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 2025

The AIH transcript for January 20, 2025

For more episodes of this podcast, please click this link.

NIL KÖKSAL: Hello, I'm Nil Köksal.

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

[theme]

CH: Tonight:

NK: Crossing a line. At his inauguration, the U.S. president declares a national emergency at the border with Mexico -- and our guest worries Donald Trump’s rhetoric will be a precursor to anti-immigrant violence.

CH: Stamp of approval. Outgoing President Joe Biden issues a posthumous pardon to Black nationalist Marcus Garvey -- more than a century after his conviction for mail fraud.

NK: Driving a hard bargain back. Trump did not hit Canada with tariffs on his first day back -- and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says the Trudeau government is working to turn that temporary reprieve into a permanent retreat.

CH: His stand on ceremonies. A Pennsylvania civics teacher has brought his students to Washington every inauguration day since 2005; he'll tell us what his students learned today.

NK: Mussel bound. After stumbling on a decades-old paper about coastal diversity, a researcher revisits its findings -- which lead her to a thriving population of mussels, and the paper's 101-year-old author.

CH: And...the towelling inferno. A firestorm is ignited when a male ski jumper is given thousands of dollars for his performance -- and his female counterpart is given a gift bag with some nice hand towels in it.

CH: As It Happens, the Monday Edition. Radio that knows money doesn't grow on toiletries.

Part 1: Inauguration: Border Measures, Inauguration: Wilkinson, Mussel Bed Community

Inauguration: Border Measures

Guest: Thomas A. Saenz

CH: Today, after he was inaugurated for a second time, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to sign a series of historic executive orders immediately on issues ranging from trade to consumer choice to inflation to free expression. But before he mentioned any of those he led with, this.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came. We will reinstate my "Remain in Mexico" policy. [clapping] I will end the practice of catch and release. [clapping] And I will send troops to the southern border to repel the disastrous invasion of our country. [clapping].

CH: Newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking in Washington today. Thomas A. Saenz is the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which successfully challenged the first Trump administration on immigration issues in court. We reached him in Los Angeles.

NK: Thomas, that will be difficult for a lot of people to hear, to listen to. Is it for you?

THOMAS A. SAENZ: I think anyone should be troubled by the continued use of very dangerous and false invasion rhetoric when it comes to immigration matters. The fact is, invasion is not a term that is remotely applicable to our current immigration system. And using invasion rhetoric, unfortunately, has the repercussion of encouraging particularly deranged individuals from undertaking actions that they will believe to be in protection of the United States, targeting innocent immigrant victims.

NK: And when you, when you talk about this being dangerous, you have examples from the recent past that underline this for you.

TAS: Well, we know that the mass murder at the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, several years ago was by an individual who travelled many, many miles specifically to target Mexican immigrants. And he clearly was acting in response to rhetoric from then President Donald Trump. And we don't want to see any recurrence of that. But invasion rhetoric, which is false, could inspire. Now, that invasion rhetoric is then reinforced by proposals to further use the military, which exists to defend the national security of the United States, to engage in immigration enforcement action.

NK: Ending birthright citizenship is something the President did not explicitly mention, but he has talked about it before. The Washington Post is reporting and citing an administration official who has, who has told them that it is going to be part of the executive orders. We're still waiting for, for details to come out. But what do you make of the fact it wasn't uttered in that list?

TAS: Well, it's impossible to predict. With, with someone like Trump, maybe he simply failed to read a line on the teleprompter. You never know. But I hope that it means they are pausing and recognizing that the president has absolutely no authority to change birthright citizenship. Only a constitutional amendment enacted by Congress and then ratified by the requisite number of states could change that rule. It's also important to note that changing that rule would be an absolute nightmare to implement. How would we go about knowing what is the status of someone's parents at the time they were born, which emphasizes that people's status changes over time.

NK: You're disappointed. You're concerned. That's clear in what you've said, and in your voice. But your organization is also prepared. Certainly, has been preparing for this moment. How have you done that? What have you done?

TAS: Well, again, we have to wait for the details to know for certain what we're challenging. But we are preparing to use litigation in the court system to challenge what may violate the constitution or other legal norms. I emphasize we have to wait for the details because from the first Trump administration, with just a few exceptions, we know that these executive orders are likely to be full of rhetoric, including catchphrases like catch and release, which have absolutely no meaning, and are designed more as dog whistle politics than they are actual policy implications. So, we have to first wait to see the text of the executive orders. Because only when there is a concrete policy implication can you go into court to challenge government action.

NK: You have faced this, this president in court before. Given the landscape now, legally, politically, what are you bracing for?

TAS: Well, we certainly know that the Supreme Court has changed. It has changed to be more conservative than it was at the beginning of the first Trump administration. Because Mr. Trump was able to make three appointments. However, this is still a court populated by a majority who understand the importance of constitutional certainty. That means respect, for example, or an interpretation of birthright citizenship that goes back over a century. It means that despite the dreams and views of some in Trump's circles that the court system is still an important break, an important control on what might otherwise go forward under the Trump administration.

NK: They weren't necessarily the deciding factor in Donald Trump's victory, but, you know, and many others do, that Latino voters were far more likely to vote for Trump in 2024 than even in 2020, despite concerns about the kind of rhetoric that you and I have been speaking about. What do you attribute that to?

TAS: Well, first, I should note that turnout in the Latino community, as all communities, but particularly in the Latino community, was dramatically down from four years prior, meaning that a lot of that increase in proportions of support for Trump may simply be a reflection of who came out to vote and who did not. Why did they not? Because the Biden administration was, unfortunately, a deep disappointment for the Latino community. He focused quite clearly on other communities, and not the Latino community, despite the fact that it is the largest and the fastest growing of minority communities in this country. And that really translated into reduced enthusiasm. And therefore, reduced turnout for his vice president. But the fact is that there was a shift, at least in certain parts of the country, in favour of Trump. At this point, that's an anomaly, in my view. And when folks see the mass disruption, it's going to accompany his policy initiatives, particularly in the immigration arena. I think it will remain an anomaly. Unless Trump and his party change their tune to be substantially less anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, that 2024 election result will not likely be repeated in the future.

NK: Thomas, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

TAS: Thank you.

CH: Thomas A. Saenz is the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund or MALDEF. We reached him in Los Angeles.

[cold into next story. No music]

Inauguration: Wilkinson

Guest: Jonathan Wilkinson

CH: If you listened closely this afternoon, you could hear Ottawa exhale. Donald Trump didn't hit Canada with huge trade tariffs today. Although, in his inauguration address, the U.S. president did suggest tariffs could be in the cards -- not just for Canada, but for other U.S. trading partners as well.

SOUNDCLIP

DT: I will immediately begin the overhaul of our trade system to protect American workers and families. Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens. [clapping] For this purpose, we are establishing the External Revenue Service to collect all tariffs, duties, and revenues. It will be massive amounts of money pouring into our treasury coming from foreign sources.

CH: Part of U.S. President Donald Trump's inaugural address this afternoon. Jonathan Wilkinson is Canada's minister of energy and natural resources. We reached him in Montebello, Quebec.

NK: Minister, from what you've seen and heard so far, how do you see the new U.S. president's tariff threat? How do you see that threat at this point in time?

JONATHAN WILKINSON: Well, I think it was obviously positive today that we didn't see the imposition of tariffs. But I would say we are at the beginning of this conversation, not the end. And while we should likely be pleased that we didn't see the tariffs come in, there's a lot of water that needs to go under the bridge before we are through this. I was in Washington last week for discussions with a range of folks. And certainly, have been promoting the idea that, that we look away from tariffs and more towards how we can actually create additional mutual benefit in the areas of energy and resources? I think perhaps that was heard a little bit by, by folks. But, you know, there is a lot of discussion before we, we know exactly how this is going to sort itself out.

NK: What kind of reactions were you getting in those immediate conversations before it trickles down or up and comes to a day like today? What was your, just the sense you were getting from people who you were dealing with?

JW: Well, I think the sense was, generally, people are very favourably disposed to Canada and a relationship with Canada. I think they were very favourably disposed to the idea that we could actually do things together that could allow the United States to do more, particularly in some areas that President Trump campaigned on. But at the same time, we could create jobs and economic opportunity in Canada. And that was true of, you know, Republican senators and congresspersons, but it was very much true of the American business community. I expect I will be going to Washington fairly frequently over the next number of months because part of what we're pitching is essentially an energy and minerals partnership that essentially would take some very specific projects that would enable the United States, but also be very valuable for Canada, and really push those forward on an expedited basis.

NK: From what you were saying earlier, you seem to be aligned, at least on this topic, with Ontario Premier Doug Ford. He was asked if he was relieved and he said, quote, It's not a relief at all because he's saying he's going to review it and he's going to end up doing it, unquote. Do you agree with Premier Ford's assessment?

JW: Well, you know, I think Premier Ford has been a very constructive voice in this conversation over the course of the past few weeks. I think, you know, Premier Ford, saying this is the beginning, not the end, is exactly what I'm saying. And certainly, we are working very closely with provinces and territories. And I would say Premier Ford, as the chair of the council of the federation has been extremely helpful in helping to coordinate some of those voices alongside, obviously, the prime minister. But yeah, I mean, I generally agree with, with Premier Ford, and I think that there's lots of things that we can do together. He has been, and a number of the premiers have been suggesting ideas about how we can advance things that will create mutual benefit. And Premier Eby has also been doing that, as has Premier Smith. And, and I think there's, there's at least reason for, for optimism in terms of engagement going forward. But as I say, people should, you know, take a big breath and, and, you know, we've got to see what's going to happen over the next few weeks.

NK: Yeah, this is, this is only Day One. You mentioned Premier Smith, Alberta's premier, Danielle Smith. She is in Washington for the inauguration today. She has not been aligned with the other premiers, as our listeners will remember from our conversations last week, and as you well know. How much damage does that do, though, to your government's negotiating position?

JW: Well, I heard pretty clearly from American business when I was in Washington last week that having different voices, different Canadian voices, saying different things is not helpful in terms of, of folks in Washington really understanding what the Canadian perspective is. That's why it's important that we do have a Team Canada approach. As, as you noted, 12 of 13 premiers signed on to an agreement with the prime minister to work collaboratively together. Premier Smith, unfortunately, did not. What I would say, you know, to, to Premier Smith is everyone acknowledges that, that anything that we do, if we need to respond to tariffs, has to be regionally balanced. It can't be focused on any one region of the country. But, but, and certainly, retaliation needs to focus on the things that are going to create the biggest pain in the United States before we start to do things that are going to create real challenges in Canada. But, you know, it'd be silly for us to take tools off the table publicly if we end up needing to engage with the negotiation with somebody who is a skilled negotiator. So, you know, we need to get to a point where we're all speaking with the same voice. And, you know, I certainly think that the premier in her heart of hearts would like that, too.

NK: But what I'm hearing there is that you're seeing that, and hearing that, some damage has already been inflicted?

JW: Certainly, people are telling us that we need to ensure going forward that we actually do speak more clearly with one voice. And that is certainly something that we are discussing with all the provinces and territories, including Premier Smith. At the end of the day, we have common objectives, which is to ensure tariffs never get imposed or if they are imposed, that they are actually withdrawn quickly. And that we actually have a negotiating strategy to ensure that that happens. I mean, that, that, that is in the interest of all Canadians, not just Canadians in, you know, New Brunswick and Ontario. It's in the interest of Canadians in Alberta and British Columbia, too.

NK: Premier Smith was speaking on the air with our colleague, Chief CBC News Correspondent Adrian Arsenault, and she said she asked President Trump if he wants to buy more Alberta oil. This was at the Mar a Lago meeting not so long ago. And she says he said yes. What does that signal to you, that response in particular, about Canada's bargaining position right now?

JW: Well, I think it signals that we're on the right track with respect to the Energy and Minerals Security Partnership that we actually proposed, that I proposed, to a range of legislators in the United States last week. It's about actually helping the president with keeping energy cost low in the United States. But also, with respect to reducing dependence on unfriendly countries. And that's true of specific critical minerals that we could help them with that China has now banned the export to the United States. It also relates to things like uranium and potash, where Russia supplies it, and it relates to energy projects like what Premier Smith is talking about. Where, for example, we could work together to augment the capacity flowing through the Enbridge mainline, which would help with respect to energy security in the United States. So, I don't think that's not aligned. I think it's actually fully in line with what the federal government is proposing.

NK: Minister Wilkinson, I appreciate your time, as always. Thank you.

JW: Not at all. Thank you very much.

CH: Jonathan Wilkinson is Canada's minister of energy and natural resources. We reached him Montebello, Quebec.

[newsy theme]

Mussel Bed Community

Guest: Emily Longman

CH: Despite climate change, mussels around Dillon Beach in Northern California are doing just as well today as they were in 1941. That's what Emily Longman and her team found while conducting their recently published study. And she's able to make that comparison because of an old manuscript partly typewritten by Milton Hildebrand, who sampled the area as a graduate student of University of California Davis, before he was drafted to fight in the Second World War. When Ms. Longman read that detailed report nearly 80 years later, she had no idea that she'd be able to share her own findings about the mussels in person, with Mr. Hildebrand himself -- who was 101 years old. Emily Longman is a marine biologist and the lead researcher of the study. We reached her in Burlington, Vermont.

NK: Emily, I'm trying to imagine you as a graduate student. You get word about the student report, not published, but on the library shelf at the school. And then, you look at it, you're flipping through its pages. What jumped out at you?

EMILY LONGMAN: This 1941 report was so unique and special because it contained a tonne of amazing maps and pictures that allowed you to actually get an understanding of exactly where this field survey had taken place. Plus, it contained a really detailed list of all of the animals that lived within this mussel bed. And because it was so quantitative, it felt like such a great dataset to kind of understand what the past state of this ecosystem was. And by redoing the survey, it felt like it'd be possible to look at how much change had occurred over time.

NK: A very tangible visual way to do this research. Two-and-a-half-by-three-feet is the area we're talking about. Again, in 1941 is when those other students took their samples. What did you expect to find when you went back there?

EL: Based off of some previous work that had been published in Southern California, they had seen drastic declines in species diversity. There's been so many negative reports out of how devastating climate change has been to an ecosystem. So, going in, we were predicting that there would be big changes. And so, it was actually quite positive to find that these mussel beds are very healthy and still contain a wide range of different species.

NK: What was it like to see that up close and in person?

EL: Mussel beds are amazing. So, mussels all attached together to create this really three dimensional structure. And then, kind of all of the nooks and crannies between all of these mussels, you have tonnes of different species and organisms. Things like snails and worms to limpets or little crabs. So, there's just a wide range of animals that live within this habitat.

NK: I was watching the video that you released, sea cucumbers as well. I mean, such a vivid, vibrant little spot. And it tells an important story, which is what you're trying to get across. You mentioned the other studies that have talked about the huge, deep biodiversity loss in California. Why is this spot doing so well?

EL: It's hard to know exactly for sure. The muscle beds themselves seem to be doing better in the sense that they are that very three dimensional structures. We're in Southern California. There's been evidence that these mussel beds are decreasing in their size, and that might be one of the reasons that the animals that live within the muscle beds are also disappearing. Plus, Southern California overall is more urban. And as a result, there could be many other human impacts on these muscle beds, including, like, trampling or pollution compared to Northern California.

NK: In terms of other scientists working in this same area, what do you hope the work that you've done building on the scientists back in 1941, their work, what do you hope they take away from this? But also, the rest of us who aren't scientists about how marine ecosystems are changing or even adapting to climate change?

EL: On one hand, there's a really encouraging bright spot, which is showing that humans haven't already devastated everything. But despite the fact that these mussel beds are still thriving, there has been a change in the composition of species that are present where we are seeing an increase in more warm-adapted species, and a decrease in cool-adapted species. So, they do seem to be still impacted by climate change. So, I feel like we still need to protect our ecosystems.

NK: There's a scientific surprise in all of this when you went to see things in person for yourself, but there's also the surprise that you learned that Milton Hildebrand, one of the authors of that paper in 1941, not a grad student anymore, you learned that he was alive and 101 years old when you met him. What was that meeting like? How did he react to the work you were doing?

EL: This was the most amazing part of this project. We just thought this report itself was such a treasure trove of data. And it wasn't until the pretty much end of our sampling that we ended up realizing that one of the students, Milton Hildebrand, was still alive, and lived really close by. And not only that, but he had been a professor at the university where I was getting my PhD. And we got to actually go meet him in-person and bring with us the original student report. And he hadn't seen that since.

NK: And what did he make of what you'd found, and where this field has come through your work and others?

EL: He loved that we had used this report that he had done as this historical data fact. It even said in the report the two students both that they hope that someone would go back, whether it be them or someone else, to redo this survey. And he was so elated to hear that we had not only done that project, but that these ecosystems seemed to be thriving. He ended up going on and having a full career hunting vertebrate morphology. He studied things like how cheetahs run really fast. And the gaits of horses. And so, despite kind of changing kind of courses, he, he, you could see as a young scientist, he was such a enthusiastic, detailed scientist, even when he was an early graduate student in the quality of this report.

NK: Emily, a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you.

EL: Yeah, thank you so much.

CH: Emily Longman is a marine biologist and the lead researcher on a newly published study of mussels. We reached her in Burlington, Vermont.

[uptempo]

Ski Jumper Prize

CH: And now it's time for our regular segment...

[polka music? This is highly irregular…]

CH: [echo] That’s an interesting fact about Europe…Europe…Europe.

CH: Today's interesting fact about Europe comes from Germany -- home of Beethoven, bratwurst, and Black Forest cake, and ski jumping. Did you know that, in Germany, women who ski jump don't use money? Well, it's the only conclusion to be drawn from a recent competition. The man who qualified in the top spot at a World Cup event in Germany received the equivalent of $4,700 Canadian. The woman who qualified in the top spot -- Selina Freitag of Germany -- received, quote: "a partner bag with shower gel and shampoo and four hand towels." Unquote. So, for some reason, ski-jumping women hate money, and prefer toiletries, which they can…sorry? Just a second, my director is just talking into my earpiece. Oh dear. I feared this day would come: we're going to have to play...the other theme.

[the same polka]

CH: [echo] That’s not a fact about Europe…Europe…Europe.

CH: [NK chuckles] It turns out Selina Freitag would have appreciated money, actually, rather than towels. As she told the German broadcaster BR24, quote, "It was like, 'Here, we unfortunately didn’t have 500 euros left over.' I don’t want to complain too much about it, but you can see the difference." Unquote. You really can see the difference. But the International Ski and Snowboard Federation would like us to know a few things. First of all: that gift bag also contained a coupon for "wellness treatments". [NK chuckles] And second: it understands why this disparity has, quote, "generated frustration" -- but the women's sport just doesn't generate the interest or marketing revenue. Therefore: less prize money, and less, so far, means none. But judging by the angry response to this disparity, maybe that's about to change. Maybe this will turn out to be a jumping-off point.

[lounge jazz]

Part 2: Marcus Garvey Pardon, Inauguration: Scranton Civics

Marcus Garvey Pardon

Guest: Anthony Pierce

CH: On his final full day in office, former President Joe Biden issued a handful of pardons to people who he said, quote, "made significant contributions to improving their communities". Unquote. And among them was the late Marcus Garvey -- who was born in Jamaica, and became a towering figure in the Black nationalist movement. But after he moved to the U.S., his political activism caught the attention of the FBI. And in the 1920s, Mr. Garvey was convicted of mail fraud. He served two years of a five-year prison sentence, before being deported back to Jamaica. Anthony Pierce is the lawyer for the Garvey family. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

NK: Tony, how did news of this pardon come to you and the Garvey family?

ANTHONY PIERCE: Well, we got a call from the White House saying that it was going to be granted. And then, the president issued a statement along with a few other pardons on Sunday morning.

NK: And to hear that presidential statement, just to even get that call, how did Marcus Garvey's son react?

AP: He was ecstatic. It's been a long time since we started this process, and we've had some fits and starts. And so, after all this effort to finally get his father a pardon, it was very moving for him.

NK: And what about for you? Because you've been working on this for, for decades.

AP: Well, you know, as a lawyer, I never give up on a client, so. [chuckling] And we certainly didn't do this here when they first came to us in '08, towards the end of the Bush administration. We looked at it and saw that it was very worthy and subsequently filed a petition. And we've been working on it sort of hard ever since 2016, I would say, and when the formal petition for a pardon was filed. And we've gone through three presidents, and finally, President Biden did the right thing. So, I was very pleased having worked on it for so long.

NK: Why do you think other presidents did not come through for you on this, that it was Joe Biden in the end to do this now?

AP: I cannot read folks' minds. I think we're probably close, and I don't have any idea why it didn't cross the line with President Obama or President Trump. But I will say that President Biden's track record on civil rights, equality, and righting injustices is probably second to none. And I think that was part of the motivation, at least I hope it was.

NK: Do you think, Tony, the murder of George Floyd and the protests that followed, do you think that had any impact on moving this forward and getting this result from Joe Biden?

AP: I don't, I don't tie it directly to that. Certainly, the country has gone through a bit of a racial reckoning, and there's been sort of pushback on that of late. But I think just if you look at President Biden's history, he has always cared about these kinds of issues. And I think once presented with the facts, the political nature of the prosecution of Marcus Garvey, he realized that would be the right thing to do, as well as the Justice Department.

NK: And let's go back in time and look at the facts. You have described, the allegations, the charges as as flawed and fabricated. This was a mail fraud conviction in the 1920s. Mail fraud alone, I think, would be sort of hard for people to wrap their minds around that it has gone on this long, this, this question, and, and that it had to come down to, to a presidential pardon. What was going on at that time? What was, what were those charges about?

AP: I think those charges were more political than they were legal. The record is pretty clear that J. Edgar Hoover targeted Marcus Garvey because they thought he was too much of what some might call a rabble-rouser. And he was focused on Black empowerment and Black self-determination and improvement. And that rubbed some folks the wrong way. So, they infiltrated his organization. And after several years of doing that, the one thing they found, or think they found, was that he had defrauded somebody out of $25. And almost immediately after that conviction, the then-attorney general questioned the merits of it. The Justice Department had really gone too far. And once they got some jurors to discuss what happened, they realized the error of their ways. And initially, commuted his sentence at the request of the attorney general. But that, quite frankly, was not enough. We have been working on the pardon to make sure the record is reflected and the country apologizes to Marcus Garvey and the Garvey family for what was done.

NK: Practically speaking, what will this pardon change?

AP: Well, it will, it will at least put in the history books the notion that the United States, who prosecuted him, have now decided that that was wrong. And certainly, the president of United States, who only has the, the power to pardon has realized that. And I think that will impact Garvey's legacy. And take what little bit of stain was on his, you know, otherwise positive role in the growth of Black people and the civil rights movement, and, and the legacy that comes with all that. So, I view it as an enhancement of his legacy, and just correcting a wrong that was done, you know, almost 100 years ago.

NK: When you first learned about Marcus Garvey, as a child perhaps, or as a teenager, what did he mean to you long before you would ever take on this case?

AP: Oh, I don't know that I paid that much attention to it [both laugh] as a child.

NK: Fair.

AP: As a child. But certainly, lawyers, we know history. And certainly, when the case was presented to me as to what happened to him, I saw the infirmities and the political nature of the prosecution. So, I took on trying to do what we could at this stage to remedy that wrong. What moved me the most was hearing what happened to him, and understanding his history and his role in the growth of Black Americans. And, quite frankly, the African diaspora writ large because he is a hero in many parts of the world. And so, recognizing that legacy and then, quite frankly, talking to his only living son, Dr. Julius Garvey, certainly motivated me to try to help the family.

NK: Tony, I'm glad we could speak. Thank you.

AP: Oh, thank you for taking the time.

CH: Anthony Piece is the family lawyer for the family of Marcus Garvey. He's in Washington, D.C.

[hip-hop]

Montreal Tailor Retires

CH: For the past 50 years, Vincenzo Mercadante has served as the master tailor at Select Men's Wear in Montreal. He's expertly hand-sewn countless suits -- and their quality, and his personality, have prompted customers to return again and again over his five decades as owner. Those relationships have kept Mr. Mercadante going, even when he wanted to retire -- which he's been trying to do for over a year. And now, finally, he says he's ready. Once he sells his last 50 suits, he'll close up shop for the last time. And it's understandable why it's been so hard for him to say goodbye. As he told CBC Montreal, he got his start at the store in 1963, when he first arrived in Canada.

SOUNDCLIP

VINCENZO MERCADANTE: I learned in Italy, actually. When I came here, I already had that job set for me. I came in in April on a Friday. And Monday, I went to work. Then, my problem was that I didn't speak French, I didn't speak English. So, I was so upset and so determined that I had to learn the two languages. Within a year-and-a-half, I could, I could deal with people in both languages. You know, speaking both languages. I have customers that have come here for the last 55 years, 60 years, since I started here on the weekends. And they still come. You cannot imagine. They come here sometimes just to say hello. See, this guy is maybe 20 years just coming here. [a man speaks in the background. VM speaks to him in French] Some of them says, Vince, why don't you stay a little bit more open? I says, listen, time comes that I have to change, and I have to sell it. And because, you know, when I started here, I was enthusiastic. You know, you start a story, a history. And then, when you close, you leave behind many things, good things, bad things. But most of the time, I had a good time here. And the customer like me because I understand them. I listen to them. It's since last year, maybe even more, I had the intention to close. And I try to tell the customer slowly that I close up. No, last week, or two weeks ago, a guy comes in and says, Vince, you're supposed to close. How come you're open? You know, once, twice, three times. I didn't lose my temper. This is why you don't like to come here anymore? You know, but a little bit hard. But he understood. He says, I'm sorry. So, it's sad. It's very [long pause] I've become emotional. [crying] I am attached.

SARAH JESMER: Because this is your life.

VM: Yeah. If I am attached to, to this store, what could you do?

CH: That was tailor Vincenzo Mercadante speaking Sarah Jesmer, a researcher with the program Let's Go in Montreal.

[indie rock]

Inauguration: Scranton Civics

Guests: Sean Curry, Emma Kearney

CH: Today's presidential inauguration ceremony in Washington was an insider affair. Cold weather turned what is typically a busy, jubilant outdoor event into a smaller indoor one. That has happened since Ronald Reagan was sworn in in 1985. No parade and no jumbotrons at the National Mall left roughly 250,000 ticketed guests scrambling to make other viewing plans. Including Sean Curry. Mr. Curry is a social studies teacher at Scranton High School in Pennsylvania. Since 2005, he and his students have travelled to the Capitol to watch every ceremony -- except during the pandemic. We reached Sean Curry and Emma Kearney, a Scranton High senior, in Washington, D.C.

NK: Emma, I'm guessing, you know, watching this, even if it's a viewing party at a hotel, is probably not initially what you had envisioned for, for this trip with your classmates. Was that disappointing?

EMMA KEARNEY: It was a little disappointing. I mean, we all came expecting to see it with our own eyes. But I mean, even being in Washington, and being near the Capitol, and seeing all these people that are here to support this transfer of power when we've, since we've been here, is just as amazing as being there in real life. I think, I've talked to people on the subway while we were riding around, and the stories and information that I've gotten from people all around the world so far is just as amazing as being there.

NK: I bet. I bet. So, for the ceremony itself, what was the energy like for you and your classmates? Everyone that was watching together during the ceremony itself?

EK: It was really nice to see all of us engaged and focused on the actual inauguration. I mean, after, we had a little talk and some explanations on some stuff we were confused about. And it was nice to see everybody actively participating. And seeing how we all have a collective interest is really inspiring and makes me want to do my civic duties and be a responsible citizen, so.

NK: It makes you feel connected to the process, it sounds like, from what you're saying?

EK: Yes.

NK: Well, I want to ask you more about, about those conversations, but I also want to bring in your teacher, Mr. Curry. Sean, hello.

SEAN CURRY: Hello.

NK: It's, well, it sounds like, just even talking to Emma, you have a lot to be proud of in your class. But in terms of, of all the years you've been going to these ceremonies, as our, as our listeners have heard, [SC chuckles] how did this one stack up for you as someone who has seen so many in-person.

SC: Today, it was like watching anything on TV that you watch on TV. So, it did take away some of the excitement level. And, you know, I think it took away some of the attention that you might pay to it because you're not seeing the ceremony live in front of you. You're watching it through a screen. But in terms of the reaction of the kids in the room, the students were great. They were, they were into listening to the speech. And it's, it's awesome because as their teacher, these are, these are kids who have gone through, you know, their years of high school. These are juniors and seniors in high school who are now capable because of the classes they've taken and things we've talked about on this trip to understand and be able to be ready to participate as a citizen. And to vote, and to understand what these candidates are talking about. And, and so, they were engaged in the speech. You know, whether they were for or against it, they were, they were engaged and they were listening. And afterwards, they had questions. And I just, you know, wish that Mother Nature had helped a little bit.

NK: [chuckling] And, Emma, you were mentioning the conversations and questions you had as well, along with your, your classmates. Let me ask you first, what stood out to you about, about Donald Trump's speech?

EK: I thought just the way the type of speech he gave it was very inspiring. The amount of, like, I don't know, like, the adjectives he was using to describe how he's going to lead in the next four years, like, gives a sense of hope to, at least, me. The different people and communities he was trying to relate to as well made me feel a little more connected to this whole process as he was reaching out. Not to the, of course, he was reaching out to the people that were there in the Capitol buildings, but relating to the teachers, and the coal miners, and the workers, and the average citizen. I feel like it made it more personable and relatable.

NK: And you talked about the questions that you and your classmates had afterwards. What kinds of things were you asking?

EK: We were just asking you about some of the things that he mentioned. One of the specifics was the crisis with the, or not crisis, but with the Panama Canal. And we are just getting some of the background info of how that came about, and what exactly he was referring to.

NK: Right. And, you know, he's certainly a polarizing politician. And he has been for quite some time, Donald Trump has. And I'm sure there's lots of different opinions among your classmates, and, and their families even. But in your class, in the room today, how do you navigate those, those disagreements and those kinds of discussions?

EK: I think we're all pretty good at staying respectful and peaceful, no matter which way we swing, Democrat or Republican. And being classmates and stuff, I think we're able to find a nice common ground. Even if we don't necessarily believe in what we believe in each other's beliefs, we can respect that we have different opinions, and have a civil conversation about it and not just attack each other.

NK: And, Sean, given what this president has said and done today, but also in the past, how do you navigate those conversations among your students?

SC: Yeah. And keep in mind that we are from Scranton, Pennsylvania, and that's, that's Joe Biden's hometown. So, it's been a, you know, it's, it's something that we as history teachers at Scranton High School take pride in making sure that we don't, as I said before, our job is to influence and, or not to influence, but to inform. And we try to do a good job at staying as middle of the road as we can with the kids, but providing them with information and opportunities to, to learn and figure out themselves. Because a lot of these kids don't know what political party they really affiliate with. They may know what their parents believe and what the people around them believe, but they are still learning what a Democrat is as compared to what a Republican is. And what makes someone a Democrat or a Republican, as opposed to someone who is a Trump fan or a Biden fan.

NK: And before we let you go, Emma, what are you most excited to do next in the, in the last day you have in your nation's capital?

EK: Tomorrow, we're going to the Capitol. So, I think I'm, I'm very excited for that.

NK: Well, Sean, Emma, a pleasure speaking with both of you. Thank you.

BOTH: Thank you.

CH: Sean Curry is a social studies teacher at Scranton High School -- where Emma Kearney is a senior. We reached them in Washington, D.C.

[glassy guitar riffing]

SFX Ring Found

CH: If you went to St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, you've probably held on to your X ring -- the commemorative piece of jewelry that proudly signals your alma mater. And if you know any St. FX alumni, you might have noticed that they basically never take it off. But Becky Savoie's time with her X ring was abruptly cut short. Ms. Savoie graduated in 2001. And then, about seven years ago, her beloved X ring went missing. Intermittent searches turned up nothing. But recently, Ms. Savoie got a message from Shanna Hopkins of the university's alumni association, who had good news: the ring had resurfaced, at a Value Village in Dartmouth.

SOUNDCLIP

BECKY SAVOIE: My toddler at the time, she had asked to borrow it, I remember one day. And then, I don't remember ever having it after that. And so, I've spent different amounts of time over the years sort of looking for it, thinking, basically, giving up hope, thinking it must be get sucked up into the vacuum cleaner or something like that. And then, interestingly enough, I started really thinking about it just before Christmas. And actually started researching about replacing it. And I think, to be honest, I was trying to figure out how on earth it appeared at Value Village all of a sudden. We had taken, done some cleaning and purging and stuff like that, and actually found some toys in a box that I'd forgotten about something when the kids were younger. And my husband actually dropped them off at Value Village in the weeks leading up to Christmas. So, the only thing I can sort of figure out is somehow that ring must have been in one of the toys or something that we actually donated to Value Village, which is crazy because that means it was in my house for the whole time. I just couldn't find it. [both laugh] So, I was going back and forth through Messenger with Shanna, and she told me that her, her colleague David was at the store, and that he was sort of seeing if he could get it, and he was willing to bring it to me. [chuckling] So, I was pretty disheveled, having been under the weather. I was actually off work sick that day. And he was so excited and so delightful at my door.

GIULIANNA GRILLO: Once you have the ring in your hand, you put it on, how do you feel?

BS: It was really overwhelming, to be honest. It kind of brought me back. I was telling my daughter and colleagues the story of when I got the X ring. So, the X ring ceremony is just something that is, you know, every grad looks forward to. And, and it's pretty emotional. It's pretty intense. And it's just such a culmination of your time, you know? And kind of marks a period before you go into the real world as an adult, so to speak. And I remember being in the chapel, and the sound of all the rings when we were knocking them on the on the pews of the chapel. And it was just such a incredible, emotional and almost physical experience. And it brought me back to that actually, when I was putting it on again. It was like I was back at St. FX in December of 2000 when we were given our rings.

GG: Awe! Well, that's really sweet to hear it brought back those memories for you, which sounds like it meant a lot for you?

BS: It was incredible. Like, St. FX for me was just such a great period of time in my life. It was, it was really such a positive experience. And that's the symbol of, you know, my whole experience there. You know, such an act of, of kindness and, you know, humanity when these people that didn't even know me were determined to reunite this ring with its owner. And then, that coupled with the feeling of that, I just had to show my appreciation and, and sort of say like, wow, you know, kind of miracles really do happen, so to speak. The original ring would never have been truly replaced. So, to have the original ring back is, it's really a priceless gift.

CH: Becky Savoie graduated from St. Francis Xavier University in 2001. She was talking to the CBC's Giulianna Grillo.

[ambient]

Part 3: Encore: ‘Separated’

Encore: ‘Separated’

CH: Moments after he was sworn in, President Donald Trump made his list of priorities clear. And at the top of that list was addressing the situation at the southern border. Earlier in the program, we heard from an immigration advocate who told us he's worried about the fallout. Because he knows what happened last time. More than 4,000 migrant children are estimated to have been affected by Trump Administration's family separation policy... including a thousand or so officials believe are still waiting to be reunited with their parents. In 2018, Mr. Trump signed an executive order ending the policy. But during the election campaign, he suggested that he’s open to reviving it. And that worries a lot of people, including Jonathan White. He's the former deputy director of the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement. And one of the civil servants featured in the documentary Separated.

SOUNDCLIP

JONATHAN WHITE: Harm to Children was part of the point. They believed that it would terrify families into not coming.

ERROL MORRIS: Terrify them?

JW: Yes. That was clearly its intent. So, we were united, the career workforce, that we were going to do what we could to prevent this policy. But we also felt a creeping sense of dread that we would not be able to prevent it.

CH: That's from the documentary, Separated -- directed by Errol Morris, whose voice you heard. It's based on the book of the same name, written by journalist Jacob Soboroff, who's the executive producer of the documentary. Last December, Nil spoke to Mr. Morris and Mr. Soboroff. Here's part of their conversation.

NK: Jacob, I'll start with you. Our listeners just heard that powerful clip from Jonathan White. But if we go back in time to the moment you saw the reality of what was happening at a repurposed Walmart in Texas, can you give our listeners a sense, maybe remind some of them of what you saw that day? What, what struck you most?

JACOB SOBOROFF: What I saw was ostensibly a shelter, this 250,000 square foot former Walmart, as you say, that had been turned into, essentially, a jail for children who had been deliberately separated, a thousand of them, over a thousand, boys, 10 to 17 years old, for no other reason than the U.S. government wanted to harm them, to punish them and their parents, to scare other people from coming to the country. I'll never forget it. You know, it was ostensibly a shelter. But really, they were incarcerated. And I didn't know what to make of all of this. How do you wrap your head around the idea that, you know, your country is doing something so deliberately cruel, so haphazardly implemented? And I think that that's a generous description. And that was just part one of two. Days later, they invited me on Father's Day into the epicentre of separations. That was the Ursula Central Processing Center where they were ripping apart children and placing them in what I saw with my own eyes, cages on those concrete floors, under the Mylar blankets, supervised by security contractors in a watchtower. It's what later was called by the Republican-appointed judge who stopped this policy, one of the most shameful chapters in the history of our country. And, and I was there at the invitation of the Trump administration.

NK: It struck me as I was watching the film, as, as you were speaking, Jacob, about, about that experience in the documentary that folks there seem to think it was, it was a great place. Like, they were really happy. They wer,e they were, in that, in the first part at least, you know? What did you think as they were saying that?

JS: I was puzzled. I was puzzled. But you know what I, what I later came to learn, and what Errol's film so beautifully tells, is that this is a complicated story. This is a story of political bureaucrats and career bureaucrats. And there are career bureaucrats and career child service professionals like Jonathan White, who you just heard from, who have spent a lifetime looking out for the best interests of children. And this was a system that was set up to protect the best interests of unaccompanied children coming into the United States. And it was, in his words, hijacked by the Trump administration to turn it into a punitive system by political appointees, with the goal of, as Adam Serwer famously coined in the Atlantic in the summer of 2018, the cruelty being the point of all this. They took the infrastructure of people who had the care and custody of unaccompanied migrant children and rendered accompanied children with their families unaccompanied to torture them, in the words of Physicians for Human Rights.

NK: Errol, your film, obviously, you know, Jacob's reporting is central to the documentary, but it also features reporting from others, including Caitlin Dickerson, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her work on this. I wonder, as you were watching all of the coverage unfold, reading, and then reading Jacob's book as well. I wonder what the moment was where you said there's a film here, and I need to be the one to make it?

ERROL MORRIS: I tweeted about the book, about my liking the book, I would say more than liking the book. I believe it's a really important book and important story. This is a central issue in America. It was a central issue in the presidential campaign. I wondered, I constantly wondered, when they allowed Jacob into these facilities, what do they think that they were doing? What did they imagine that they were doing? Because we know that this was a covert policy from the very beginnings of the Trump administration. It started in February. And wasn't really made public until over a year later. Why did they make it public? My current thinking is that this wasn't for immigrants at all. This was to advertise to their base how cruel they could be about immigration. Why does J.D. Vance, in the middle of a political campaign, start talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs? This is about racism. Inherently about beating up on people less fortunate than ourselves for political capital. And I suppose it's that realization more than anything else, and there are so many sickening aspects to all of this, that sickens me most of all. Why would America respond to these kinds of bold, racist entreaties? Maybe we're a racist country. You tell me.

NK: When we hear from Jonathan White, you know, and the others in the film, did he take a lot of convincing to come forward? Clearly, there's a lot he needed to get off of his chest and tell you in this film. Did he take convincing?

EM: I would not know about Jonathan White, save for Jacob's book. And Jacob had suggested to me early on this might be a good interview subject. Well, I had no idea how good a subject he would prove to be. I interviewed him twice. Most of the people that I contacted refused to speak. Endless phone calls with Kirsten Nielson, where she would talk to me off the record on the phone, but would never agree to a filmed interview. Tom Homan, the director of ICE, and now our czar. Now, we have czars in America. I guess it's a new concept in a democracy, Tom Homan, the new czar and former head of ICE agreed to an interview, actually showed up at a studio to be filmed by me and my crew, and then got cold feet. And, at the last minute, refused to be interviewed. I don't think I should, I'm not frightening, really. [NK chuckles] But there you go.

NK: And we should note the Biden administration, as you say in the film, declined to speak with you on this as well. So, since you mention Tom Homan, we'll play for our listeners, it's, his appointment is a story we've certainly covered on this program. He did speak, as you've likely seen, to Cecilia Vega on 60 Minutes. We'll play for you and our listeners a part of what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

TOM HOMAN: I hear a lot of people say, you know, the talk of a mass deportation is racist. It's, it's threatening to the immigrant community. It's not threatening to the immigrant community. It should be threatening to the illegal immigrant community.

CECILIA VEGA: But if mass deportation is not going to be, as you said, massive sweeps in concentration camps, what is it?

TH: There'll be targeted arrest. We'll know who we're going to arrest, where we're most likely to find them based on numerous investigative processes.

CV: Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?

TH: Of course there is. Families can be deported together.

NK: Jacob, as you hear that, knowing the results of the election in your country, clearly, you know, many, many Americans, the fear of this happening again, concern of this happening again, did not, you know, stop them from voting in this, this incoming administration. Could the same thing happen again? Do you think it will?

JS: Oh, of course. Of course. Let me translate what Tom Homan said. Mass deportation is family separation, just by another name. What Tom Homan is saying is we're going to go into the 20 million-plus homes in the United States of America in which there are mixed-status households, people living, 20 million people, rather, living with an undocumented immigrant in the United States, and give them the choice to leave the country as American citizens and families with undocumented family members together or split them up. Tom Homan is proposing, not just proposing, I reported from the floor of the Republican convention when thousands of people held up signs saying mass deportation now in a party-like atmosphere, full well understanding what the consequences of that would be. It would be orders of magnitude larger than what Dwight D. Eisenhower did in 1954, when under an operation with a name so racist I'm not going to say it to you, deported a million Mexicans and some Mexican Americans, many Mexicans who are here legally under the work program. And that's what they've modeled their mass deportation policy after. A personal belief is that the American public may, in theory, believe that they support mass deportations. But when they learn and practice what it really means, that it means not necessarily separating children from their parents at the border, as Trump did in 2018, but it is separating parents from their children in the interior, in their homes, and in their workplaces, and in their schools, people will react far differently than what the polls may indicate today.

NK: I'm Nil Köksal, and you are listening to As It Happens. My guests today are filmmaker Errol Morris and journalist Jacob Soboroff, about their new documentary, Separated. Errol, you know, it's clear from the opening montage of, of the documentary as you show a series of U.S. administration speaking on immigration, the tone, the words they're using, the language, has been changing and intensifying over the years. What should, what should viewers take away from that?

EM: Yeah. One thing I know I'm not saying is that there should be no immigration policy and there should be no borders. But what I am saying is that there should be a rational immigration policy, not a punitive immigration policy. We're a country of immigrants. My family emigrated from Eastern Europe in the '20s to America. A Jewish family that avoided the Holocaust as a result. Otherwise, I, and them, would never have been here. Do we really want to do away with all immigration? Or do we want to find a way to have borders, have immigration, but not a policy which is entirely punitive?

NK: I'm an immigrant to, to this country, to Canada. So, I hear your message, certainly. Jacob, you in your book profile a real family from Guatemala, Juan and his son, a teenager, jose. There are reenactments in the documentary of, of, of a different family, but similar experiences. Just tell us about Jose and Juan, if you could.

JS: Well, they're, they're two of 5,500 people who have gone through this process. And I should say, I hope that they, who are today living in Washington, D.C. after coming into the United States from Guatemala and being separated at the border line when they believed that it was the best thing to do, to turn themselves in to the Border Patrol. You know, they were separated for months and months. I visited the father in ICE detention in Adelanto two hours outside of Los Angeles, where I saw, you know, people in solitary confinement, men in the fetal position laying on the floor, go through something that I hope, that I hope nobody ever has to go through again in the United States. They were reunited ultimately, and with the son going through high school in the United States, getting an electrical engineering certification from his high school. I mean, you know, they come here to live an ordinary life like anybody else, but they have under the surface, and will forever, deep, deep, deep trauma. And you mentioned the narrative portion of the film. I'm so proud of this film in so many ways. But the thing to me that struck me the most is that there is no real footage of Jaun and Jose coming to the United States and being separate. It doesn't exist, nor anyone else that went through this policy. It simply does not exist. The U.S. government prevented us from going inside these facilities with cameras. And what Errol has done with his filmmaking team, in the way that Errol always has and in the way that Errol does better than anybody, is get to the emotional truth of the story through this fictionalized retelling starring

Gabriela Cartol, the Mexican actress who I think I, you know, you'd have to ask her, but I think she was profoundly changed as well by the experience of going through this this narrative portion of the film, which really, I believe is the spine. It's a film within a film, and it really is the heart of the movie.

NK: Are you still in touch? Oh sorry. Go ahead, Errol.

EM: To me, the scene that is most powerful is very near the end of the film, where we realize that her child, Diego, feels betrayed by his mother. And, to me, that's profoundly sad because he was separated not by his mother's choice, but by the choice of the U.S. government. He was a state-created orphan. And to force parents to betray their children in something so cruel and I believe so unnecessary.

NK: That was a moment that, that certainly feel powerful as I watched it. But also, the woman from the Office of Refugee Resettlement when she was talking about the documentation or lack of documentation. You can't really get information from a two-year-old about who, who their parents are and where they live. So, how do you even go about?

JS: They know their mother's name is Mom, and that's about it, you know? You asked me if I'm still in touch. The answer is yes. And one other thing I just want to make a particular point about is Errol and I have taken this film literally all around the world. The most meaningful thing to me about being out showing the film in theatres in dozens of cities has been it, at least three stops, formally separated children have come to the screenings and talked to the audience. Eric came to Philadelphia, Kelly came to Chicago, and Bryan, the first child separated by the Trump administration, later reunited with the, by the Biden administration, all of them spoke. But he spoke at a screening in Los Angeles. You know, I asked him, why are you here? You know, this is not easy to relive this trauma, I am sure, for any of these children, which is why I think it's important that, you know, none of them are forced to. But he said he doesn't want this to happen to anyone ever again. And what he wants people to understand is what Errol and Gabriela and Diego and the production designer have all so masterfully done, which is get to the emotional truth of what this was like at a time when the U.S. Government prevented anybody like me in my line of work from actually showing it.

NK: The film also states that more than 1,000 children are still separated from their families, that there is work underway to to reunite them. I think even if, you know, as people are stunned by, by what unfolded, that may still be very shocking and upsetting to them that that many children have still not been reunited. How is that possible?

EM: Part of the story they wanted it to be impossible. They did not want to keep records. There are actual arguments at the Office of Refugee Resettlement about whether records should be kept at all. And, as a result of the spotty records, it's been very hard to reunite children with their families. In many instances, it may prove to be impossible.

NK: Jacob, did you want to say?

JS: The only thing to add to that, you know, the number has since grown. At the end of the film, you'll see that when we had locked picture, so to speak, the 1,052 children didn't have confirmed reunifications by Department of Homeland Security, and they've only continued to find more children who they cannot say for certain if they have had contact or been reunited with their parents. That number today is 1,360.

NK: As difficult as these realities are, I wonder, what did you take away from, from the folks who did come forward and speak about what was happening, and continue to be vocal? Did that leave you with some hope?

EM: People like Jonathan White leave me with a lot of hope. That we shouldn't forget that their moral imperatives in all of this. It's not just this policy or that policy. There is good and evil. There is morality in back of all of this. And Jonathan White saw himself as a protector, not as a jailer of children, and acted accordingly. Could we all be more like this man? I hope so.

NK: Jacob.

JS: Hear, hear. You know, before the election, this film meant one thing to me, and after it, it's meant, honestly, something entirely different. It's a reminder that people like Jonathan White and Jalen Sewell, like, I have a list of maybe a dozen-plus people in my head who, you know, are not able to come forward or can't come forward or have chosen not to in some way who fought for these children tooth and nail inside every one of these component agencies. And I'm talking about ICE, the Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, Customs and Border Protection. These people have dedicated their lives to the health and well-being of these children. And if were it not for them, not only with this policy have been far worse, but we wouldn't have seen what we saw in the summer of 2018. And this is the most important, I think, reminder,the film gives. Hundreds of thousands of people came out in the streets, not in a bipartisan fashion, but in a universal fashion. The pope spoke out against the policy. It was the most, if not only, significant policy reversal of the first Trump administration. I mentioned I went into those facilities June 13th, 2018. Then, a few days later on Father's Day. By June 20th, not because of me, but because of public outrage, Donald Trump has signed an executive order ending the policy. And there's power in these officials. There is hope in these officials. And there's hope in the people who stood up to stop a policy like this. And this film is such an important reminder of that.

NK: Do you think, though, with this incoming administration that folks like the ones on your list, whether they speak out or not, will be able to push back, and will even have jobs where they can push back?

JS: I certainly hope so. Jonathan White is, in essence, throwing the first punch here by deciding to participate at a time where he's still a sitting government official. And I say that with some nervousness, some level of nervousness about the consequences that he may face and that others like him may face. But what bravery. I'm sure there are more than one jonathan White and Jalen Sewell inside the United States government who believe in the work that they do, and will stand up for what what they continue to believe in.

NK: Jacob, Errol, I very much appreciate your time. Thank you.

EM: Thank you very much.

JS: Thank you.

CH: From December, that's Nil's conversation with Errol Morris. The director of the documentary Separated. You also heard Jacob Soboroff, the film's executive producer.

[ambient]

NL Producer Fundraiser

CH: Trinity Hall in rural Winterton, Newfoundland and Labrador is a kind of sanctuary for local artists. Grammy Award-winning producer Greg Wells bought the old church on the Avalon Peninsula almost three years ago, and then restored it, transforming it into a performance venue and recording studio. And when it was up and running, he turned over operations to locals, to run it with him, and raise money for local charities. Greg Wells and his family are among the many people who lost their family homes in the Los Angeles wildfires. But Mr. Wells can count on his friends in Winterton for support: they're planning two sold-out benefit concerts next weekend, with musician Alan Doyle. The CBC's Melissa Tobin asked Board Chair Rhoda Hedd how she heard the news about Mr. Wells's home.

SOUNDCLIP

RHODA HEDD: Another member of the board was with me, and we were just talking to him on text. All of a sudden, he interrupted us and said, our neighborhood is on fire. And I thought he was probably joking at the time because sometimes we would do that, have small talk. But then we kept saying, okay, well, stay safe. Then I turned on the news on the TV, and I saw what was happening there. And it was all at the Pacific Palisades, which is where he lives. All of a sudden, I heard someone say, they are evacuating, they have to evacuate. So, I just wrote the words back, text him back. And I said, there are evacuations. He didn't say anything for a long time, but his next words were, we are evacuating now. And it was not until the next day at about 10 p.m., that we finally get a text from Greg. And it was in the form of two pictures and one word. And when I looked at the pictures, all I could see was a black tree. All I could see after the tree was just burnt-up fences on the ground, and just ashes and rubble everywhere. And he had one word underneath the pictures that said gone. He had planned to be here this weekend, and he had two shows planned for here. In fact, they were sold out. But there came a time when he had to cancel his trip. And we understood why he canceled. One of his really, really good friends came up to the plate, and Alan Doyle said to us, look, what can I do? You know, I thought I was going there and helping Greg on the ground there. But he said, I think I would have been more helpful if I stayed back here and helped Trinity Hall.

MELISSA TOBIN: So, Alan Doyle is going to be hosting two concerts, right? And this was something that you were planning to do anyways, but it became a little bit more important now, right?

RH: Exactly. In lieu of the fact that Greg cannot be here to do his two shows, Alan will do his show next Friday, January 24th. They sold out in just a few minutes. Alan agreed that he would put on a second show Saturday.

MT: What will all the funds be used for?

RH: Most of the funds will be used to keep the lights on at Trinity Hall, to keep the door open, to keep the expenses paid for that we need to.

CH: That was Rhoda Hedd, chair of the board for Trinity Hall in Winterton, Newfoundland and Labrador, speaking with the CBC's Melissa Tobin.

[lounge jazz]

Happy Sunfish

CH: I love my job. But sometimes, it gets a little lonely. Sitting in this airless room, staring through the glass hoping -- yearning -- for a little human contact. I mean, of course I have you, Nil.

NK: [laughing] Well, thanks for letting me know I’m visible.

CH: Well, no, it’s fine. The thing is you're trapped like I am -- night after night. Look, we give it our all. [NK chuckles] And in response: silence. I mean once in a while, the studio crew will wave, or shrug at me, as if to say, "why are you staring at me in that yearning way?" But sometimes you just need a reaction of some kind to break through this feeling of being stuck behind glass...

[crowd claps and cheers]

CH: Oh yeah, that's the stuff. May I have some more?

[crowd claps and cheers]

CH: Yeah, I feel so much better now. And I also understand a certain sunfish so much better. Recently, an aquarium in Japan shut down for renovations. And when the crowds stopped coming, one sunfish showed some concerning symptoms. It stopped eating. And started agitatedly rubbing itself on the glass of its tank. Staff suspected a parasite, or a digestive issue, but nothing they tried seemed to help -- until someone realized it was hooked! No, sorry, poor choice of words. I mean hooked on the attention it would normally be getting from aquarium visitors. But renovations were still going on. So since they couldn't bring the crowds back yet, staff created cardboard people, dressed them up in staff uniforms and hung them around the outside of the tank. And the sunfish immediately regained its sunny disposition.

[crowd claps and cheers]

CH: It's amazing how a little outside support can really tip the scales.

The AIH Transcript For January 20th, 2024

Social Sharing