Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for March 25, 2019

Hosts: Megan Williams and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

MEGAN WILLIAMS: Hello I'm Megan Williams, sitting in for Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight...

MW: Don't just read his lips. Donald Trump says Robert Mueller's long-awaited report exonerates him. But a Democratic congressman says the public needs to read the whole thing before jumping to the president's conclusions.

JD: The age of Innocence. Meanwhile, Republican advisor Scott Jennings tells us Democrats should take it as read that the president is not guilty and move on for the good of the country.

MW: Change for the abettors. Two of the refugees who sheltered Edward Snowden in Hong Kong in 2013 have been granted asylum in Canada -- and we'll hear why they needed to come.

JD: Extension discord. An NDP MP joins the United Nations and the European Union in asking why the Trudeau government is reluctant to extend its peacekeeping mission in Mali.

MW: Snake on a plane. While on a flight, a Canadian journalist overhears a man's creepy advances towards a teenage passenger -- and intervenes to offer some air support.

JD: And...Brextra-sensory perception. If you wish Theresa May would change her mind about Brexit, why not join psychic Uri Geller and help her change it -- through the simple process of mass telepathy? As It Happens. The Monday Edition. Radio that figures he's got a one-backtrack mind.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Mueller report synopsis just 'propaganda' from the AG, says Democratic congressman

Mueller report: Congressman

Guest: Jamie Raskin

JD: It has been President Donald Trump's mantra on Twitter since he won the election: "No collusion," "No collusion," "No collusion." And now, the president has seemingly been vindicated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. According to a summary of Mr. Mueller's report from U.S. Attorney General William Barr there is no evidence that Mr. Trump's campaign conspired with or coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election. On the issue of whether the President obstructed justice during the investigation, Mr. Mueller left a little more wiggle room. According to Mr. Barr, the report does not draw a conclusion either way on obstruction. Jamie Raskin is a Democratic congressman who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. We reached Mr. Raskin in Washington.

MW: Congressman Raskin at this point are you willing to accept that there is no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia?

JAMIE RASKIN: We haven't seen the Mueller report. We've seen the Barr report. We've seen a four page memo characterizing it and interpreting it and fitting it into Attorney General Barr's perspective on the world. But we haven't seen the reports. So I'm willing to accept anything that's in there. If they've got in there that Donald Trump is the husband of the year, and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, and somebody who told Vladimir Putin to take a hike -- and that's what they found -- I'm willing to believe it. But right now all we have is the attorney general's second-hand characterizations of the report which itself is interpreting the evidence. So we want to see the report itself and all the evidence that it's based on.

MW: But we do know that that's Mueller's conclusion.

JR: Actually we know it's Mueller's conclusion for example that there was no conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government. But we don't know about other Russian actors. There's a lot of very cleverly and slyly worded things in the Barr letter -- you can go back and check it out. And so that demonstrates the importance of why we need to read the report itself.

MW: Now President Trump is already saying that this is quote, "total exoneration." How much does this take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats that the main thing Mueller was tasked to investigate, he found no evidence of?

JR: You know but I'm really much less interested in the politics of it than trying to get to the truth of the situation. The amusing part about the president broadcasting his complete and total exoneration is that we've seen exactly one sentence from the Mueller report itself which completely contradicts that. He said that although we don't have enough evidence to prosecute for the crime of obstruction now this is definitely not an exoneration. And the president takes that and says, this is a complete and total exoneration. So you make of it what you will. I come back to one very simple point which is we don't really know anything yet. We've got to get a hold of the report itself. And that's why the Congress is demanding it. And we voted by the way 420 to 0 for that report to be turned over to Congress in its entirety.

MW: Now on the issue of obstruction of justice -- Mueller's position was less clear. What exactly are the questions you're left with about that aspect of the investigation?

JR: Well he was more equivocal about the question of obstruction of justice. In other words he said he seemed to find that there was a substantial quantum of evidence that would support a prosecution for obstruction of justice, but for some unstated reason which the attorney general does not clarify he was not willing to say that he wanted to go ahead and he left that to the attorney general. It may have to do with the fact that attorney general Barr's position as he outlined in a 19 page single spaced memorandum which doubled as a job application that the president cannot as a matter of law to be found guilty of obstruction of justice because the law enforcement function reports to him. The theory is that because all the prosecutors and investigators are in the executive branch of government -- even if he tries to stop an investigation into himself for his friends or family that cannot be obstruction of justice because he's in control of the executive branch. Obviously that's a dubious or at least controversial thesis that's been advanced by the attorney general but it might explain why he took the factual evidence that was brought forward by the special counsel and said legally this cannot support an indictment.

MW: Right. So Mueller's report also doesn't conclude he committed any crime. Why do you think Mueller wasn't willing to come down on one side of the question?

JR: As I just said we have no idea why he didn't come down on one side of the course or the other. That's why we need to get the report. You know he spent two years on it -- we spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money on this special counsel investigation, and the public is entitled to the report. And so there's no reason for us to be engaged in you know a game of 20 questions about why he did this or that. All we need to do is read the report. It needs to be turned over.

MW: Right. Now the House Judiciary Committee that you sit on has already launched its own probe into the administration demanding documents on many members of President Trump's inner circle. When it comes to the public, how much appetite do you think there is for these investigations now that Mueller's report has failed to find a smoking gun?

JR: Well first of all we don't know what the Mueller report found because we haven't seen the Mueller report -- I keep coming back to that because that's the starting point of every one of the questions you've been asking. But look the public appetite for the truth is insatiable. People want to know what exactly happened. And this is a democracy. In a democracy, people have a right to know. The whole precondition for self-government is that people have access to the information we need to govern.

MW: Now The Washington Post today quoted a former White House official saying that Democrats have just handed on a silver platter the Trump campaign the greatest election issue in modern political history. Do you agree?

JR: Look -- no -- what's happened is that the attorney general of The United States has handed President Trump the greatest propaganda coup of the Trump presidency simply by virtue of manipulating the evidence and closely controlling public access to what is in the Mueller report. Just turn the report over and we can judge for ourselves what's in there. But the rest of this is just propaganda.

MW: And do you think that's going to happen -- that you'll get the full report?

JR: We are going to insist upon it. We demand it.

MW: Okay. Congressman Raskin thanks very much.

JR: Thank you so much.

JD: Jamie Raskin is a Democratic congressman who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. We reached him in Washington D.C. And later on in the program -- in about half hour actually -- we will get a different perspective on this story from Republican advisor Scott Jennings.

[Music]

Snowden refugees

Guest: Robert Tibbo

JD: Six years after they opened the door to Edward Snowden, Canada is opening the door to them. Vanessa Rodel and her 7-year-old daughter, Keana, have been granted asylum in Canada and will arrive tonight. They were part of a group of refugees in Hong Kong who helped shelter Mr. Snowden during 2013, when he was on the run. Robert Tibbo was the lawyer who helped Mr. Snowden, and has been working with Ms. Rodel. We reached Mr. Tibbo in Toronto.

MW: Mr. Tibbo what did Vanessa Rodel say when you told her she was coming to Canada?

ROBERT TIBBO: Soon as I had the news of her refugee case being accepted by Canada -- her and her daughter -- I telephoned her and I told her that I have some good news for you. And (I) told her that she'd been accepted. And she didn't believe that. She said, are you joking? Is this a joke? And I said, no. And she asked that about five times -- and then finally it hit her that yeah she had succeeded with their refugee claims. And I told her that you should start preparing to pack your bags. It wouldn't be long before she'd be on a flight to Canada.

MW: And where will she and her daughter be living in Canada?

RT: They'll be living in Montreal.

MW: Before Ms. Rodel came to Hong Kong as a refugee, she lived in the Philippines. Why did she leave that country?

RT: She was a classic victim of gender persecution. Basically she had been targeted by parties who had sexually assaulted her. And she was also a victim of human trafficking. And at the point where she was able to you know escape this group's clutches, she fled to Hong Kong.

MW: This has been a long time in the making -- but for those who don't remember, how did Ms. Rodel and the other refugees first come to shelter Mr. Snowden?

RT: When Mr. Snowden was in Hong Kong at the time of June 2013 -- on June 10th, Ed Snowden had given an interview to The Guardian newspaper, had exposed his identity to the public. And I had been contacted -- Ed required legal advice. He needed a lawyer. So there were three things that you know I focused on with Mr. Snowden. One was to get him out of the Mira Hotel because we couldn't afford to have the media following him because behind the media would be many governments who have interest in him. And second was to get them to the UNHCR. And then the third was to put him underground. We realized that he was so high profile that for his safety and security during this time would be to put him in a location where nobody would be able to locate him.

MW: And that's where you connected him with Ms. Rodel. Can you tell me about the conditions they were living in?

RT: Yeah. I had chosen the refugees because Mr. Snowden was a refugee claimant at the time. So it just made sense. And there was really the other factors that the Snowden refugees -- the refugee communities you know are heavily marginalized by the society. So what I did is I had brought him to three different families at different times -- and the conditions were very rough. But Mr. Snowden quickly found that these families who had suffered so terribly in the past in Sri Lanka and the Philippines had extraordinary sympathy, empathy, and humanity towards him. And they recognized that he needed some help. So they stepped forward.

MW: Were they fully aware of the risks that they were taking though?

RT: One of the Snowden refugees knew who Mr. Snowden is even before I introduced Mr. Snowden to that client. The other two families -- myself and my instructing solicitor, we explained to the families who Mr. Snowden was and that you know we really needed to put him underground and get him off the grid. And explain to the families that if anything happened, if anything came to the property: you know broke the door down to gain access to Mr. Snowden -- I told the clients, don't interfere, don't stand in the way. Mr. Snowden himself had told them if anything happens just let -- whoever it is -- let them take me away.

MW: Now we spoke to you on this program in 2016 when the Snowden film premiered. And since then the identities of the refugees have come to light. How did their life change once their identities were exposed?

RT: What had happened very shortly after that is the Hong Kong government used its powers and systematically targeted them. And this is something that we did not expect. They stripped away a lot of their humanitarian assistance. And for Vanessa and her daughter, they completely took all the assistance away. And the basis for that was when they would go in on a monthly basis to report to International Social Services Hong Kong, a contractor with the social welfare department -- and when they went in they were asked questions about Mr. Snowden. And Vanessa herself said, look I'm not going to disclose private information about Snowden to you, and if you have any questions talk to Mr. Tibbo -- my lawyer. And the response was you didn't answer our questions so we're going to punish you. So they stripped all financial assistance from them.

MW: Now there are still two families in Hong Kong -- two families who welcomed Edward Snowden. How hopeful are you that they'll be accepted to Canada?

RT: You know Mr. Trudeau and his government -- the immigration section have really done the right thing by recognising Vanessa and her daughter as refugees and bringing them in at this time. But we are at a loss as to why the Trudeau government has not done the same for the other two families because their cases are still being processed and decisions have not yet been made. You know today Mr. Trudeau was asked by the media about this and Trudeau said that well the immigration screening of the Snowden refugees is an independent process. And in fact that's not accurate -- it's not true. There are legislative provisions I understand in Canada that provides discretion to the Minister of Immigration to intervene and expedite refugee applications to bring such vulnerable people into Canada forthwith. And the Snowden refugees in Hong Kong, their cases fall you know fully into this category of case -- where Canada could act now and decide their cases in their favour and bring them into Canada.

MW: Okay well we'll be following those cases. Thanks very much for speaking with me Mr. Tibbo.

RT: You're welcome. Thank you.

JD: Robert Tibbo is a lawyer who has worked with Edward Snowden, and Vanessa Rodel. Ms. Rodel and her daughter have been granted asylum in Canada. We reached Mr. Tibbo in Toronto.

[Music]

Uri Geller: Brexit

Guest: Uri Geller

JD: Following the Brexit fiasco is a somewhat mind-bending ordeal. And so it follows that stopping Brexit may also require mind-bending. Enter -- surrounded by dry-ice fog -- Uri Geller. Mr. Geller is perhaps best-known as a spoon bender, but he says he has also used his telepathic powers to sway sports games and global arms treaties. And in an open letter posted last week, he announced he plans to solve this particular diplomatic crisis by taking aim at the mind of UK Prime Minister Theresa May. We reached Uri Geller in Tel Aviv.

MW: Mr. Geller you wrote something of an unusual open letter -- and you made a threat of sorts to the British Prime Minister. Tell us what you plan on doing to stop Brexit through the mind of Theresa May.

URI GELLER: Okay. First of all Megan, drop the "Mr" and call me "Uri." My letter to her was not a threat. I basically wanted her to understand that I am very serious about this, and I wanted her to know that I'm going to do everything in my capacity through telepathical powers to convince her to do a second referendum.

MW: You're going to take control of Theresa May's mind -- is that correct?

UG: No. You're slightly exaggerating. I'm going to beam my mind power with the help of millions of other people. Well I'm not a miracle worker. And I'm not a prophet. And I'm not a guru. But I believe with the power of the mind of the people in the UK and my method of transmitting this energy, she might change her mind and to bring in the second referendum.

MW: So how are you going to do this?

UG: Well I chose kind of a mystical number: 11:11. So I will be concentrating with millions of people in the UK at 11:11 a.m. and 11:11 p.m. And I will basically visualize her giving in and saying okay you want a second referendum -- I'm giving my people a second vote.

MW: So that's the message that everybody's going to be thinking of 11:11 am/pm -- we're talking Central Time?

UG: Yes. Basically look I must tell you that I'm already receiving thousands of emails. There's no way I can read them. So many people who are with me on this. Look we have nothing to lose. We can try it. And why not? I've convinced the Russians to sign the Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty. I bombarded Yuli Vorontsov's mind -- and they signed a nuclear treaty. There are dozens and dozens of these examples that I've done in the past very successfully.

MW: You know I think many people would argue that these examples that you're citing have nothing to do with paranormal activity. I mean when I was a kid I thought I stopped figure skaters from falling by squeezing my eyes shut. How do you prove this?

UG: Well you know Megan you might have a point. I respect what you just said, but just Google the fact of how many people -- yes, this is very important -- believe in the paranormal. Almost 76 percent of Americans believe in the paranormal. I talk to those believers. I don't deal with skeptics.

MW: Okay so for those who believe in your powers -- and for the benefit of the doubt, say that there is some truth to this -- is there not an argument that you shouldn't be entrusted to intervene on such an important issue? I mean you're not an elected official. How is using paranormal activity democratic?

UG: That's a very good question. You might have a point that this is very non-democratic. But here is the big but -- if I have to weigh the non-democratic act that I might be doing versus the catastrophe that will happen if the UK leaves the EU -- and I weigh that, so I say wait a minute here is the most important -- young people will be hurt.

MW: There are many issues that are urgent and arguably far more urgent than the consequences of Brexit. What's happening in Mozambique now. I mean why aren't you focusing your telepathic powers on helping people be saved from catastrophes?

UG: Megan how do you know that I don't? You can't.

MW: But you've made a public statement on this issue and you've asked thousands and millions of people to help you.

UG: But this is how it rolled out. It snowballed and I adhere to it. I got all these begging emails from young people in England asking me to help. And I went for it. And Megan I'm doing other things that I don't talk about.

MW: Now you have -- I assume -- started your telepathic work on Theresa May. When will we start seeing some results?

UG: Megan I have no idea. Remember I'm not prophet. I don't know if this will work at all. Maybe I'm too late. Maybe you know all this is happening for nothing -- I've missed the boat.

MW: All right. Aren't you telepathic? Shouldn't you know whether it's going to work or not?

UG: No. Not necessarily. This is a complicated issue. This is not something simple that I can just predict and know. And there are certain things that even I don't know.

MW: Okay. So if Brexit it does happen -- are you willing to throw in your telepathic towel?

UG: What do you mean throw in my towel? I don't give up on things. I keep on -- and I go with the flow.

MW: All right. One last question: I've just written a number down on a piece of paper... [Laughs] What number have I written?

UG: Yeah. You're trying to be kind of cheeky with me. Don't do that. You know how many interviews I have today at least 17 or 18. Look Megan I congratulate you on one thing...

MW: Actually you got the number. [Laughs].

UG: You're a brilliant presenter and you are a brilliant interviewer. And I wish you all the best. And a big hug to all the Canadian people. Thank you so much. And it's good that you are a skeptic. But I respect you.

MW: Okay thanks. Bye bye.

UG: Bye bye.

JD: Uri Geller is an Israeli illusionist, and a former resident of England. He says he is using his psychic powers to stop Brexit. We reached Mr. Geller in Tel Aviv.

[Music]

Part 2: Women passengers rally to protect teenage girl from airplane 'creep'

Mueller report: Republican

Guest: Scott Jennings

JD: For nearly two years, President Trump called Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation a witch hunt. Now he is positively giddy about it. The U.S. President has characterized Mr. Mueller's report -- which concluded that he did not conspire with Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election -- as a "total exoneration." His political opponents, however, have not given up the fight. Earlier, we heard from a Democratic congressman who says the report has left him with a lot of questions about the president's conduct. Scott Jennings is a Republican advisor. He worked for George W. Bush. We reached him in Washington D.C.

MW: Mr. Jennings you're calling this a good day for America. Why is that?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Well I mean we found out the President of the United States is not guilty of treason which is what it would be I think to collude with a hostile foreign power to affect the outcome of an American presidential election. So all Americans should celebrate that fact. Although I see some Democrats today seem to be upset about it. The reality is it's a good day for America because we've removed this cloud that has been hanging over this presidency for the last two years.

MW: Now Mr. Trump has been celebrating. But is it a good day for American democracy? Have all the questions that needed to be answered been thoroughly addressed?

SJ: Well we're getting to better days for American democracy. Obviously the next step is for us to figure out exactly how the Obama administration failed to stop the Russian interference and understand the Russian playbook so that we can prevent it in the future. I think one thing that's vital to understand here -- no Americans have been indicted or accused of helping the Russians interfere in our election. This was a foreign operation and they invaded our democracy, so we can stop them. But I think it's going to require some leadership frankly from the president and members of Congress to pull together here -- now that Mueller could possibly give them the full playbook -- pull together and write a counter playbook that will stop this kind of thing from happening again. Americans need that confidence and that would be a good outcome of this investigation.

MW: Mr. Mueller said he could not determine whether President Trump obstructed justice though and part of the reason for that may be that he was not able to interview the president. Do you think Mr. Mueller should have had that opportunity?

SJ: Well I think Mr. Mueller acted honourably and appropriately and in my view -- based on his resume and experience -- did the best he could with the facts and circumstances he was presented. I think the president's lawyers had a point of view about that and ultimately it worked out in a way that I think we have to trust the outcome. I mean if Robert Mueller decided he could complete the investigation without doing an interview, we have to trust this man. I mean for two years we've been hearing that Robert Mueller is the right choice, he's an American hero, he's unimpeachable. So to stop trusting his judgment now, to me, is just sour grapes. I think he did a good job. I thought by the way from the beginning despite what the president had said that this investigation was necessary and that Mueller was the right choice. And so I've trusted Mueller from day one and I think people should continue to trust his judgment on that today.

MW: Well as you say the president didn't trust him. I mean he characterized the whole investigation as a witch hunt and a hoax. So how does that square? He is now saying it exonerates him.

SJ: Well the president today I noticed said that he thought Robert Mueller acted honourably in his investigation. And I thought that those were good words from the president. Look I think I understand the president's anger about this. He said from day one there was no collusion. And Robert Mueller found that there was no collusion. Now other people ran out like Adam Schiff -- the Chairman of House Intelligence -- claiming to have direct evidence of collusion, when clearly that did not exist. So if you're somebody who's been elected as the President of the United States and from nearly the beginning of your term you're accused of what would be treason and you know in your heart that it didn't happen and you had to wait two years for someone to exonerate you -- yeah I can understand why the president was angry and I can also understand why he would have said some of the things that he did. Now moving forward, I think he needs to acknowledge -- Robert Mueller rendered a great service to this country. And he needs to frankly clean up this mess that was left to him by the previous administration where we obviously have a situation where a hostile foreign power interfered in our democracy.

MW: We heard earlier from Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin (who is) on the House Judiciary Committee -- he's not satisfied. He wants to see the whole report so he can get more answers. Why do you think the Democrats are making a mistake as you call it in continuing to pursue this?

SJ: Well look I think the American people have been waiting for Robert Mueller to deliver an answer. He was impartial and independent arbiter of the facts here, and he has rendered judgment -- and the judgment is that the President of the United States did not collude with conspire with or coordinate with Russians to interfere in the election. Period. That was the central question. By the way the central question not just of this inquiry but of this presidency and it is the central question because Democrats made it that way. I mean clearly they aren't satisfied with the results because it didn't come out the way they wanted. I think that's frankly very sad. They should have been rooting for this outcome. Instead they were rooting for a different outcome and when they didn't get it, they're having trouble dealing with it. Politically it would be wise for them to focus on the priorities of the American people. But it strikes me based on what I've heard since the report letter came out that they're are going to continue to go down this rabbit hole. My prediction is it's going to hurt them politically in 2020.

MW: But do you think that report should be made public?

SJ: Of course I do. I do think the report should be made public. The American people deserve to read it. However, I think there are two things we should keep in mind. Number one, the Department of Justice should not be forced to reveal sources and methods. I think that's vital. And number two, Mueller interviewed -- according to Barr's letter -- five hundred cooperating witnesses. I do not think this report or whatever Congress might do with it should be used to drag those five hundred people through the mud. These people have had their lives turned upside down. They've probably incurred a huge amount of legal bills. They were not charged with crimes. They were not put into a real courtroom for a reason. The court of public opinion should not be then used to destroy or disrupt their lives any further. I think the report should be made public. But we can make reasonable moves to protect innocent people who by the way their only crime here was to cooperate with this investigation which I'm glad they did.

MW: Now as you say yourself what's not under dispute is that Russia meddled in the American election and you're calling on the president to act to stop such interference in the future. How confident are you that he'll do that given that he's been reluctant to take Russia to task so far?

SJ: I think now that this cloud is removed, the president has all the opportunity and I hope and pray that he takes it to lead on this issue. This mess was left for him like so many other issues. I think he has the capacity to clean it up. He's going to need Mueller's roadmap. I think he's going to need a lot of the work that's been done by the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is the absolute right time and right opportunity to pull this off.

MW: Mr. Jennings thanks very much for speaking with us today.

SJ: Thank you very much.

JD: Scott Jennings is a Republican advisor. He worked for George W. Bush. We reached him in Washington D.C.

[Music]

Sackler family

JD: The Sackler family can't even give their money away anymore. Last week we spoke to photographer Nan Goldin about her campaign to stop museums such as London's National Portrait Gallery from accepting donations from the owners of Purdue Pharma. Purdue of course manufactured and marketed OxyContin -- the prescription pain drug that has been implicated in the opioid crisis. Well now after the Portrait Gallery declined a donation from the Sackler's -- the Tate Gallery group had followed suit, as has New York's Guggenheim Museum. In response, the Sackler's say that they will suspend all donations in the United Kingdom. And if you'd like to hear our conversation with Ms. Goldin it is on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Reporter airplane harassment

Guest: Joanna Chiu

JD: If you see something, say something. That is a familiar axiom for air travelers. But for one Vancouver journalist, it took on a new meaning on a recent flight. It was late at night, and Joanna Chiu was getting ready to have a nap. Then she heard something in the row behind her -- a conversation between a man and a teenage girl. Joanna Chiu is the Vancouver bureau chief for the Toronto Star. We reached her in Vancouver.

MW: Joanna when you were sitting on the plane what did you hear that made your ears perk up?

JOANNA CHIU: So it was quite a big plane. There was quite a bit of commotion before the flight because passengers wanted to get to the empty rows. And I was one of the passengers who snagged a row to herself. And a man behind me was loudly wanting to get a good seat too. So I thought it was strange that suddenly he seemed very happy to be where he was in the middle seat. And it seemed like it was because a teenage girl had come up and sat beside him in the window seat next to him. He seemed really happy and was obviously delighted that she was so young. He kept asking about like her school, what she was studying, what she wanted to be when she was older. So definitely it raised some flags, so I started listening pretty carefully.

MW: Right. And then the conversation progressed into a kind of inappropriate area.

JC: Yeah. So he kept saying, oh she sounded so smart for her age. And he asked about her favourite foods, and he kept saying that I'm going to give you my number -- I want you to call me and I want to take you out to eat. And she was just ignoring all of this obviously trying to be friendly but not wanting to make plans to see him. So it kept going on and on and eventually I finally stood up and confronted him because he was asking for a dirty photo from her.

MW: You overheard him ask her for a dirty photo?

JC: Yeah.

MW: What did he do when you confronted him?

JC: He acted like he didn't hear me. And he just stood up and went to use the washroom in the back of the plane.

MW: And what happened when he was in the washroom?

JC: That was when it seemed like a woman in a row seated behind them -- she acted independently -- I don't think she heard me speaking with him. Her plan was to talk to the teenage woman directly and check in with her and ask if she was comfortable and that she was just behind them and available for support if the teen needed it. And it seemed like the teenage woman looked relieved to be having this support. And after I thought it she looked relieved to be having that support, I went up and grabbed the flight attendant and told the flight attendant about what was happening.

MW: And did they take the complaint or the concern seriously?

JC: I was quite impressed at how quickly they acted. This is all happening while this man was in the back of the plane in the washroom. And in that time the flight attendants all worked together and they collected other witness testimonies. And they checked in with the teenage girl and they decided to ask the men to move -- to leave his seat. He resisted being moved. He was yelling and shouting. And he was shouting at me because at this point I was also standing up and watching what was going on. He was swearing at me. The head flight attendant said that she was the boss of what was happening -- because he had asked you know to see her like higher up and she said I'm the boss and this is really serious and we could land the plane if you keep acting this way.

MW: Now you mentioned she talked with other passengers. Was it just women or had men overheard this as well?

JC: I'm not sure. But as far as I know the only woman who stood up and also visibly did something was another woman. So it was me and another woman.

MW: Is this something you had dealt with when you were younger and travelling alone?

JC: Yes I think one of the reasons why it may have been women who were you know very careful and listening carefully was -- I think this is an experience that happens to many young girls and young women. The first time I travelled to Vietnam on a school trip -- on the way back from Vietnam a man next to me was really flirtatious. Kind of accusing me of flirting with him when I was confused because I thought I was just having a normal conversation with him. And a second time I traveled from Montreal, a man actually kissed me without my consent. And I was so shocked I just froze. I was still a teenager.

MW: Do you think the other passengers around this scene were as to it as you were?

JC: You know after this I shared the story of what happened online -- on Twitter -- and it became really viral kind of immediately. And people started discussing. And a lot of the discussion was around like why are women often more attuned to these things happening. A lot of men actually commented and said they weren't aware that airplanes were a place where you know predators acted. But a lot of women commenters are saying this happened to me, this happened to someone I know, this happened to my daughter. So I think it was an education where a lot of men just aren't aware.

MW: Right. And I suppose if men haven't been through that experience that a lot of women have been through you're not perhaps you know your antenna aren't up for it.

JC: Because it sounded like he was trying to be friendly. Like he was trying to give advice to a younger woman and then he would kind of more quietly whispered those things that were sexual.

MW: Now on Twitter you mentioned you were going to contact this man's employer to tell them about his actions. Have you had a response? Have you done that? And had a response?

JC: I haven't yet. But in his bravado I think he gave his name. He told the young woman his name he also told the woman where he worked and it's a pretty big Canadian company so I'm going to be sending my Twitter friend to the company and letting them know. I think most companies will want to be aware that one of their employee is acting this way and also loudly kind of bragging about working at this company.

MW: And what about the airline -- how is it dealt with this man?

JC: They handled it so professionally I felt because they also kept giving me updates about what they were doing. They said they had made a report -- that they were going to keep a file in this person, so they will know the next time he flies. And when we deplaned, a security official was waiting for him and took him aside. And I was walking out the plane -- I saw the security official talking to the man.

MW: And how did he look?

JC: He looked really nervous. On the plane, when he was being confronted by a bunch of women he was like really dismissive, like angry, like trying to aggressively shut us down. But you know when the security guard was talking to him, he looked really nervous.

MW: What do you hope comes out of sharing this story?

JC: I actually struggled whether to share the story because this is something that happened to a teenage girl. I decided to share it and to remove any potentially identifying details because I think this is in a way a universal experience of harassment. And personally, I hadn't read a lot of stuff about what to do when it happens on the plane. So I think it's partly a public service for people to have this discussion. Like what can you do on the plane? What are the special safety risks? And what can bystanders do on public transportation in general when we know sexual harassment happens really often on public transport?

MW: Joanna Chiu thanks so much for speaking with me today and thanks for sharing that story.

JC: Thank you.

JD: Joanna Chiu is the Vancouver bureau chief for the Toronto Star. She intervened on a flight from Toronto to Vancouver last night when she says a man said sexually inappropriate things to a teenage girl. We reached Joanna Chiu in Vancouver. We have more on the story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Jody Wilson-Raybould

JD: Jody Wilson-Raybould may be waiting to tell Canadians the full story about SNC-Lavalin. But that has not kept the former Attorney General from speaking with Justin Trudeau. The Prime Minister was in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, today. He was asked whether he had been in touch with Ms. Wilson-Raybould, and whether he thought she should use parliamentary privilege to protect her from any legal consequences that might result from telling the truth.

SOUNDCLIP

PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: The last conversation I had with Jody Wilson-Raybould was last Monday, and it was a very cordial conversation. The situation regarding SNC-Lavalin is centred around whether or not -- and what kind of pressure the former Attorney General was under in regards to the Lavalin situation. In regards to that, we moved forward as a government and granted an unprecedented waiver which allowed a full testimony on the matter at hand. A waiver of not just Cabinet confidentiality but solicitor-client privilege as well to make sure that the Justice Committee could hear a full airing of everything in regards to the former attorney general's time as attorney general and possible pressure she was under around Lavalin. We believe that it's important for Canadians to hear a broad range of perspectives, and we believe that Canadians need to continue to have confidence in their institutions. And that's exactly why we have moved forward in a responsible and unprecedented measure.

REPORTER: You say all the facts have been aired, but Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott both say there's more to this story and they have more to say. Why don't you believe them?

PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I look forward to continuing to engage with both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott as they make their way forward. They have both indicated they look forward to running again as Liberals in the next election. I look forward to continuing to have their strong and thoughtful voices as part of our team. That is one of the strengths of this Liberal Party of Canada -- that we bring in strong voices right across the country who are ready to continue to work together to build a brighter future.

REPORTER: And a growing number of members of your caucus are encouraging both of the former ministers to speak out in the House if they have more to say -- do you agree?

PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: These are obviously decisions to be made by the individuals in question. What we have done as a government is grant an unprecedented waiver so that the full airing could happen at the Justice Committee of everything in regards to the SNC-Lavalin file and the time that it is in question that is when the former Minister of Justice was indeed Minister of Justice.

JD: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier today in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.

[Music]

Michael Avenatti

JD: How much good news can U.S. President Donald Trump even handle? Yesterday, the Mueller report. Today, lawyer Michael Avenatti -- an outspoken critic of the president and former lawyer for adult film star, Stormy Daniels -- was arrested and charged in two separate criminal cases. New York federal prosecutors charged him with extortion in a case involving Nike. And in California, he faces charges of bank and wire fraud. In New York, prosecutors allege Mr. Avenatti told Nike he had evidence that Nike employees had funneled money to college recruits and if Nike didn't pay him 20 million dollars he would expose that evidence. U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman with the Southern District of New York gave details at a press conference.

SOUNDCLIP

GEOFFREY BERMAN: It's alleged the entire scheme played out in less than a week. Avenatti first met with representatives of the company last Tuesday, March 19th in Manhattan. At that meeting Avenatti said he represented a client who coached an amateur high school basketball team sponsored by the company which is Nike. The team had recently lost that contract worth seventy two thousand dollars a year -- and Avenatti claimed the coach had information about potential misconduct by employees at Nike. Avenatti threatened to hold a press conference at which he would make these allegations public if the company did not agree to his financial demands. Avenatti made clear that he was approaching the company in a time intended to maximize the potential financial damage of such a press conference mainly on the eve of the annual NCAA tournament and the company's quarterly earnings call. In a recorded meeting the next day with representatives of the company, Avenatti made clear that he expected to be paid up to 25 million dollars -- with 12 million to be paid upfront and deemed earned when paid. When the company's lawyers resisted paying Avenatti to conduct an internal investigation, Avenatti told the company it could skip paying for an internal investigation if instead it simply paid him twenty two point five million dollars. Then Avenatti said he would quote, "Ride off into the sunset." Avenatti was not acting as an attorney. A suit and tie doesn't mask the fact that at its core, this was an old fashioned shakedown.

JD: U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman detailing charges of extortion against lawyer Michael Avenatti earlier today.

[Music]

Part 3: 'You can't step anywhere': Thousands of toxic toads swarm Florida suburb

Mali Mission

Guest: Randall Garrison

JD: The PM is facing mounting pressure to extend Canada's peacekeeping mission in Mali. Canadian helicopter crews are providing medical evacuation and transport for the multinational force that is trying to mend the country's many rifts. Canada's one year commitment is due to end this summer. Now the United Nations has written to ask if Canada could stick around a while. The letter arrived at the same time as the European Union has floated the possibility of Canada starting some sort of training mission. But thus far the Trudeau government is sticking to its one year plan. Well that is not enough for Randall Garrison. Mr. Garrison is the NDP National Defence critic. We reached him in Esquimalt, British Columbia.

MW: Mr. Garrison why should the Trudeau government be looking at extending Canada's commitment in Mali?

RANDALL GARRISON: The Defence Committee was in Mali. We got to see the excellent contributions that our forces are making to the UN Stabilization Mission. And for us to pick up and leave on August 1st before our replacements are in place means that the UN will have to scale back its operations. And this will really put lives at risk, it'll mean the UN troops are able to do less in terms of protecting schools, hospitals, food distribution. So it would be a great shame for us to have come all that way and be providing this great support and then to leave before our replacements are actually able to be there.

MW: What do you fear could happen if they leave those places you just mentioned?

RG: Well because we're providing medevac services, the commanders of the UN mission will have to scale back their patrols, keep people closer to their bases because they don't have the ability to provide the medical care that they can through the very good medevac services we have. So that means that if there's potential attacks on schools or food distribution, they may not be able to reach those communities.

MW: And what would the consequences be of that?

RG: Well just this week in central Mali we had a village that was overrun 117 civilians were killed.

MW: Officials have said that the UN can fill the gap between Canada's departure and the arrival of the Romanians with civilian contractors. Why isn't that good enough for you?

RG: Well civilian contractors first of all won't go into live fire zones. They won't risk their personnel and equipment in the same way that the Canadian Forces will do. And the second thing of course is that they will charge the UN exorbitant rates because of the risks to their very expensive equipment. So it's not only a lower quality of service, it's also much more expensive.

MW: Now Canada had a very hard time getting out of Kandahar once we were committed to the combat mission there. Are you not worried about making an open ended commitment to what is really a highly complex conflict that has no clear endgame?

RG: Well I think that that's a feature of all peacekeeping missions. But in this case we know that our Romanian replacements are coming mid-October. It's a question of them completing their equipment needs, completing their training, and getting the airlift they need to get their forces into the field. So it's not for Canada an open-ended commitment -- it is commitment to maintain our forces in the field until Romania arrives and we know what that date is. So for the Trudeau government to say we made a smart pledge and ends August 1st -- we're leaving August 1st, that all sounds very good in Ottawa or New York, but on the ground it leaves a very big gap.

MW: Now it isn't Canada's fault that those replacements aren't going to be there when our troops leave. Canada was clear that it was only a one year commitment. So what went wrong?

RG: Well I think the problems that we've had is getting other nations to step up and provide the kind of specialized services like medical evacuation. So Canada replaced someone else on very short notice who decided not to contribute to the mission and that moved their timetable forward. Because we're very well trained and well equipped we were able to beat that earlier deadline, but it means the next person in line hasn't been able. And that's Romania. They haven't been able to move up their timetables enough to prevent the gap.

MW: Now Canada's military isn't particularly big and it can only do so much. And we also have NATO commitments in Iraq, Ukraine, and Latvia. Should one of those missions be sacrificed?

RG: I don't think there's any need to do that. And when we talk with people in the field certainly you don't hear that from the Canadian Forces. They understand the important contribution we're making in Mali. And if Mali is a failed state, we're going to have a humanitarian crisis of unbelievable proportions. We're going to have a big flow of refugees. We're going to have a kind of freebase for terrorism to operate from. So the world's going to have to respond in very big ways if we don't support the Government of Mali now and try to get the peace agreement fully implemented.

MW: Extending the mission might also mean that Canadian helicopters are going to be flying through fire zones during an election campaign here. How much of a factor do you think that is in the government's decision?

RG: Well I would hope that's not the basis on which they've made the decision. But I know there is some suspicion among our allies that the government is trying to avoid that risk. You'll have to ask them about that.

MW: I mean based on your experience, do you think that that is a possibility?

RG: I guess I would have to say that having been in Mali and met with people and talked with people working in the field, I don't understand any other reason. I don't see an obvious reason for us not to do this short extension. I just don't see it.

MW: So you think it has more to do with domestic politics?

RG: Well again, you have to ask the government. But I don't see another reason that makes sense out of this.

MW: And what would you say to exhausted Canadian troops who are expecting to bring their sand worn equipment back home?

RG: Well you know the people we met with and we had a chance to talk with rank and file people they were very proud of the work we're doing there. They were prepared -- to a person that I talked to -- to stay until their replacements came into the field. There was no sense that we should leave early.

MW: Okay. Mr. Garrison thanks very much for speaking with me today.

RG: Thank you.

JD: Randall Garrison is the NDP's National Defence critic. We reached him in Esquimalt, British Columbia. And we did ask the government to comment on the calls for an extension in Mali and received a statement from the spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. It reads quote, "Romania's commitment to replace Canada is an example of the continuing close cooperation among allies to deliver critical capabilities to the UN in line with the 'smart pledging' approach which ensures countries contributions match real needs on the ground. We look forward to continuing to work with the UN, Romania, and many other allies to ensure a smooth transition in 2019.".

[Music]

Qajaq

JD: It was a more bracing ferry trip than passengers bargained for. Last night, the Qajaq ferry got stuck in ice as it crossed the Strait of Belle Isle on its way to Newfoundland. The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker known as the Henry Larsen was sent out to help, but the escort ship had to be called off for safety reasons. That left passengers to face a chilly and uncomfortable night -- spending 19 hours on board in total before things got moving again in the morning. Hedley Ryland was aboard the Qajaq. He had some strong words for the authorities when he spoke to Lindsay Bird on CBC Newfoundland Morning today.

SOUNDCLIP

HEDLEY RYLAND: It is a service that the government has to provide to the people. And the shame on them. I want to echo those words again. Shame on the government to put such a ship in this area with low horsepower. We lobbied government over some time when we knew that we power wasn't hold and was getting used out and so on and so forth. We told the government that we need a bigger boat with a bigger and higher horsepower. What did they do? They gave us a smaller boat and with lower horsepower. And I mean like you know it is absolutely -- just absolutely --unacceptable for such a boat to travel in this situation.

LINDSAY BIRD: Yeah absolutely. And I guess you're dealing with the first hand effects of that having spent the whole night onboard. What was it like spending the night aboard the Qajaq?

HEDLEY RYLAND: It was okay. No one panicked. We had the (Henry) Larsen alongside of us. But it was a sense of frustration. And the boat itself like it was very very cold aboard the boat. No bunks. I mean you couldn't [inaudible] bunker or anything like that. We had to try to sleep in chairs. But the last night it was a little bit of a windy and cold night and snowing at times. And it was freezing -- absolutely freezing. And people were walking around and trying to keep themselves warm.

JD: I was Hedley Ryland the passenger on board the Qajaq ferry speaking to CBC Newfoundland Morning.

[Music]

Taxi driver

JD: If you needed a taxi in Quebec today, you were in for a bit of a wait. The province's cabbies held a one day strike to protect new CAQ government's plan to deregulate their industry. Drivers say that will further clear the roads for competition from ride sharing companies. And that is competition that Costa Kouremenos says he cannot afford. Mr. Kouremenos told CBC Montreal's Mike Finnerty that he had been driving a taxi in Verdun for 23 years.

SOUNDCLIP

COSTA KOUREMENOS: I never have seen so many people so pissed off. It's absolutely wrong what they're doing, and they're going to put people in a very bad situation economically and financially. And you know what nobody is asking about? The [inaudible] status it causes on people when you do something like this to people it's horrific.

MIKE FINNERTY: Costa can I ask you about your situation? Do you mind telling us about your permit like for instance how much did it cost when you first got it and and how much is it worth now?

COSTA KOUREMENOS: When I got it, it was 210,000 -- and now it's worth before the government did what they did it was worth around anywhere between 60 and 80 thousand.

MIKE FINNERTY: And do you still owe money on it?

COSTA KOUREMENOS: Yeah I do.

MIKE FINNERTY: How much time do you mind me asking?

COSTA KOUREMENOS: I might owe 30,000. There's other guys that are over 100-150,000.

MIKE FINNERTY: Does it still make sense to pay for a loan when you're in such a kind of negative equity situation where you're paying for something that isn't worth...

COSTA KOUREMENOS: Well if you have put your house on the line then I guess yes. But if you haven't, right, because it's a small loan you could say here take your taxi back -- I am not going to pay for this, I am going bankrupt, right.

JD: That was Verdun taxi driver Costa Kouremenos speaking to CBC Montreal's Mike Finnerty.

[Music]

Toad Busters

Guest: Jeannine Tilford

JD: In the Palm Beach Gardens area of South Florida, this past week has felt a little Biblical. The suburbs have been besieged by hundreds of thousands of cane toads. They are a highly toxic species that can cause harm to animals and people. And this plague is the reason Toad Busters -- a toad removal company is hopping right now. Jeannine Tilford is the owner-operator of Toad Busters, which had a very busy weekend. We reached Ms. Tilford in Palm Beach Garden,s Florida.

MW: Ms. Tilford can you tell me what these South Florida neighbourhoods look like right now with this huge influx of toads?

JEANNINE TILFORD: Well it is the one area that has most of the toads right now -- that's an issue. But every year when the bufo's breed, the babies come out of the water and infiltrate all over the yards -- into the patios to where there's baby toads everywhere. This particular instance with the fact that we had not a lot of winter time and they had what's called the pond turnover and it killed several fish -- I think it was one of the reasons that this area had such a massive amount of baby toads -- more than more than usual.

MW: And when you say massive amount, what kind of numbers are we talking about?

JT: Like you can't step anywhere without stepping on them.

MW: Really? You can't even step out in your backyard or front yard anywhere...

JT: So when you're walking through the patio or the grass, they're just in the thousands everywhere. When the parents lay the eggs they can lay anywhere from like 3000 up to ten or twenty thousand eggs. So when you have all these eggs that are hatched at the same time -- because say tonight it's going to rain -- all the males and females will meet up at the ponds, they'll all breed, and 22 days from now we'll have another influx of these baby toads. So this particular batch, they all come out of the water at the same time and then move up through the grasslands or the patios. And toads don't climb -- and it's much easier for them to feed on flat surfaces like ants and stuff. They tend to migrate toward concrete areas and pathways. Plus they also need water so when they get to the pools, they jump in the pools. And when they get into the chlorine they generally drown because they can't get out. You know those toads don't live in the water so...

MW: What kind of damage are they causing?

JT: They really don't cause much damage. It's just more of an inconvenience. The concern is if the dogs were to ingest many of them -- at this point of their life cycle, they're not as toxic at this stage because they're so small. Once they start getting of size is when they can carry more toxin which can kill the dogs. But if a dog were to just sit there and eat a bunch of them they probably would end up getting pretty sick.

MW: So when people walk out of their homes and these toads are all over the place are they actually smushing them?

JT: Yes. When they step out of their houses and they're walking on the patios, it's very difficult not to step on them.

MW: Wow. How long have these baby cane toads been a problem in Palm Beach Gardens and why is this year so bad?

JT: It's been here for probably since the toads were introduced. I don't know exactly the time frame, but I would say at least you know 50 years or so. It's gotten worse this year I believe due to the fact that we had a very mild winter. So the time where the toads would be dormant and the younger ones wouldn't survive due to the fact that there would be less insects for them to eat didn't happen. So we've got a lot more breeding this year and also because of the lack of winter they're breeding a month earlier. This particular case where we see massive amounts of babies coming out more so than usual that pond had what we call a turnover where there was a lot of plant vegetation in it and the plants died off and when the plants die off it uses oxygen to break down and the oxygen depletes in the water and the fish die. Without having to fish in there it disturbed the natural ecosystem and we ended up having more babies than usual. In last week I think we brought in close to about -- I think -- 700 toads in one week. We're way ahead in numbers of what I'm used to collecting from the previous years.

MW: So how do you go about actually capturing or getting rid of the toads?

JT: For me the most effective way is by hand. We collect at night time. We use headlamps -- (so they are) more highly visible. We go out and we pick them up by hand or using nets -- you know just like dip nets and catch them if they're in the water. And the people want them gone now and to explain to them that you know we have to kind of now spend the next year collecting these babies. If we can get them in a large group we can kind of vacuum them up sometimes in a shop vac. There's just so many and they're so small -- it's really not possible to get rid of them at this stage. But as we continue to come in and collect the adults we start removing any new ones coming in and we pick up any younger ones as they get big enough and easier to see you know next year should be a whole different story for them.

MW: Right. Now you say use a shop vac -- what's that?

JT: A vacuum. It's like a indoor-outdoor vacuum you can suck up water with it. It's not a regular vacuum -- it doesn't like make the toads into soup or anything.

MW: So you're literally vacuuming them up?

JT: Yes.

MW: Okay. Well Ms. Tilford thanks very much and good luck.

JT: No problem. Thank you.

JD: Jeanine Tilford is a herpetologist, and the owner of Toad Busters -- a toad removal service. We reached her in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. And should you want in your heart of hearts to see what a swarm of cane toads look like or looks like -- visit our website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

The Centaurs

JD: With their long hair and "mod" style, The Centaurs definitely stood out in downtown Vancouver in 1968. But in that rhythm-and-blues town, their garage-rock band and psychedelic sound didn't really make the scene. And so, the band decided to take a chance and roll the dice and moved to Holland. Now they didn't necessarily make it huge there but they did make their mark. As drummer John Gedak recalls, "We are already famous. We have a hit record in Holland with Polydor. And we are booked there as Canada's top band." But after releasing a hit single, "Canada's Top Band in Holland" closed up shop and moved back to B.C. Fast forward more than five decades, and The Centaurs are back. According to the Vancouver Sun, their debut album "From Canada to Europe" came out last week -- 53 years after it was recorded.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 25, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode