to a different, much smaller room, and I didn't get to go back to that room to see how well she made out.

CO: And you didn't get to go back to the hotel for 17 years because you were banished. You were banned from the hotel all the years.

NB: That's right. We were hosting the event that was taking place at the hotel and I had a bunch of customers there. So I think that's probably why I didn't get turfed immediately. When the event was over my employer did receive a letter requesting that I not stay at the empress ever again.

CO: And your request to return to that hotel, you drafted a letter, you were in your hotel across the street. You sent them a letter. Tell us what you asked the hotel?

NB: I just explained to them I would like to either have a pardon or at least have my 17 years considered as time served. Two days later I was at dinner and I got a phone call, and it was Ryan, the manager that I'd been speaking with at The Empress, and he was laughing and he said that they had reviewed my request and that I was no longer banned from me from The Empress. My ban had been lifted.

CO: So you can now return. Maybe they should give you — maybe that room doesn't even exist anymore. Maybe they had to shut it down Alfred Hitchcock style forever. But would you want to go back and relive any of this experience?

NB: I don't know what reliving it. I'm still kind of dealing with the scars from that first incident. But I was actually just at a restaurant up the street from The Empress when I got the call so I immediately went down and I gave them a peace offering of a pound of Brothers TNT pepperoni.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: All right Nick, it's great to have this story from the horse's mouth as it travels around the world.

NB: Thank you, Carol. Nice talking to you.

CO: You too. Bye-bye.

[/sc]

CH: From 2018, Carol talking with Nick Burchill of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

[Music: Piano]

Part two:

Newfoundland fishermen deaths

Guest: Paul Pike

CO: And did anyone see the boat on Monday before it lost contact?

PP: No, nobody had seen the boat, as far as we know. Nobody had seen the boat.

CO: And this is The Sarah Anne. This is a small fishing vessel, 35 feet. It had all the safety equipment on board. So it seems that whatever happened happened quite quickly. That's some of the theories that are out there.

PP: Yeah. The theory around town is that, you know, for it to disappear, and without a chance of anyone making radio contact or calling in a mayday, you know, it's just a mystery. There's a lot of theories around town. But I think all the theories point to a sudden loss, like they didn't have time to react.

CO: And the weather was good? Everything was fine? No other reason?

PP: The weather was good as far as, you know, we know, they were 20, 24 miles off the coast. So they were, you know, as far as we know, that the conditions were good. And that, you know, not not enough seas to cause any tragedy like this. That's what I get from fishermen.

CO: Have they recovered any part of The Sarah Anne?

PP: There's been some debris located. And, of course, picked up by fishermen and the Coast Guard, not exactly sure what was found. But I do know that because I spoke to a fisherman today. And he told me that they picked up a piece of the boat.

CO: So we’re talking about this is Ed Norman, his son Scott, his nephew Jody, and then Isaac Kettle, who they still haven't recovered.

PP: Yes.

CO: And so how are the families doing?

PP: Well, you know, the families are coping. But, you know, it's been very difficult. Like, the loss is tragic. I've been talking with members of the Kettle family. And, you know, they want to bring Isaac home. And Isaac has as a wife and two small boys. And the boys want their dad home.

CO: Of course, St. Lawrence, not a big town, but it has a big history, and has known a lot of tragedy going back to your horrible tsunami, and losing the whole fishery at one point. How are our people in the town coping with this latest tragedy?

PP: Well, you know, people in this town are very supportive, very resilient. People are reaching out, doing whatever they can, helping in any way they can. And there's, you know, well, it's really no different than any tragedy that we've faced in the past. We've all stuck together and taken the attitude we're going to get through this. I know that, you know, St. Lawrence, as close knit as it is. I saw a post yesterday on social media saying I bet everyone from St. Lawrence would like to be home now. Our little town is hurting so much. And that's summed it up for me, you know?

CO: Mayor Pike, I'm sorry.

PP: Yep. It's been really a tough few days.

CO: Thank you so much for talking to us.

PP: Yep. And listen, anytime.

CO: All right. Bye-bye.

PP: Bye-bye.

CH: Paul Pike is the mayor of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland. That's where we reached him. And since we recorded that interview, the Coast Guard announced that it will call off its search effort tonight because searchers believe there is no longer any reasonable chance of survival for the fourth crew member.

Cargill death

[sc]

ARIANA QUESADA: On Thursday, April 9th, he came back home with symptoms. There were slight symptoms, but it was definitely not very pleasant to see because he was suffering a lot. And then on the 13th, Monday, April 13, he was admitted into the hospital. And it was he was very vulnerable. He was not himself, and we couldn't see him in the hospital. The only time that I got to see him was when I said my goodbyes when I went with my mom to the hospital.

DAVID GRAY: Before he got sick, his co-workers were getting sick. And yet, your dad kept going into work. Can you tell me why he made that decision? Do you know?

AQ: Cargill promised their workers a five hundred dollar bonus if they didn’t miss a day of work in the month of April and May. My dad he knew this, and he was very determined. And to get this five hundred dollar bonus because money's money, and we live in Canada, and it's a very developed country. And to make things happen, you need money. And so he knew this, and he really was determined to not miss a day of work. That's why he went. And that's why I think many of the workers went because of that $500 bonus.

DG: Did he feel it was unsafe to go to work? Do you know?

AQ: Of course, the week before he got the COVID, he said that there were suspicions of a few cases in the plant. And my mom had told him, stop going to work. But my dad said, you know, that if I stopped going to work, we're not going to get that $500 bonus.

DG: Have you received any kind of financial support from Cargill?

AQ: We’re settling the payments with them. But more than money, we want to see remorse. And we want to see them being truly sorry for what happened because it was their fault. It was not the workers that kept going to work, because if the plant has shut down, my dad wouldn't have needed to go to work. Because there wouldn't have been a worse place to go. And so I know many people are blaming the workers, but that's not what happened. So the only thing that we want besides money, which we don't really want that much anymore, is just we want to see them have some sort of remorse.

DG: Ariana, you're in a position no 16-year-old should be in.

AQ: Um-hmm.

DG: Not only with what's happening with your family, but even with talking with me on the radio this morning. Can I ask how your family's doing? How are you managing?

AQ: We’re devastated. I mean, my little sister, she's five. She shouldn't have to be saying these things. She's crying every day. And it's devastating because I can't do anything to make it better. I can’t bring my dad back. [begins to cry] As much as I want to, I can't because that's not the way life works. And if I could if you told me for a million dollars, you can have your dad back, I would work until the day I die. But that's not how life works. And it's devastating because we're all going through this, my mom, my siblings, and we shouldn't have to because it shouldn't have happened.

[/sc]

CH: Ariana Quesada, speaking with the CBC's David Gray on the Calgary Eyeopener today. In a statement to CBC News over the weekend, a Cargill spokesperson extended "sincere, heartfelt condolences" to the family.

CO: Okay, so I understand from what you said, you didn't have the resources. Why didn’t you have the determination?

JH: We probably did have the determination, but without the resources, that wasn't going to work.

CO: You talked about how it was a very frustrating day. What does this mean for you? You've been there for a number of decades, haven't you?

JH: I've been four decades, in fact. You know, when you're that involved with an institution. And what really matters to me is the voices of the papers, particularly the Toronto Star. What you know, there aren't a lot of great progressive voices out there.

CO: And what makes you think that the people, the men, who are buying Torstar are actually going to continue with those principles?

JH: First of all, I would say Jordan Bitove, came to the five families. He also came to the board of directors and personally made his pitch, talked about his commitment to the principles, talked that he wanted this to preserve. And when asked, why do I think they will do that? He was very clear that The Star has a very distinct brand. That as the progressive brand. And that it makes good business sense to maintain it as this voice. To say turn it into one more conservative newspaper, that doesn't make any business sense.

CO: How does it make business sense for them if it didn't make sense for you and the other families? You mentioned the five families, or five families in this ownership structure of Torstar. What are they going to bring in way of resources that’s going to stop the bleeding of money that Torstar was experiencing?

JH: It's going to take resources and money to get things going, to take steps. I mean, the runway was, in fact, getting shorter and shorter. I think it's an open question, Carol, as to whether or not you can have three competing subscription models in the country. Is it possible there may be combinations in the future and that will involve financing, getting things together? Those are the kind of considerations and deals they may well be thinking of doing.

CO: With not just the Toronto Star. You have progressive papers, Hamilton Spectator, the Waterloo Region Record. You got 70 community newspapers.

JH: Correct.

CO: What future do they have?

JH: I mean, you're right. The audience today, this is a fundamental question that I think this country is facing. Because I know the situation that all the publishers are in. Are people prepared to pay for news? Everyone is out there trying to get subscribers. That's the model everyone's trying to do. We've seen it work extraordinarily well in the United States with the New York Times. And it has a national mandate, in fact, an international mandate. Can one Canadian digital service work? I've certainly come to the view that I think perhaps one can work. But three, and so that's going to involve bringing various properties together and doing something. I think that's more likely the path that will come forward.

CO: And we have seen these kinds of shake-ups in the industry. We've seen the papers being sold and reshaped. It almost always comes with job losses. What do you anticipate in that department?

JH: I don't know what their plans are, but unfortunately, given the circumstances that we're in, I mean, given this pandemic and what we're already going through, you are seeing in the news media industry furloughs, four-day weeks, layoffs and everything. The government’s 75 per cent wage subsidy has helped alleviate. How long will that go? How much will we be affected? I mean, I can tell you. No one wants to advertise now. Things aren't open. Maybe that's going to open up a bit more. Maybe we're going to see. But so far, advertising has been dramatic. Given that, eventually that leads to job loss. It’s a sad reality.

CO: And is that inevitable?

JH: Given where we are, and given the situation, and going on, probably close to inevitable.

CO: If it hadn't been for this pandemic, do you think that you could have held on?

JH: I will tell you that the offer, which was unsolicited, came in just before the pandemic and we considered it. We were still considering it seriously. But certainly, COVID accentuated that process.

CO: What does this day mean for you personally?

JH: It's the end of an era. It's the end of... This has been my life. I guess you could call it, Carol, my mission in terms of helping to put out this paper. And so it’s certainly affected me profoundly.

CO: It’s a sad day for you?

JH: It's a sad day.

CO: Mr. Honderich, thank you for speaking with us.

JH: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

JH: Bye-bye.

CH: John Honderich is the chair of Torstar's board of directors, and the former publisher of the Toronto Star. He's in Toronto.

[Music: Industrial]

FOA: Larry Kramer obit

CH: It's a terrible time for the world to lose playwright and pioneering HIV/AIDS activist Larry Kramer, because very few people have thought more and more deeply about plagues, not so much what they do to the human body, but what they do to the human spirit. Larry Kramer died today of pneumonia. He was 84. He raged against political inaction and the outright injustice of the AIDS epidemic. And that rage sustained him and defined him. It fuelled his work. And it also made him lots of enemies, even amongst allies. But he saved his most pointed critiques for those in power, such as America's top infectious disease specialist at the time in the 1980s, a guy named Anthony Fauci. He accused Dr. Fauci of being an incompetent idiot. But it says much about Mr. Kramer's character that he and Dr. Fauci eventually became friends. Larry Kramer survived the AIDS epidemic that took so many lives, despite contracting the virus at a time when drugs were limited and the prognosis bleak. He hoped he'd live long enough to complete a play about COVID-19, too. Recently, he told the New York Times, quote, The government has been awful in both cases. They were terrible with AIDS and they're terrible with this thing. One wonders what will become of us. From our archives, here's Larry Kramer speaking with guest host Dale Goldhawk in June of 1990. Mr. Kramer had just been uninvited to speak at the sixth annual International AIDS Conference in San Francisco.

[sc]

LARRY KRAMER: Oh, it’s the politics of AIDS. It's a very conservative bunch that's controlling the conference. And even though I'm a founder of the two most important AIDS organizations in the world, I'm also enormously critical of the system. I think that the AIDS work, quite frankly, has been completely and utterly lost. And that these are the people who lost it, the people who are putting on the conference, that I said so.

DALE GOLDHAWK: Well, I guess what you're really saying is there isn't enough AIDS activism going on right now?

LK: Oh, you can say that again, when you consider that there are 24 million gay people in America. The precious few who are out there on the front line, and, of course, the other communities, people of colour, women, mothers, people who take drugs, they're not organized at all. And the straight people who are coming down with AIDS. That's their big secret. So it's a disease that's going to swamp the world, I believe. I believe the figures now are grotesque. It's a plague out there. There's literally a new HIV infection every 60 seconds in America.

DG: What should AIDS activists be doing then?

LK: Well, what everybody should be doing, because it's going to come out of everybody's pockets. As I say, I think the the war against AIDS has been lost. And the only way now to really in any way prepare for the future is that the president of the United States, and he's been terrible, just like the one before him on this issue, has simply got to do two things. One is, he's got to put someone in charge. There have been six major government reports and 100 congressional oversight hearings that have all said the same thing. Please, George, put somebody in charge. And this person, be it a he or she, has to be given emergency powers to cut through the red tape, cut through the B.S. and the bureaucracy, and override laws that are standing in the way. And really unite all the agencies that are right now completely unable to get along with each other. That's point one. Point two is, Bush has to start something the equivalent of a Manhattan project, which is what you remember what they used to develop the atom bomb. Is where a group of scientists will simply go off by themselves, be given money and come up with a cure. And this is not so far-fetched as it sounds.

DG: Well, it doesn't sound very radical.

LK: Well, not only that, there is a cure there. This has been told to us that the delays now are not scientific delays. They're bureaucratic delays. They're red tape delays. And meanwhile, two million people are infected in America. And those two million people, at the rate things are going now, are going to die.

[/sc]

CH: From our archives, Larry Kramer on As It Happens in 1990. Larry Kramer died today. He was 84.

Part three:

CL: But it’s home. It’s where I grew up. [laughing] That’s what’s neat about this community is that sense of tradition. And that sense of all the homeness. But at the same time, that's what’s bad about this community, is that sense of tradition that we can't get out of our own way, that we are so, so resistant to change. And we better get on board now, or we'll continue to slide.

[/sc]

CH: The former mayor of Rutland, Vermont, Chris Louras. Well, soon enough, Rutland became known for something other than opioid addiction. The mayor's plan to turn things around involved bringing one hundred Syrian refugees to live there. It made headlines. And soon the city was divided by a sometimes-ugly debate about that plan. Jennifer Maytorena Taylor documents what unfolded in her new film, "For The Love Of Rutland." At the centre of that story is Stacie Griffin, a recovered addict who wrestles with what she thinks about the new arrivals from Syria. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Griffin joined Carol via WhatsApp for a feature interview.

CO: Jennifer and Stacie, welcome to As It Happens.

JENNIFER MAYTORENA TAYLOR: Thanks so much for having us.

CO: You're there, Stacie?

STACIE GRIFFIN: Absolutely. Thank you.

CO: And now, Stacie, you are what they call in documentary speak, you are a principal character in this story [chuckling]. But the biggest character really is the town of Rutland, isn't it? And when you hear the mayor saying that there are people who call Rutland an absolute crap whole, Stacie, what do you think?

SG: He is correct. I mean, that is the common theme that we do hear. But it's so far from the truth, in my opinion. And I feel that my opinion matters because I was born and raised here, 39 years.

CO: And Jennifer, you as the filmmaker, you spent part of your childhood in Rutland, is that right?

JMT: I did. We moved there from Los Angeles when I was an elementary school back in the ‘70s. And, you know, I agree with Stacie. You know, the town has a pretty bad reputation in the rest of the state, and probably in the Northeast. And, you know, it's not deserved. It's a place like any other place. You know, it's got its good qualities and its bad qualities, but it's profoundly human.

CO: So explain a bit about why, Jennifer, you were drawn to make this documentary, to tell the story of Rutland?

JMT: Well, part of the reason I wanted to make the documentary is since I did move there as a kid and from a really different place, because especially back in the ‘70s, pre-Internet, you know, the difference between California and Vermont was pretty stark in terms of cultural terms. So I always felt as a kid growing up that I had one foot in and one foot out. And I think that made me kind of take an observer stance a lot of the time. And I was very fascinated growing up to see how a small community works, how people cooperate with each other and bicker with each other and hate each other and then get together and help each other when someone's in need. And I also knew a lot of folks like Staice when I was growing up, who I felt deserved a more of a fair shot to be central to the community.

CO: But the story you could have told is about what many people were covering about Rutland and that part of Vermont, which was that there were, and still are, serious problems with drug addiction, with opioids, with dealing. And that you could have done that story, which was the big news story. What is it about the story of Syrian refugees, refugees from Syria, arriving that gave you aha, this is the story I need to tell?

JMT: Well, that to me seemed like a good catalyst to tell a story that would still touch on all of the dynamics in a community like Rutland, I think like communities everywhere that have all of these different moving parts. I had hoped that the Syrian story would get us away from some of the sensationalism of the opioid story. But what happened is that immediately became another sensational story.

CO: Oh, my goodness!

JMT: And a lot of the same outlets rushed back to Rutland to paint this picture of a town just divided.

CO: Stacie, when the documentary begins in 2016, there’s one line you say at some point the documentary, you're telling other people, yes, we are making a documentary. And I just got sort of picked up along the way, [laughing] which is a funny line. But what was going on in your life at the time when you got picked up? [chuckle]

SG: Actually, a lot of big changes were happening in my life. I would like to start by saying that I am a fourth-generation welfare recipient who has now set up the system for several years. And on my own with myself, my husband and my family. So I’m very proud of that. And that is no help to the Vermont system whatsoever. That is our own doing. Many struggles along the way. Also, I struggle from addiction myself. September 19th will be 15 years that I've been clean from opioids. I am on the Suboxone programme, and I am very grateful for the Suboxone programme. Because I feel without it, I don't think my life would be the same. It's a tool I have in my toolbox that I utilize every day, along with my other tools.

CO: You obviously have a really loving family, too. Your boys are there. Just tell us a bit about them and their ages.

SG: Oh, goodness. Tyler is going to be 19 on June 7th. He graduated high school last year, a week after he turned 18. And Devon is the youngest. Devon is 17, getting ready to turn 18 on Groundhog's Day next year. [CO laughing] So he is the last remaining child in school.

CO: Wow! good for them. And in the film, you had been 13 years off drugs, and now 15 years. But in the film, in the documentary, you're reading the paper, and you see a front-page story in the local paper, headline about a whole bunch of people getting arrested for drugs. And you look at them, and you know most of them. What's going through your mind when you see that picture, and you realize that they are now their lives have really turned into a bad place?

SG: Okay, here's the thing. I do not look at them as drug addicts, drug dealers. I look at them as people I know, as my friends, as my acquaintances. I was born and raised here in Rutland. So I pretty much know a diverse amount of people, different culture, you know, and so on and so forth. And the thing that what's going through my mind was heartbreak. I've been there. I've absolutely been there myself, so I could relate. I could understand, but heartbreak.

CO: It was also a moment, I think, that if not for your strength of character and decisions and choices you made, you could have been one of those people.

SG: I absolutely could have been one of those people. And I am so grateful every day that I wake up and every night that I go to bed that I am where I am today.

CO: You're listening As It Happens, and I have with me Jennifer Maytorena Taylor and Staice Griffin, who are two parts of a documentary, a quite fascinating documentary, called “For The Love of Rutland”. And Jennifer, the turn in the story becomes when the mayor, who we just heard in the opening, he comes up with a plan that he thinks is actually going to get [sigh] it's going to get Rutland out of its rut. And that it’s going to be a place where you can sort of become a different place. And he decides that he's going to try and bring in dozens of refugees from Syria. That's been offered as a possibility. It becomes a very divisive decision in the town, doesn't it? Can you give us a sense of how the city responded to that?

JMT: Well, what was interesting is that the city, and this was in early 2016, So I think Chris made his announcement in April or May. And I started filming in June. And by June of 2016, some of the kind of ideological lines had already been drawn really clearly in the town. Where, you know, a lot of people turned out to form a wonderful, you know, supportive and loving organisation called Rutland Welcomes. And then a lot of other people turned out to form what I think they also considered was a loving group called Rutland First. And each was really enacting their vision of what they wanted for the town. And so one group saw that an influx of Syrian refugees would not only enable the town to feel, I think, a little better about itself by, you know, performing an act of humanitarian generosity. But that it would also in life in the town and help make this majority white community a little bit more diverse. And people on the other side thought that the arrival of refugees would strain social services and would change the character of the town's cultural makeup. And what I felt is that each side was actually kind of exaggerating what the effect of the arrival of a small group of very, very traumatised people would have on the town. And it felt that people were almost performing their roles, as it were. And I felt like that wasn't, A, a very interesting story. And, B, it's not where most people live and think. And I decided to really look for somebody who wasn't already in one camp or another, who might have questions, who might be open to discussion or thought about what was happening and how the Syrian refugee it issue was sort of touching off all these other tensions in the town.

CO: Right.

JMT: And that's when I happened to come across Stacie, who just amazed me immediately with her energy and her, you know, incredibly ferocious intellect.

CO: And, Stacie, you were not sure about this idea that all these refugees from Syria were going to come. You heard how horrible their lives had been. But you knew how much the town was struggling with its own needs. So give us a sense of when you first heard about these refugees arriving to Rutland, what you thought?

SG: Do you want to know why I thought like that?

CO: Yeah.

SG: Lack of education. I was so close-minded at that point because I had no idea what it was like outside of Rutland. And I'm not talking just, you know, another country, you know, I'm talking another state, let alone another town, another city. Like, I was so close-minded, you know, to what happens, and is happening, outside of Rutland that how could I think about something like that if I was so clueless to what was going on around me? And I think that's fair to say. You know, is I was clueless, I had no clue what was going on around me in my own state, let alone my own country, let alone another country.

CO: Do you think that your response was racist?

SG: Yes, and and I feel like I I strongly need to apologise for my close-mindedness and not being open-minded at that point. And I do have to tell you, I have never, ever closed my thoughts since that day when I realized, listen, this is bigger than all of us. And the commonalities between any refugee and Rutland and the citizens in Rutland are mind-blowingly huge and common, and more than anyone could imagine.

CO: And Stacie, in fairness to you, [chuckling] you did in some of your remarks at that point in the doc, You're saying that, you know, Rutland needed to take care of its own people first. I mean, you were struggling. You were gathering up cans and bottles to get enough money to feed your kids. And I think part of your response was that, wasn't it?

SG: It was. It was. Absolutely, it was.

JMT: Can I say something about that?

CO: Sure.

JMT: One thing I think that, you know, I tried to draw out in the film, too, though was that as people bifurcated into these camps of left and right or, you know, refugee opponent, refugee supporter, it was mostly people who appeared, at least to me, to be already pretty middle-class and comfortable and not necessarily folks in, you know, Stacie's, you know, neighbourhood of the of the town, or folks who've been struggling economically as deeply as Stacie and her family have been. And, you know, you can tell Stacie takes so much personal responsibility for her own thoughts and actions and trajectory. But I also felt that nobody was doing any outreach in her neighbourhood. You know, Stacie, I thought you had really good questions that you wanted to ask. And that you indicated that you were open to change. But you also noted that, you know, folks weren't coming down to maybe just sit down and answer those questions. And that was partly what I wanted to do with the film is show that there are so many people who don't necessarily already identify as open to change, but who might be more open to change if we would talk across class barriers.

CO: RIght. And Stacie, in order to hear the arguments, you go visit your foster mom, Penny, and her partner Cassie and their kids. [joyous laughter] A wonderful couple. And what an amazing woman. But we’re going to listen to a bit of what your foster mom had to say to you to try and explain things. And here she is.

[sc]

PENNY: I saw the sign going up along Killington Avenue that said, “no unchecked refugees”. And I saw this.

CASSIE: I go by every day. It’s up on Killington Avenue.

PENNY: And I'm thinking to myself, what kind of an ignorant idiot put that up?

CASSIE: They're just ignorant.

CASSIE: I call it the white syndrome. I'm white. You're not. So you don't belong here. And, I mean, it's just not the refugees that suffer from this white syndrome. Your grays, your blacks, anybody that just wants to live their life and be left the hell alone suffers when the white syndrome steps in.

[/sc]

CO: Huh. And Stacie, you're curious about this idea of the white syndrome. You hadn't heard that before. What were your responses to that?

SG: Well, I mean, when I'm thinking about white syndrome right now, and when my foster mom, Penny, refers to white syndrome, I'm thinking just another name for another poor excuse for a class that doesn't need to have another title. Honestly, that's what I'm feeling right now.

CO: Do you think that Rutland suffers, or suffered, from white syndrome?

SG: Sadly, as much as I disagree with that title, yes.

CO: You're listening to As It Happens, and we're speaking with Jennifer Maytorena Taylor and Staice Griffin, who are two parts of a film called “For The Love of Rutland”, which is premiering at the Toronto Hot Docs Film Festival this year. Jennifer, there's some pretty strong characters in the documentary, who are very much talking about these refugees can't come because they'll ruin Rutland. I mean, they're quite forceful characters and they actually campaign against the mayor, Mayor Louras, who's running for re-election. What happens to Mayor Louras?

JMT: Well, Mayor Laurice lost his re-election bid. And this was I think had he won, it was going to be his ninth year in office. So he'd been in office for a long time. And he really put a lot on the line for the refugee resettlement. And there were other factors involved in his loss. But I think that was one of the really dominant dynamics. And, of course, his election took place a few months after the national election in the U.S. and in 2016. So I think he was also somewhat caught up in these national dynamics. I mean, Rutland First, you know, that that became the slogan for the current president of the U.S.

CO: Well, I think you did a very good job because Rutland in its struggle at that moment, and the idea of these refugees arriving from Syria, it becomes really a microcosm of what's going on on the national stage, doesn't it?

JMT: It does. It does. And I didn't anticipate it becoming quite so parallel to what was happening nationally, and perhaps even internationally with the rise of populism and the way that, you know, xenophobia is is being voiced in all these different ways. But, you know, like I said, I also felt so strongly that this was a chance to also punch through some of the way that polarisation is just assumed to be a normal.

CO: And one of the other issues on the national stage that Donald Trump does bring into that election, along with the idea of stopping the foreigners from coming. But he takes on the opioid issue. He champions. He says he's going to do something about that. And Stacie, at one point you say that we can't care for Rutland if we don't take care of the refugee issue and the opioid issue in the town. Why is that so difficult for some people?

SG: Well, I think it comes down to multitasking. I think some people have an issue with multitasking. And I think that's the nicest, simplest way I can put it.

CO: But I think your point was that you can't care for Rutland if we don't have both the chance for refugees to arrive and to wrestle this opioid problem to the floor.

SG: Exactly. Exactly. And I do think that these two issues could have been settled at the same time. And who knows? They could have been, you know, combined, and the refugees coming could help, you know, the opioid crisis, you know, in ways that we will never know. And one comment I would just like to say about Louras is, you know, at the end of the day, I feel that his re-election could have gone differently if he would have connected with the people in Rutland before he made his announcement about the refugees.

CO: You mentioned just a little line you gave, we will never know. Because what happened before the bulk of those families from Syria could arrive in Rutland, Donald Trump became the president and his administration brought in the so-called Muslim ban, which meant that a couple of families had arrived, but the rest never could. How did people feel? How did people in Rutland react to the news that the refugees were not going to come?

JMT: I think the reaction was mixed. I think that people who wanted the refugee resettlement to go forward were devastated. And the people who didn't want it to go forward were, you know, elated. And again, I think for folks in the middle, I'm not quite sure there was probably a real range of reactions. I mean, in one sense, people never got a chance to to know, as Stacie says, only, you know, three families ultimately arrived. And I think that they've settled in really well into the community. And none of the really exaggerated visions of either a sort of hell escape or a utopia came true. You know, it's just these folks just have settled into the community, and daily life has continued.

CO: The Syrian families who did arrive did not want to be interviewed, and we get only a sense of them in the documentary. But, Stacie, you ended up meeting one of these families. What was that like?

SG: It was one of the most beautiful experiences of my life. It truly, truly was. Truly was. Like, when I went to meet them for the first time, I was so nervous that my friend, Aleesha, who had filmed with us, was giving me some pointers on how to react because of my nerves and not ever, you know, being in connection with a Syrian family. And I took it into consideration, and we walked through the door, and the minute we walked through the door of that family's home, I just... The comfort that I felt was amazing. I felt like I was right where I belonged. I didn't feel judged, and it was the most beautiful connection that I've made in my life.

CO: Did it change you?

SG: Yes. Yes. And it also saddens me, because I wish that the other families that were supposed to come to Rutland were able to have that same feeling that I had, and that the family that I met have.

CO: Have you kept up that relationship with the family?

SG: Sadly, no. I do see them out and about, and we connect. But I've been all I do is work, especially with this COVID right now. I'm an essential worker, so all I'm doing is work, work, work right now.

CO: You're working in a grocery store, is that right?

SG: I'm working in a convenience store. Yes, in the northwest neighbourhood.

CO: Good for you. Because I know you were really struggling to find work at that time.

SG: Yes.

CO: Jennifer, the film ends in the fall of 2018. And Stacie and some of the other volunteers have taken up all these donations, all these things that had arrived that was going to be for all those Syrian families who came. Now they're all being gathered up and distributed to other people in the community. And that mayor, Chris Louras, is now running the family shop. And so what's happened in Rutland since?

JMT: Well, since we finished filming, there's been, I think, a few things that unfortunately speak to how deep these problems still are. And one is that the Louras family had a really terrible tragedy involving a murder and essentially a suicide, I guess, with one of Chris's oldest son and his nephew, both of whom I think had addiction and mental health issues. So there was a very sad set of events that took place with their deaths by shooting. And I think that, in a certain sense illustrates the fact that some of these underlying problems that the film picks up on about, you know, extreme income inequality and the persistence of the opioid problem and the lack of mental health resources, I think speaks to, you know, that incident speaks to the fact that these issues just don't go away magically because you will them away. But at the same time, I mean, Stacie, you were there when that happened. I also know that the community turned out and was incredibly gracious and supportive of both the Louras family as well as the police who'd been involved in the incident. And I think there was a collective sense of shock and mourning that I think transcended some of the ideological differences that otherwise were dividing the town. And again, I think that speaks to the fact that, you know, when communities get stressed, I mean, just as we're stressed right now by the pandemic, you see the worst in people, but you also see the best.

CO: Stacie, what was your response, your reaction, when all that happened?

SG: Again, sadness and just the support from the community was beautiful. And not just for the Louras family, but for Rutland City PD, and just as a whole.

CO: Wow! That’s an incredibly dramatic turn for that man, who, as we just heard at the beginning of the documentary, is such a powerful voice in your town.

SG: Yeah, but I think it's also a reminder that, you know, mental health and addiction and things like that affect everyone, every class, every race, every country, every state, you know? And I think that's an important reminder of that.

CO: Stacie, I know that in the course of these few years that we see you in this documentary and afterwards that you became much more involved in your community, volunteering, making sure your voice was heard [laughing] as you went through this. And as you learned more about it, what are your hopes for your own future, and in Rutland?

SG: Well, the beautiful thing about my job is I'm not just a cashier at the convenience store that I work at. I'm also, you know, a psychologist, a babysitter, you know, a police officer at times, you know? So I still get to be very involved in my community with my job. So I'm very grateful for that. But I'd like to, you know, as soon as the pandemic passes, get back out there in my neighbourhood and see what the needs and wants are, and just come together and, you know, get things done. And as a community, and as a neighbourhood.

CO: Stacie, we'll let you go. And best wishes for those two boys of yours, Tyler and Devin. Thank you for speaking with us. And Jennifer, thank you for joining us as well. And thank you for your documentary.

JMT: Oh, thank you, Carol. It was such a pleasure.

SG: And thank you.

CO: Okay. Bye-bye.

JMT: Bye-bye.

CH: Stacie Griffin appears in the film "For The Love Of Rutland". It's directed by Jennifer Maytorena Taylor. Both of them joined Carol via WhatsApp. From May 28th — that's tomorrow — until June 24th, that documentary is streaming online as part of the Hot Docs film festival — which has gone digital this year, at hotdocs.ca. You can find more on this story — including excerpts from the film — on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 27, 2020 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This