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 9, 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: Grief upon grief. The loved ones of those killed in yesterday's plane crash in Tehran learned today that it was likely brought down by an Iranian missile -- we hear from an Edmonton man who lost several friends.

CH: A deadly error. A British defense expert says it's difficult to understand how a surface-to-air missile could have accidentally hit the Ukrainian airliner, but it's unlikely that the plane was downed on purpose.

CO: Waiting game. As US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to delay the president's impeachment trial, a conservative commentator says the American people just want to get the whole thing over with.

CH: Situation normal, all bucked up. As an actor and screenwriter for films like "The Graduate" and "Catch 22" the late Buck Henry mastered the art of injecting absurdity into commonplace situations.

CO: Take the long way home. A Victoria, BC man wanted to get home from Europe in time for Christmas -- and even though he was watching his carbon footprint, he discovered a sea of possibilities.

CH: And palace politics. The British tabloid press is up in arms about news that Harry and Meghan want to scale back their stately duties -- so we asked a royal biographer to spill the tea on the brewing tempest. As It Happens. The Thursday Edition. Radio that admits to sometimes being a royal pain.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: 'I can't express the anger I feel,' Iranian-Canadian says of news Iran likely shot down plane

Iran crash Edmonton

Guest: Payman Parseyan

CH: It was the big question on the minds of grieving Canadians from coast to coast: What caused Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, with 176 people aboard, to plummet to the ground after taking off from Tehran? Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he had the likely answer.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: There have been important developments regarding the potential causes of this deadly crash -- developments of which Canadians should be made aware. The news will undoubtedly come as a further shock to the families who are already grieving in the face of this unspeakable tragedy. We have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence -- the evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. This may well have been unintentional. This new information reinforces the need for a thorough investigation into this matter. Canada is working with its allies to ensure that a thorough and credible investigation is conducted to determine the causes of this fatal crash. As I said yesterday, Canadians have questions and they deserve answers.

CH: After making that announcement, Prime Minister Trudeau was asked how he had reacted when he learned that a missile likely brought down the Ukrainian International Airlines jet. Here's how he responded.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: My first thought is for the families. The families that we have been getting to know over these past 24 hours, through news articles, and reports back from various conversations I've had with MPs, with government officials. They are already going through a terrible terrible grieving process. And to further have an understanding that this may have been caused by a surface-to air-missile strike is compounding. And in that my thoughts instantly went to how much harder this must make it for those families who are experiencing just a terrible amount of grief right now.

CH: Payman Parseyan is one of many Iranian-Canadians who are mourning right now. He knew seven people who died on the flight, including a family of four. We reached him in Edmonton.

CO: Payman, how are you taking the news today that this plane was likely shot down by an Iranian missile?

PAYMAN PARSEYAN: You know, there's a mixture of emotions. Part of me says this wasn't as much of a surprise as it might seem. Part of me is very angry that this would happen. And most of me is just like, we're not going to get our friends back then why does it matter.

CO: But I wonder also, given that this was the country of the birth of many of these people or the country where their families come from or still are -- that this is the country whose agents shot down the plane with their own people, people of their own country. Does that compound this tragedy?

PP: It's the hypocrisy of the regime that just drives me crazy, because they continually bring up in the 1980s when the Americans shot down the passenger jet that came from Iran and that tragic incident that occurred at that time. And now that they're the culprits behind something similar, instead of standing up and being accountable or we're saying, you know based on the heightened tensions there was a malfunction of our equipment or whatever that caused it. To take some responsibility for what happened. Instead of that, they're cowering and hiding behind hindering American resources and Boeing's request for reviewing the black box or important flight recorder data. They're not playing ball with other countries that want to come in and help facilitate an independent and accountable and transparent investigation to ensure that investigators get to the bottom of this.

CO: I want to ask you about some of your friends who were onboard. Canadians have been hearing the story. It is absolutely extraordinary stories of people whom we've lost in this country and some who were visiting this country. And I want to ask you in particular about one of your friends, Pedram Mousavi and his family. Can you tell us about them?

PP: Yeah. I can say, you know, I can't think of a time when I saw Pedram and we didn't laugh more than a quarter half of the conversation. He was always a happy guy. Always positive. He was always willing to help, and willing to listen. His lovely little girls, they were always playing together anytime we would see each other, say at one of the local Persian restaurants. His girls would always ask questions on like how the food is made or what's going on. His wife was such a leader in her position. She seemed like she was very dominant in the room when she came in the room and smiled like the whole room didn't have any other permission but to smile. Everyone had to smile with her, and we lost a big bright light with the loss of her and Pedram and their two lovely little kids.

CO: You have been playing, in the past two days, such a large role in speaking for Iranian-Canadians from Edmonton, keeping us connected. You've been so generous about that and helping them and helping us understand it. But for yourself having these losses, how are you processing that? That you have personally lost these friends in Edmonton.

PP: I don't know if someone can ever fully process what we lost. But I recognize that we are a strong community that needs to continue to always progress and push forward. So that means that we have to at some point accept that our friends will not be with us, but they would want us to stand up and move the community forward. And that means that we have to start to get to our lives and keep doing the things that we're doing.

CO: One thing that has really struck many people just the loss, not just of these people, but of their talents. I mean these are students, these are engineers, academics, computer scientists. They're doctors and dentists and business people. Just so much talent and knowledge and enterprise that this country has now lost. What should this country understand about Iranian-Canadian contribution to this country?

PP: Carol, not maybe just the Iranian-Canadians, but all Canadians like we as a country built by immigrants have an opportunity to recognize how much talent immigrants are bringing to our country and the way that they're contributing to our societies. Sure, there were 63 Canadians on a flight, but a 138 people were Canada bound. There were many many future Canadians sitting in those seats. So when we see 176 people perish -- 138 of them were either Canadian or future Canadians.

CO: Do you feel that Canada is doing all it can to push Iran to get to the bottom of what happened?

PP: That's quite touchy. I don't think so. I think they should have listed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization long ago. And frankly, they could ramp up pressure on Iran to ensure that the government does have a transparent and open investigation. It's very inappropriate. The vast majority that flight was Canada bound. We have a vested interest on that flight. And with the allegations that the Iranian government is potentially responsible for downing it.

CO: And the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps -- we're going to hear later in the program. I believe that this is organizations believed to have fired the missile.

PP: You know this [sighs]...I can't express the anger I feel. This is the same organization in Iran that is responsible for killing its own citizens in the protests that happened two months ago. It is the same organization responsible for the Quds Force, which was the force that backs dictators like Bashar al-Assad and spreads terrorism through those proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. And so for the same group to be responsible for the deaths of many of our fellow citizens, it's upsetting to hear it.

CO: For the deaths of your friends.

PP: Yes. So they've been responsible for deaths of my personal family members in Iran, prior to this incident. And I can't reiterate the amount of action that we should be taking against this organization. It's so unfortunate because many Iranians won't mentioned this -- but they feel this way -- because if they do that same organization, if they ever traveled to Iran, would show up, arrest them, and God knows what will happen to them when they're taken away or where they will go. This is the same organization that runs those programs.

CO: Payman our condolences. So sorry for the loss of your friends and for people in Edmonton. And I appreciate that you continue to try and help us understand this. Thank you.

PP: Thank you Carol.

CH: We reached Payman Parseyan in Edmonton. He knew seven people who died on Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.

Iran crash investigation

Guest: Shashank Joshi

CH: As you just heard, the prime minister said this afternoon that he'd been briefed on intelligence indicating the plane was hit by a surface-to-air missile and that it may well have been unintentional. Shashank Joshi is the defense editor for The Economist magazine. We reached him in London.

CO: Mr. Joshi, how is it possible that this passenger plane could be shot down by a missile accidentally?

SHASHANK JOSHI: It's very, very unusual. Even in times of conflict, air defense units who were expecting a strike and are on a high alert would, in ideal circumstances, be able to tell the difference between a warplane incoming and a civilian airliner traveling slowly, climbing in altitude and broadcasting its location and status via transponder. Units on the ground, in the air defense system operating it would have access to that information. And if they had any uncertainty, they could radio the aircraft, check that it was legitimate and avoid any provocative steps. For something like this to happen is exceptionally rare. And it's not very clear why they made this mistake. One point of speculation is that the system in question, the Russian made SA15 (missile) which corresponds to some of the wreckage that is alleged to have been found near the site -- that was operated by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which is the parallel armed force in Iran, separate to the regular armed forces. They operate their own independent air defense network in Iran, according to some sources. And if that's the case, it's possible that they didn't have access to all the information, that they were disconnected from the radar picture provided by other sources, that they were under pressure, under stress, anticipating some kind of US reprisal. And that may have contributed to this kind of mistake.

CO: Okay. I want to unpack a lot of what you're saying. Because our prime minister has said this afternoon that they have good reason to believe that it was shot down by a missile, this plane. Killing everyone on board. And that he has said that he believes it was inadvertent or unintentional or that's the possibility. Does it need to be considered that it wasn't an accident -- that it was deliberately shot down?

SJ: It's exceptionally unlikely that it was deliberately shot down with the air defense units knowing it was a civilian airliner. Although Iran has attacked civilians in the past as reprisals for other incidents, they attacked a tour bus full of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria a few years ago. And of course, they have attacked embassies and diplomats and taken aid workers hostage through their militia networks. They would not attack an airliner that had very large numbers of Iranian citizens on board over their own territory in a way that might have caused substantial casualties on the ground -- and at a time when they had the political upper hand, having conducted what they claimed was a substantial retaliation for the assassination of their general by firing missiles at a US base.

CO: What were the conditions then? Because we know just a few hours earlier, Iran had lobbed dozens of missiles into Iraq. Are these two events associated? Do you think it's possible that such an enormous accident could have happened if there wasn't the conditions that would allow for it being that there was a military operation at the time?

SJ: We don't know, but it does seem likely that there would have been a contributing factor here from the overall crisis. Just hours before Iran had fired those ballistic missiles and they would have had every reason to expect a potential US reprisal using American aircraft that would have dropped bombs and fired missiles. Air defense units around Tehran would have been on alert. They would have moved some of the mobile systems, like the SA15, which is a tracked vehicle that has eight missiles on it around Tehran. Those missiles have earlier been used to guard nuclear sites in Iran that the Iranians also feared might be attacked by the United States. And they would have been on alert. They would have been looking out for suspicious movements. But that doesn't explain everything. Because while they would have been sensitive to any suggestion of an attack and may have been trigger-happy or twitchy, they would have expected to find aircraft coming in from outside of Iran's borders. They would have expected to see certain types of altitude, certain types of behavior. They would not have expected to see an aircraft with its transponder switched on. And so I think despite the overall crisis, there are still some big questions to answer as to how they would have made that mistake.

CO: Because this was a plane that was taking off. It wasn't arriving. It was only at 8000 feet when it was struck. It's possible for civilians, for anyone to go online and find out what planes are doing. So how is it possible that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, very sophisticated organization, could not know that this was a civilian plane that was taking off?

SJ: That's unclear. They may have not about access to the information. There may have been signal jamming involved. There may have been electronic warfare going on. It's possible that either the Iranian side or some other country may have been involved in manipulating or jamming electronic signals in order to try and pursue some military end. In the past, when we have had these incidents, they have been at times of crisis and uncertainty. We had this in Ukraine in 2014 when a Russian made air defense system shot down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine. We had this in the 1980s when a US destroyer shot down an Iranian airliner, killing hundreds of people because it thought that it was a Iranian warplane coming into attack the ship. So these sort of crisis situations can create stress. Information can be misinterpreted. People can undertake worst case scenario assumptions and all of that can contribute to tragic misunderstandings and misperceptions like this.

CO: But given how international this is, the truth will come out. People are saying that there's just no way around it. Eventually we're going to know. Did you believe that?

SJ: Well, yes, but it could probably take years. I mean, look at the disinformation campaign that Russia mounted to try and obscure its own involvement in the involvement of its own air defense system in the downing of the Malaysian Airlines flight over Ukraine in 2014. It took huge investigative efforts, open source efforts, using photographs on the scene, satellite images, all kinds of things.

CO: We will leave it there. There are many many more questions and we'll get answers hopefully in days to come. Mr. Joshi thank you.

SJ: You're welcome.

CH: Shashank Joshi is the defense editor for The Economist magazine. We reached him in London.

Iran crash Ukraine ambassador

Guest: Andriy Shevchenko

CH: In Ottawa today, Prime Minister Trudeau acknowledged that without diplomatic representation in Iran, Canada will have to rely on its allies for help finding out what happened to Flight 752. Mr. Trudeau said that Ukraine's president has already promised to include Canada in its own investigation. Andriy Shevchenko is Ukraine's ambassador to Canada. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Ambassador Shevchenko, please accept our condolences for the loss of your citizens.

ANDRIY SHEVCHENKO: Thank you. And I think it's the pain that we share with Canada and with all the other parties involved in this.

CO: It certainly is. How did Ukraine learn about this intelligence that Canada is now saying is with some certainty that indicates that an Iranian missile might have brought down Flight 752?

AS: Well, I can just say that we are taking this information very very seriously. At the same time, as of the moment, we do not have evidence to confirm such a version of events and we don't have reasons to exclude such a version of events. So we will be waiting for the results of the investigation. And I think what we should focus on now, from now on, to make sure that there is a good, genuine, transparent investigation with all the interested countries participating.

CO: I'm wondering why you're still skeptical. Because what we heard from the prime minister, there is a high degree of certainty. That's what the intelligence communities are saying. It's unusual for a head of government to say something of that nature without -- especially when somebody people have lost their loved ones. Why do you still doubt the information?

AS: Well, I am not skeptical. I am just trying not to speculate on the outcomes of the investigation. And obviously, our friends and partners from Canada, they have their sources of information. And I think it's up to them to decide what kind of conclusions they can draw from the evidence that they have. We strongly count on the work which is now being conducted in Tehran on the ground. Ukraine has just sent its team of 45 specialists to Tehran and they have started working on the ground. They do their best to cooperate and coordinate with the Iranian specialists on the ground. And I think, again, with all the new developments it is very important and it is in everyone's interest to make sure that we can set up such a format of investigation which would help all the countries interested to participate and to coordinate.

CO: If can't say anything or know anything with certainty until the investigation is concluded, what do you make of the amount of access you've had so far that the black boxes are normally turned over quite rapidly to begin that investigation, the site of a crash of this nature is usually secured so that nothing is tampered with? We've seen both of these things not happen. So why are you so confident that this investigation will actually lead to the kinds of results you need?

AS: Well, I would say that this is my and this is our biggest wish to make sure that this investigation will be done in a proper and good and transparent manner. And they can also ensure that this is our goal. And this is something that we specifically insist on, an assumption that we ask our Iranian counterparts about. And just like you said, I think there are very obvious, key and crucial pieces of information which are necessary for this investigation. It's information in the black boxes, it's access to the crash site, it's photo and video footage, and it's many other things. And also, there is one more very important thing which has to be done in the hours to come, and this is about identifying the bodies and making sure that we bring the bodies to the loved ones who desperately would like to see them.

CO: You haven't got the black boxes. Have you had any access to the crash site?

AS: I'm not aware of the access of the crash site. It was just the very first hours that our team landed in Teheran. But the black boxes, it was definitely one of the first things which was discussed. And as of the moment, there is an offer from the Iranian side that Ukrainian specialists would be present at the procedures associated with the calling of the black boxes. So we really hope that we could build on that and make sure that there is a proper process with the black boxes.

CO: What we have already seen and the video that has been taken is that much of the site has been tampered with. The bodies were quickly removed by the Red Crescent Society. No one's faulting them for that. But it seems that the various debris has been moved. The possessions of people have been gathered. Would this not be necessary to leave some of this intact in order to really do a forensic study of the site?

AS: I think this assumption which I would like to hear answers about from the specialists who work on the ground, and the thing is that those are very fair, very legitimate questions that you ask. And I would really like to prefer the experts and specialists to be answering that.

CO: Are you concerned at all that we may never get the answers, as some people are suggesting that that is a likelihood?

AS: Well, I really believe that this is that kind of situation where the truth will be revealed -- and one way or another we will know what has happened. It is just the way to get there might be long or might be short. So I really hope that common sense and goodwill will prevail and we'll be able to find the proper form to investigation.

CO: Some experts are suggesting it could be months, even years.

AS: Well, yes. And I can just remind you that Ukraine had an experience of this terrible tragedy when the Malaysian plane, MH17, was brought down in the Ukrainian skies by the Russian rocket -- by the Russian missile. And that was also a very tragic loss and a very difficult and complicated investigation. So I think, yes, we're dealing with a complicated situation. And I think we should prepare really to use all the possible tools and we should be very determined in order to get to the final result in this investigation.

CO: Ambassador Shevchenko, thank you for your time.

AS: Thank you Carol.

CH: Andriy Shevchenko is Ukraine's ambassador to Canada. We reached him in Ottawa. Early this evening, Canada's Transportation Safety Board announced its investigators will be traveling to the crash site after receiving the invitation from Iran's aircraft accident investigation bureau. They're now making travel arrangements. We've got more on this story on our webpage: cbc.ca/aih. There are vigils planned across Canada for the victims of the crash, but some are honoring their loved ones in other ways. Hossein Ensafi Moghaddam lost his two friends, Shahab Raana and Sahand Sadeghi. They became close while taking a French language class in Montreal. In his grief, Mr. Moghaddam was moved to play a song for his friends on the sitar, an Iranian string instrument. Here's what he sent us.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sitar being played]

Part 2: Royal reporter says pressure on Meghan Markle is typical — she's just 'complained more'

Impeachment trial

Guest: Scott Jennings

CH: It's been three weeks since the US House of Representatives took the historic step of impeaching the president, which set the stage for Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. And the stage is still set, but no one's sure when the curtain is going up. The Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate. She says she wants the rules for the trial first. But she's facing pressure from Republicans and now even from some of her Democratic colleagues who've said it's time to get going. Scott Jennings is a CNN contributor. He's also a former campaign adviser to Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Majority Leader. We reached Scott Jennings in Boston.

CO: Mr. Jennings, in a press conference today, Nancy Pelosi says she will send those articles of impeachment soon when she feels ready. When do you think this might actually happen?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, I assume it will happen in the next few weeks. Although the Speaker of the House has gone about this in a rather unorthodox fashion. I think one thing Republicans have come to believe is that the Democrats failed to use this period of supposed leverage to move any public opinion in their favor. So, frankly, this was not something the Republicans in the Senate ever wanted in the first place. And I'm not sure why the Speaker of the House thought she was creating leverage by waiting. But here we are nonetheless.

CO: But as far as we are in this position, he has been impeached, it is going to trial in the Senate. So why not do that properly? If you believe this is going to end, as many Republicans do with not finding him guilty of these articles of impeachment, then why not just let it happen and call the witnesses and do it properly and have Americans feel satisfied that this was a thorough process?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, you make a powerful argument for the deficiencies of the House impeachment process. You know, over in the House of Representatives, which, according to our Constitution, has the sole power to impeach a president. It was their process to run. And unfortunately, they rushed it. They didn't call certain witnesses. They didn't even subpoena the former national security advisor, John Bolton. And now they expect the Senate to do their homework for them when the Constitution, the Senate has the power to try the impeachment -- and just like the House has the power to do the impeachment in the first place. So the process here is very clear, the Democrats chose to rush it and now they put it in a venue and are trying to make the Republican Party, you know, do all their homework for them, which I just can't imagine why they ever thought that was going to happen.

CO: Is it a foregone conclusion that the Senate will vote by a majority -- by the majority necessary for this -- to clear Mr. Trump of these charges?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Yes, I think that it is a foregone conclusion that Trump will be acquitted. I mean, if all 47 Democrats vote to convict the president, they would need to find 20 Senate Republicans to join them, to throw him out of office. That is just, in my opinion, a political impossibility. In fact, I don't think any Republicans are going to vote to convict Donald Trump.

CO: Okay. So, again, if it is a foregone conclusion, then why not do things as thoroughly as possible? Why not call as many witnesses as one can? Why not do everything possible to show that the Democrats should never have done this, as you say? I mean if you know that there's no danger of seeing the president found guilty of these charges, then why not do that?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, I don't know that they won't do that. The rules that they've laid out gives the Senate a chance to call witnesses after they hear presentations and questions in the opening phase. So I'm not saying that the rules would preclude witnesses. I would say this -- if we go down a path where witnesses are going to be called, which I don't have a particular problem with, I'm not sure it's necessary, I don't think it's going to change anyone's vote. I do think the Democrats have to look at a future where witnesses that the president wants called are going to be injected into the mix. You could have Joe Biden, you could have Hunter Biden called as well. And I'm not sure Democrats want to go down that road. One other wrinkle here is that even if the Senate were to call witnesses affiliated with the administration, I think it's widely anticipated that the White House would invoke executive privilege over their testimony. And you're probably looking at a months long battle over whether they could testify at all. And so if you had an interest in getting this done, because you know the outcome already and moving on with the business of the American people, you wouldn't call witnesses. If you had any interest in dragging this out all year long, which I think it would take several months if you got into a pitch court battle over executive privilege, then I guess that's what you would do. But that's another wrinkle here that a lot of folks aren't thinking about, is whether you could even get the witnesses to show up once they were subpoenaed.

CO: What role might Mr. Trump himself play in this trial?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, the president has no role in the trial. You know, no official role. This is purely handled with the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now, obviously, the president will be an external actor here and I'm sure will make comments and tweet along the way. In the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he was routinely involved in his own strategy, talking to his lawyers and talking to Democrats in the Senate about what was going on. I would anticipate the president doing the same thing. But he himself would not necessarily appear in the Senate. Nor does he have any official role other than his lawyers are allowed to come to the Senate and make a defense on his behalf.

CO: Given the events of the past few days, it does seem that -- well impeachment seems so 2019, as people suggested that many are saying that may have been the point of what happened in the past few days. What appetite do you think there is in the United States to see this trial happen?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, I think the American people want to see the process be completed. I think that, you know, we're very divided on whether the president should have been impeached in the first place. You know, it's essentially a 50/50 split if you look at the polling, depending on how you ask the question. But I do think the people want to see the process completed. And I think, again, we're really a 50/50 nation on this. And I really think people's opinions on impeachment are reflective of their opinions on the presidency in general. Trump is a 50/50 kind of president. And I think as you look ahead to the 2020 election, it wouldn't shock anybody if, you know, 48 percent of the people vote for someone else and 48 percent of the people vote for Donald Trump. In a 50/50 world, Donald Trump probably is re-elected president in the Electoral College.

CO: All right. Well [chuckles] we advance this story quite far, didn't we? Mr. Jennings, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SCOTT JENNINGS: Yes. Thank you for having me. Take care.

CH: CNN contributor Scott Jennings in Boston. He's a former campaign advisor to Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and he's also a former special assistant to President George W. Bush.

[Music]

Harry and Meghan

Guest: Ingrid Seward

CH: In her Christmas address last month, Queen Elizabeth acknowledged that 2019 had been a "bumpy" year. She could not have anticipated what fresh trouble the New Year would bring. Just yesterday, her grandson Harry and his wife Meghan Markle announced they will be quitting their senior royal roles and moving to North America. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made no secret that they've had a difficult relationship with the British tabloids. And the front pages were ruthless today. Reporters and columnists have called the couple everything from "petulant" to "privileged" to wishing them "good riddance." Ingrid Seward is the editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine and one of the most prominent biographers of the Royal family. We reached her in London, England.

CO: Ingrid, as you know, the tabloid writers in the UK are fuming at Harry and Meghan. How did you react when you learned that they would be quitting their Royal duties?

INGRID SEWARD: Well, I was as surprised as everybody else. Although we knew that they weren't in a very happy place, we all thought I will after, you know, six weeks in Canada they'll come back refreshed and get on with their life. But it seems completely the opposite. They've come back and decided this is not the life they want anymore.

CO: The reaction is so strong, isn't it? The Daily Mail had 17 pages...its first 17 pages just on this standard story and called them rogue royals. Why is it so furious?

IS: Well, I think there's a lot of pent up anger against Meghan, because I think the British people rather feel that she's destroyed someone who was actually the second favorite royal next to the queen. And suddenly he's this angry young man who looks miserable all the time. And I think they're venting their anger for the first time. I think that's what it about.

CO: Do you think that Meghan Markle deserves this? I mean, others have said that some of the criticism is racist. It's unfair. It's because she's an American, because Brits are snobs, all kinds of things. Do you think it's justified?

IS: I think most of the problems have come from social media, not the British tabloids. You know, some of them...yes. You know getting her father to talk and all that kind of thing is not very pleasant. But I think in main the reporting hasn't been that unfair at all. And she hasn't been chased by paparazzi. She hasn't been hounded. She's actually been treated very well.

CO: Can you see perhaps why that would be disturbing to the couple? I mean, they expected it because she's an American woman. She is a woman of colour. It's a very conservative family she's married into. But do you think that it perhaps really has been too much for the couple to take?

IS: I mean, I certainly think it's horrible. And marrying into the royal family is not easy. But that was her decision. And if you look at everyone that's married into the royal family, Fergie (Sarah Ferguson) had a dreadful time. I mean much much much worse than anything that's happened to Meghan. I mean, Diana didn't have a very easy time at all. Nor did Sophie Countess of Wessex. It's hard to marry into this very conservative, straight-laced family with all their traditions. And I don't think Meghan has been treated any worse or better than anyone else. It's just that she's complained more.

CO: I want to talk to you about what their plans seem to be, that they want to work towards becoming financially independent. They want to live on their own, visit every now and then to keep the connection with the royals. What does that mean?

IS: What they want is they want to have one foot in the royal family and one foot out of the royal family. Well, this has never worked before. But the queen is determined that it has to work because she doesn't want to see her grandson unhappy. She doesn't want another broken marriage. And she doesn't want to break what she considers as a very important union between England and the US. And she also sees how valuable Harry and Meghan are for the Commonwealth.

CO: What conversations do you think have gone on in the background trying to persuade them of this?

IS: Well, I don't think enough. I think this is part of the problem. There hasn't been enough. I mean, the queen knows that, you know, she's looking back at the history of what happened to Diana and she certainly doesn't want a repeat of that. You know, Diana would have a private meeting with the queen and then she'd go and give a statement to the press. I mean, other people's memories might be short, but the queen's memory is not short. And she has to do everything she can to avoid this. She doesn't like personal confrontation. Although Harry is said to have made a direct approach to the queen. He wanted to go and see her at Sandringham. She has said wisely, come to me with a plan -- don't just throw things at me. You go to your father, you sort it out, we will help you, but I'm not going to discuss it with you until you have formulated a plan that might work. I think it is very disrespectful of Harry. And I blame him more than Meghan because he is a prince of the blood. And why should she know exactly, you know, how to behave in this one?

CO: I want to help you a bit more about how this might work. Because they have announced that they have a brand -- their trademark Sussex Royal. What are they going to do? Set up a little shop? It sounds like they had kitchenware or bath towels that they could use under that label. What do they actually do to make a living?

IS: Well, I think that is one of the big problems. Every royal that's tried to do it before has got themselves into trouble. You only have to look at Fergie and how she tried to brand everything. And she was a divorced from the royal family at the time. If you are a royal and you take the perks and the privileges of your status, it's extremely hard to go into the world of commerce, which is why they don't.

CO: At the same time as being, quote, “financially independent" -- they're still planning to rely on the public funded security systems in their official residence and all that, right?

IS: Well, as far as we know, yes. I mean the security is a difficult one because it's so expensive if they're going to be living between the UK and North America. But that is funded by the public. They will have to have security because they'd be very high risk, high profile people.

CO: From a Canadian point of view, a lot of people here think, well, why shouldn't they be happy? And also, I think maybe a bit sort of selfishly, maybe they would live in Canada. There's been some hints of that and raise little Archie here in this country. What would you say to Canadians on why that is not a good idea?

IS: I think that would be a good idea. But they seem to want to be betwixt and between. And we don't know if they are thinking about Canada or if they're thinking about moving to L.A., which I think is probably more likely. But I just see it's so fraught with problems, it's difficult to, you know, that ridiculous old saying to sort the wood from the trees.

CO: As the statement from Buckingham Palace said, "the situation is complicated."

IS: It's very complicated.

CO: Ingrid, thank you.

IS: Thank you so much.

CH: Ingrid Seward is the editor-in-chief of Majesty Magazine and a biographer of the British royal family. We reached her in London. And you can find more on the story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

22 Bison

CH: For the first time in 140 years, the Zagime Anishinabek First Nation in Saskatchewan has bison back on its land. And that's thanks to another First Nation. Earlier this week, the community received 22 bison as a gift from Peepeekisis Cree Nation. That's a rare gift because the animals were near extinction in Canada at one point because of over-hunting, disease, and drought. And the gift as possible, because in 2014, an Alberta rancher gave the Peepeekisis Cree Nation 22 bison. The Nation was able to grow that herd, and now it wants to pass its success on to another community. Alan Bird is one of the caretakers of the Peepeekisis buffalo herd. He spoke with CBC Saskatchewan earlier this week.

SOUNDCLIP

ALAN BIRD: Our history as First Nation, we are the Cree Nation -- Nehiyawak...people of the plains. We've always been Buffalo people. And our ancestors shared those stories going on and on -- passed on from oral history. And we know that life. And we share that story of living in harmony with the buffalo as they were here forever, as we were here forever. And they were very important to us because they give us food, they give us shelter -- they give us the tools we needed to survive. They were a gift of life to us. And today, now we have the opportunity in the modern day 2020 -- we take care of the buffalo. We take care of them. We feed them. And our Peepeekisis community -- Cree Nation -- we are blessed to have the buffalo people united with the buffalo.

BONNIE ALLEN: What will it be like for you now to pay it forward to another First Nation?

ALAN BIRD: To pay it forward -- it's a blessing again. I said that the first day when they came, how the creator blessed us that day. Now we pay it forward. Obviously Zagime Anishinabek are receiving the blessing and the gift of the buffalo spirit going onto their land. It's very important that they and their community now be blessed as we were blessed. That's very important. We want the buffalo to be there and we ask humbly from Zagime Anishnabek to move them forward in five years to another Nation. And the Peepeekisis, and Ron (Steckly), and Lima, we're always here to help.

CH: That was Alan Bird, Headman with the Peepeekisis Cree Nation speaking with CBC reporter Bonnie Allen. Earlier this week his Nation gifted 22 bison to the Zagime Anishnabek First Nation.

[Music]

Maxwell Johnson

CH: It's been a few weeks since Maxwell Johnson went to a Vancouver bank with his 12-year-old granddaughter, and he says they're both still recovering from the ordeal. Mr. Johnson is from Bella Bella -- a Heiltsuk community in Northern BC. He is his granddaughter's primary caregiver. And they were visiting Vancouver when their trip to the bank ended with both of them in handcuffs. Maxwell Johnson told the CBC's Angela Sterritt about the ordeal. And this morning she talked to The Early Edition about what he says happened.

SOUNDCLIP

ANGELA STERRITT: So this was just a fairly routine meeting. Maxwell had been with the Montreal --the Bank of Montreal branch at the Burrard Street location in downtown Vancouver about four times since opening his own account in 2014. So Maxwell called the Bank of Montreal on the previous day to make an appointment to help his 12-year-old granddaughter with setting up a bank account. So she travels a lot with her basketball team and he wanted to be able to e-transfer her money, you know, regularly since wiring takes a long time. But when they went to their appointment the following day, a BMO representative that was working with them said that the identification that they had seemed suspicious. Now they both have status cards, which is federally approved government identification. They also had a birth certificate and a medical card for ID. So the employee took their IDs she said, to verify the information on them. And then after about 30 minutes, she asked the two to come upstairs with her to retrieve their IDs. That's when both noticed the VPD there. And he thought the officers were the RCMP, but they were, in fact, Vancouver Police officers.

MAXWELL JOHNSON: My granddaughter Tory noticed two RCMP members walk in. She said, "Well, one of these guys are here for us papa." And I kind of...I don't know. And sure enough, they came over and asked us who we were. And I told them. They said, "Can you come with us?" We walked out with them. They turned us around and put handcuffs on us -- Tory and myself. She was just standing there with handcuffs on. And you could just see how...like she was crying. And you can see how scared she was too. It was really hard to see that -- my granddaughter being cuffed and both of us been taken out of the bank.

ANGELA STERRITT: Now, the VPD says that the bank called the VPD, claiming the two were conducting bank fraud. In a statement of VPD cooperated, all of Maxwell's story and a representative from the VPD said once officers saw the pair's ID and confirmed that they were who they said they were and it was determined that there was no criminal activity and no fraudulent transactions, they were released without charge. Maxwell says the VPD also provided a verbal apology.

STEPHEN QUINN: And how would the bank think that they were conducting bank fraud when they booked an appointment the previous day to open a bank account for a 12-year-old? I mean, what triggered the actual call?

ANGELA STERRITT: Yeah. So the Bank of Montreal sent a brief statement to me. In it, they say they were, quote, "mitigating circumstances." I asked what that meant and a representative told me to ask Maxwell. So he told me he was told that this was about concerns and suspicions with his and his granddaughter's identification. You know Maxwell also thought the suspicion may had to do with settlement money that was in his bank account. That was 30,000 dollars that every health sec member from Bella Bella received at that was deposited into each person's bank account. And that money was deposited not long before the appointment. But bottom line, Maxwell thinks he was racially profiled. He also suffers from what he calls extreme panic disorder. And he and his granddaughter, you know, since this has happened to have been, you know, they've had anxiety. He also says he has fear now of police that he never had before. He also just says he doesn't trust banks since this happened. So he's concerned.

MAXWELL JOHNSON: This is mind blowing, especially for a First Nations people. Like we take two steps forward and four steps backward when something like this happens, it'll take time to get over this. And, you know, I got to do what I got to do, not only for myself, but for my son and my granddaughter.

CH: Maxwell Johnson and his 12-year-old granddaughter were recently handcuffed after trying to open an account at a Bank of Montreal branch in Vancouver. Before that was CBC Vancouver, Angela Sterritt speaking with The Early Edition host Stephen Quinn about the incident. In a statement to CBC News, the Bank of Montreal said, quote, "Although there were some mitigating circumstances, they do not excuse the way in which we handled the situation. We deeply regret this happened and have apologized to our customer." And again, Vancouver Police have corroborated Mr. Johnson's account of what happened.

[Music]

Part 3: B.C. man embarks on 2-month trek by train and cargo ship to reduce carbon footprint

Norse study

Guest: James Barrett

CH: They were fierce warriors, talented navigators, and skilled hunters. But by the late 15th century, the Norse of Greenland were no more. For centuries, researchers have had plenty of theories about what happened to these descendants of the Vikings. But they've had little proof of any of those theories. Now, a group of researchers has determined that the mighty warriors may have met their end because of the over-hunting of walruses. James Barrett is an archaeologist at Cambridge University and the lead author of this new research. We reached him in Cambridge, England.

CO: James, has the faith of the Greenland Norse been a big mystery for a long time?

JAMES BARRETT: It has been one of the mysteries really. It was successful for about 500 years. And we have never been able to satisfactorily explain how it disappeared or why.

CO: And how rapidly did it disappear?

JB: There were two main settlements. And the western settlement disappeared around 1350 -- maybe a little later. The eastern settlement held on for maybe another hundred years or so.

CO: Okay. You wanted to figure this out. And so you did so in a very interesting way by looking at the skulls of walruses. Why was that?

JB: [Laughs] Well, what I was really interested in was trying to look at ecological globalization, that often inexorable quest for resources that lead us farther and farther away. And I was looking at the story of the walrus. And it just kept taking me further and further to Greenland and ultimately perhaps even to Ellesmere Island. So we didn't set out to solve the problem of the mystery of Greenland, but that's where the walruses took us.

CO: And what was the association between walrus skulls and the Norse of Greenland?

JB: The Norse colony was very much a part of Europe. There were Viking settlers originally and really valued the continued connection with Europe. But there weren't so many things in Greenland that would bear the cost of its trade all the way across the Atlantic. So one of the most important was walrus ivory. And the hunt for walruses seems to have been sustainable at first. So in the height of the Romanesque period and art in Europe, for instance, walrus ivory was all the rage. It was a preferred material for sculpture. And that led to in part to the colony thriving. But then the question was, what happened when that stopped being the case? And we know in the 1200s that elephant ivory started to come into Europe. Walrus ivory fell out of fashion. And it's often been thought that that might be one of the variables leading to the end of the Norse colonies. So that's where we started our story, really.

CO: So those Norse colonies were sustaining themselves, their wealth ,on the tusks of walruses.

JB: In part, yeah. It wasn't the only foundation, but it was one of the most important ones that made them economically successful. Absolutely. And it allowed them to maintain their connection with Europe.

CO: And how far and wide were they going in order to harvest these animals?

JB: Well, to begin with, they had to go north from their settlements, but not so far to an area called Disko Bay, sort of in the centre of the western coast of Greenland. But what we discovered is that later in time that the walrus hunt probably extended much further north in western Greenland. And the walruses that were being harvested were smaller animals -- smaller tusks, probably female individuals. And of a genetic type, which is most common in the far north, reaches of Smith Sound in northwestern Greenland and even in Ellesmere Island. So that was very interesting. But the key for us was then comparing that information with what we knew was going on with the trade of ivory into Europe. Because one of the hypotheses for why Norse of Greenland might have failed in the past was that Europeans just stopped wanting walrus ivory because they had elephant ivory now and it had gone out of fashion. The trade declined. Therefore, the viability of the colonies declined and that contributed to the collapse. You know, this was a very good idea and one that I thought was probably true. But then what we discovered is that as we move forward in time and we're looking at these walrus skulls in Europe and the reason they're walrus skulls in Europe is because the tusks were being traded in pairs still attached to the front of the skull, like a kind of package. So we looked at these and we measured them and we did ancient DNA and other kinds of scientific analysis. And this all brought us to the realization that when elephant ivory was being introduced in Europe and there should have been less trade from Greenland, there should have been less hunting of walrus in Greenland, just the opposite seems to have been the case. So as I was saying, the animals actually got smaller, which are classic signs of a resource depletion. You know, you hunt the big males first because they have the biggest tusks and most ivory. And then one of the most extraordinary things which has been known about a long time but, you know, when we put it together with the new evidence it begins to make sense is that there are Norse artifacts in Inuit sites in extreme northwestern Greenland and even in Ellesmere Island.

CO: In Canada -- there were Norse artifacts found, it's been a big archeological discovery in this country. How does that fit into the study?

JB: Yeah. These artifacts, they date to this time period -- to the 1200s and 1300s. And so when we put it all together to begin with, it just didn't make sense. I mean, why were they hunting more walruses possibly ever farther north? Perhaps also trading with Inuit population in far north to get walruses as well. But of course, when you put all the evidence together, it does make perfect sense because as the unit value of the walrus ivory decreased, it wasn't like the Greenlanders suddenly had something else to trade. You know, it really was their one main export product. So to maintain that contact, they would have had to hunt more walruses, to have more ivory, to maintain the value.

CO: Do you feel you have solved the mystery of the Greenland Norse?

JB: Well we've certainly, I think revealed one of the key ingredients. Absolutely. I think that the western colony, which was of the more northern of them, was the most heavily reliant on the walrus hunt. And it makes sense that it's the one that disappeared at exactly this time. And the more southern are the two colonies that hung on for another hundred years or so. But I think that its resilience to things like climate change -- that must have been undermined by the fact that it no longer had this source of wealth and the source of contact. So we wouldn't suggest that it's the only cause, but we think that it really helps us to make sense of everything that was going on.

CO: Well, this is good detective work. Do you think you might get a Netflix series on the CSI Vikings or something?

JB: [Laughter] Well, I think I'm not sure we'll aspire to that.

CO: [Laughter] Well Nordic noir is all the thing. You could probably fit it in.

JB: [Chuckles] Absolutely. I think it is a useful cautionary tale. You know what the Greenlanders were doing is they were trying to make ends meet in a context where the world around them was changing. And, you know, in doing so, they made some decisions which were ultimately unsustainable in the long term and over-exploiting their environment. And I think that's something that, you know, we can all relate to. You know, it's a lesson for our times.

CO: James is a very interesting story, and I appreciate you telling it to us. Thank you.

JB: You're very welcome.

CH: James Barrett is an archeologist at Cambridge University and the lead author of a new study published in Quaternary Science Reviews. We reached him in Cambridge, England.

[Music]

Kyle Russell

CH: It was dark. It was cold. And Kyle Russell was in a river. The 19-year-old was snowmobiling with friends near Port Blanford, Newfoundland, a week and a half ago when the group made a pit stop. Mr. Russell got off his snowmobile, wiped out and fell into the icy water. Luckily, his friends were there. And luckily they all had their wits about them and they all had their phones. Kyle Russell described the experience to Martin Jones, host of "CBC Newfoundland Morning."

SOUNDCLIP

KYLE RUSSELL: It was rough. I was with my buddies on skidoo. We were going over Nalcor road to the power line. And we stopped on a bridge there over the Salmon River. And when I was stepping off my skidoo, I slipped and couldn't catch myself and fell right on back. Because the rail isn't safe.

MARTIN JONES: So this was about 7:30 -- so it was dark when this happened too, right?

KYLE RUSSELL: Yeah.

MARTIN JONES: All right. So you're on a bridge. You slipped off the bridge. You fell through it and into the water below. How deep was the water?

KYLE RUSSELL: I'm not sure how deep the water was, but I couldn't stand up. It was over my head.

MARTIN JONES: Wow.

KYLE RUSSELL: Yeah. It was freezing.

MARTIN JONES: You hit your head when you fell as well -- and you hit it pretty hard, right?

KYLE RUSSELL: Yeah. I struck my head off the bottom of the bridge and a rock in the water and cracked my helmet.

MARTIN JONES: Good lord. So luckily, you had your helmet on, too. Otherwise that would be a different story too, right?

KYLE RUSSELL: Yeah. That was the only thing that saved me. I thought everything was over a pretty much. Because well I was falling off the bridge in the dark and went under the water -- it went over my head. And well I'm not really a good swimmer either, but I manage to get myself up to the top and then the current took me.

MARTIN JONES: So you managed to grab onto a branch, I think, right?

KYLE RUSSELL: Yeah, I lost all my strength. And the stick that was sticking out that I held onto was the only thing that was saving me.

MARTIN JONES: Kyle you said a couple of seconds ago that having your helmet on saved your life. But I think your friends have a part in that play as well. How did they help out here?

KYLE RUSSELL: Yeah. They jumped down over a big bank that was there -- well, cliff -- and managed to stretch their arm out and grab onto my sleeve and they hauled me out of the water. And when they got me up to the top, they start giving me extra clothes and stuff.

MARTIN JONES: Took a little while, it took about five solid minutes before they can sort of find you and get you out, right?

KYLE RUSSELL: Yeah. They had to shine their lights on their phone to try to find me.

MARTIN JONES: So what do you think would have happened to you if it weren't for your buddies' quick thinking there?

KYLE RUSSELL: Well, the current would have took me and I would've went down the river. And probably would've drowned. I thought they weren't going to find me, honestly. But they got me out in time. Yeah...I do owe them big time.

CH: That's 19 year old Kyle Russell of Port Blanford, Newfoundland speaking with "CBC Newfoundland Morning" host Martin Jones.

[Music]

Slow boat voyage

Guest: Will Vibert

CH: A complicated, circuitous travel experience doesn't have to be all bad. If you're lucky, it can create special memories. Half the fun is getting there and all that. But most of us wouldn't go out of our way to lengthen a trip. Will Vibert however, is not like most of us. While trying to get home to Canada from Germany in time for Christmas, he didn't just make the best out of getting rerouted. He planned on it. We reached Will Vibert in Tofino, British Columbia.

CO: Will, first of all, welcome home.

WILL VIBERT: Thank you very much.

CO: Did you manage to make it in time for Christmas?

WV: I did. I got home just about a week before Christmas.

CO: [Chuckles] How long did it take you?

WV: Well, including a few overnight stops in Montreal and Toronto, it took me basically exactly a month.

CO: And where did you start from?

WV: Well, the cargo ship left Hamburg, but I was actually living in Italy for the past year. So I really started from Milan. I made my way up through Europe by buses and then, yeah, took the cargo ship from Hamburg. So if we are counting Italy, it was two months traveling.

CO: All right. So obviously the question is why? Because most people would have just hopped a plane. Why did you decide to do it this way?

WV: Well, I realized that as much as I tried to be environmentally conscious at home, that's kind of this huge blind spot. And it was the fact that I was taking flights all over the world. And that cancels out kind of any steps I try to take at home to reduce my carbon footprint. So I kind of had this moment of awakening when I realized that if I was really going to walk the talk, I needed to stop flying so much. And I wanted to prove to people that it was possible to still travel the world but not do it by plane.

CO: As long as you have time to do it.

WV: Exactly. That's kind of the crucial thing. So I know most people don't. And I'm never going to shame them for that.

CO: All right. Let's start with this extraordinary cargo ship that you took. How did you get aboard that? How did you arrange to cross the Atlantic on a cargo boat?

WV: Well, basically, the shipping companies, they will sell surplus cabin space through various travel agencies. So once I kind of had this idea, I just put out an email to a bunch of different travel agencies that were connected with shipping companies and said these were the dates I was looking to travel. This is where I needed to go -- what ships are going to be traveling at that time? And luckily, there was something that worked for me.

CO: And where did that go? What was the routing?

WV: So it left Hamburg and we stopped in Antwerp and stopped in Liverpool en route to Halifax.

CO: So you spent, what, two weeks on board?

WV: Yeah, it's 15 days.

CO: Most people crossing the Atlantic is on a very nice cruise ship with all kinds of shuffleboard and swimming pools and nice restaurants and stuff. So you are onboard with a bunch of, I guess, burly sailors. And did you have much social life?

WV: Yeah, I actually did. It was remarkably fun and time went by really fast. There were two other passengers with me as well, and they were great. Tony and Janos. And we had dart tournaments and played board games, watched movies. And we were kind of just left on our own to do whatever we wanted. And it was really really really fun.

CO: And what kind of accommodations did you have on board?

WV: So every passenger gets their own cabin and it's actually extremely comfortable. Nothing fancy, but, you know, I had my own bed, my own desk, my own private bathroom. And, yeah, I really really could not complain.

CO: Wow. And the food?

WV: The food was nothing amazing, but it was certainly fine. There's a lot of meat which I don't really eat much of, but other than that, I can't really complain when you're getting three hot meals a day and the crew is so nice and they're looking out for you and they're happy to do whatever it is that you need done.

CO: I know people will want me to ask you, how much did that cost to cross the Atlantic on that boat?

WV: So it's a little under 1,500 euros. And that is including food and everything. So it seems like a lot. But once I kind of had the experience of being on board, I realized actually this is something that's very special and it no longer felt like that much money to pay for the experience.

CO: Okay. So from Halifax how did you get across the continent over to British Columbia without having a carbon footprint or much of one?

WV: Well I took the train. We have a train system in Canada that most Canadians don't use. But I wanted to try it for the first time ever and it worked. I went from Halifax to Montreal, stayed there for a little while and then on to Toronto and then from Toronto to Vancouver on the long haul for a night train there.

CO: Okay. For how many days and nights for you on that train?

WV: Six nights.

CO: But I mean, compared to your cross Atlantic voyage, a lot of luxuries.

WV: Yes. The train was definitely a much more luxurious than the cargo ship because, you know, you're on there in a passenger service, you're not just kind of hitching a ride with a random cargo vessel.

CO: And your whole point was to get home for Christmas.

WV: Yes.

CO: All right. And what was your total carbon emissions at the end of your trip?

WV: The total was just about 260 kilos of CO2 emissions. And most of that was just coming from the train.

CO: And how much would have been if you'd flown from Germany to Vancouver?

WV: The one-way flight would have been 1.3 tons.

CO: Do you recommend this to people?

WV: I do. I know it's not feasible for many people, but if someone is looking for a different kind of adventure, one that has a low carbon footprint, I really could not recommend it more. It was really an amazing experience.

CO: Do you think that this kind of slow boat way of travel is going to catch on?

WV: I think certainly trying to avoid flying is going to catch on. There's not necessarily a huge capacity for cargo ships to start ferrying passengers all over because then they'll just become cruise ships and that defeats the entire purpose. But I think certainly in Europe, you know, everyone understood exactly why I was doing this trip once I told them about what I was doing. And I think in Canada we might be a little behind not, but we're definitely well on our way.

CO: Well, I think you've probably inspired some people at least to try this method. It sounds wonderful. And I really appreciate speaking with you Will.

WV: Thank you Carol.

CH: Will Vibert recently traveled from Germany by boat and across Canada to his home on the West Coast. We reached him in Tofino, BC. And we've got more on this story on our webpage: cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 9, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode