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 2018

The AIH Transcript for December 13, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight...

CO: Doubling down. After Canada arrests a Chinese executive on behalf of the U.S., China arrests a second Canadian. We'll speak with one of Michael Spavor's friends about his detention.

JD: Overstepping and undermining. Ottawa says there was nothing political about the arrest of Meng Wanzhou -- but U.S. President Trump insists on making his ulterior motives exterior.

CO: Have guns, won't be traveling anymore. She said she was just a weapons-loving Russian who wanted to make friends in America -- but today Maria Butina pleaded guilty to "conspiring to act as a foreign agent."

JD: Flat on their Facebook. Officials with the social media site made a big deal out of partnering with news outlets to fight fake news -- but one fact-checker says the PR about debunking was a load of bunk.

CO: Cosmos for concern. Virgin Galactic says its ship made it to space today but some are not so sure -- because the definition of where space really begins is like wow people don't even know it's like "whoa."

JD: Whoa! And a Quebec theatre is fined because of smoking on stage in a play where the characters are a man and his own personified genitals. I know that sounds weird but there really was smoking. As It Happens. The Thursday edition. Radio that imagines that must been some major drag.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: 'China should release Michael Spavor immediately,' says detained Canadian's friend

China: 2nd Canadian detained

Guest: Benjamin Young

JD: And now there are two. In Beijing today, Canada's Foreign Ministry confirmed that a second Canadian has been detained on suspicion of what they say is "engaging in activities that endanger the national security." That second man is Michael Spavor -- an entrepreneur with a history of brokering business deals and sometimes meetings in North Korea including some with that country's leader Kim Jong-un. Benjamin Young met Mr. Spavor on one of those trips to North Korea and the two men became friends. Mr. Young is a post-doctoral researcher at the United States Naval War College. We reached him in Newport, Rhode Island.

CO: Mr. Young how did you find out that the Chinese government had arrested your friend for endangering national security?

BENJAMIN YOUNG: I had actually -- on Facebook Michael tagged me in a post saying he was going to come to Seoul. And he was just tagging a lot of people and said you know we're going to have a party when I come. Soon enough I saw posts underneath his own Facebook post saying -- wondering where he was, that he didn't come to his own party -- and that got people a little bit concerned. And then I saw on Twitter that a second Canadian citizen was detained by Chinese authorities and then it soon came out that it was Michael Spavor -- so you know I was just shocked that somebody that I knew personally is involved in this diplomatic mess now.

CO: What kind of work was Michael Spavor doing in China?

BY: Michael is the head of Paektu Cultural Exchange -- it focuses on people-to-people exchange with North Korea. It's based out of China. So it has nothing to do with government-to-government relations. It's really focused on civilian relations and fostering culture exchange with the people of North Korea.

CO: But he was able to make some pretty good connections with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un. How did he manage that?

BY: Yeah. So Michael helped Dennis Rodman get to North Korea through his work.

CO: That's the NBA basketball player who managed...

BY: Yes. And during that period of time he did meet Kim Jong-un. There's quite a few photos of him with the North Korean leader. So Michael speaks fluent Korean. He speaks in a North Korean dialect and he has been involved with North Korea work for quite a few years. I know Michael from my own travels to North Korea -- I went with a Canadian NGO called the Pyongyang Project in 2012. We studied the North Korean dialect in China for a few weeks and then we went to North Korea on two separate occasions so that's how I know Michael. So I've known him since 2012 and we've stayed in touch since then.

CO: Is it possible that his work in doing those cross-border relations is that would got him into trouble?

BY: I can't speak to that. But Chinese state media said that his work is harming state security -- and that couldn't be further from the truth. That is entirely false. China should release Michael Spavor immediately.

CO: We spoke with Kevin Garratt just yesterday. He and his wife were detained during the time when there was another extradition request and Canada extradited a Chinese citizen to the U.S. Kevin Garratt told us he was running a coffee shop in Dandong and this is the very same place where now your friend was based and has now been detained. So are there problems being so close to the North Korean border -- does that put somebody under the microscope in a way that others aren't?

BY: So I can't you know speak to that matter -- but there seems to be a coincidence. China I think they really do not like the fact that Canada detained Ms. Meng from Huawei and I think that this is really China trying to pressure Canada to not extradite her to the United States. I think China feels that it can bully Canada around because it's not the United States. And I think that Michael is an unfortunate pawn in the broader diplomatic game.

CO: So what do you think is really going on there -- if it's not his work in North Korea, if it's not something that is really tied to national security of China, what's behind this?

BY: I think it is directly reciprocity. I think it's revenge. China essentially acting like a gangster state here. And they don't like the fact that the chief financial officer of Huawei, the giant telecommunications company, was detained by Canada.

CO: It seems to be that certainly what is hinted in -- the editor of The Global Times which is seen as a proxy for the Chinese government and making statements -- and the editor of the The Global Times, Hu Xijin, gave this [inaudible]. I'll play this bit of tape and get you to respond to it.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: People assumed it was because Canada had gone too far -- were expecting China to take revenge. I personally believe that if Canada extradite Meng to the U.S., China's revenge will be far worse than detaining a Canadian.

CO: Alright. So he says that people assume that Canada had gone too far and they expected to see China take revenge but he says that, I personally think if Canada sends Ms. Meng to the U.S., China's revenge will be worse than detaining a Canadian. What do you make of that threat?

BY: Yeah this editor for The Global Times he's known for making pretty wacky statements. He's a propagandist for the regime -- those things he said when it comes to -- from criticism Chinese human rights is laughable, so I don't take him seriously at all. But at the same time this is a very serious matter when it comes to Michael Spavor and China should, like I said before, release him immediately.

CO: And when you hear that kind of sabre-rattling when your friend is detained and we're not getting much communication with him -- Canada is saying that they are in touch but they don't know much more. What concerns do you have about what's happening to your friend?

BY: I just you know -- I hope that he is relatively safe conditions and I hope that he will be able to contact Canadian authorities and that he will be released immediately.

CO: From what you know about his character how do you think he's holding up?

BY: Well Michael is a really down-to-earth, really friendly, guy -- and he's also tough. He's a tough person. So I think he has the mental resolve to get through this and I don't doubt that he will.

CO: Alright we will leave it there. Mr. Young thank you.

BY: Thank you so much.

JD: Benjamin Young is a friend of Michael Spavor, he is the second Canadian now being detained in China. Mr. Young did ask us to clarify that while he is doing post-doctoral work at the United States Naval War College the opinions he expressed are purely his own. There is more on this story on our website and stay tuned because a former adviser to Prime Minister Trudeau will be on later on in the program to discuss the international politics surrounding the detention of the two Canadians.

[Music]

UN climate change talks

JD: Time is running out. For more than ten days delegates from almost 200 nations have been attending U.N. talks on climate change in the city of Katowice, Poland. It is the most important climate summit to take place since the landmark 2015 Paris deal, and its aim is to hash out the rules for implementing that deal. But with only one day to go until the end of the conference there is a growing sense of urgency to resolve the political issues that are still on the table. And today the head of the Maldives delegation, Mohamed Nasheed, offered an impassioned plea for more progress to be made.

SOUNDCLIP

MOHAMED NASHEED: We are not prepared to die. And the Maldives has no intention of dying. They are not going to become the first victims of the climate crisis. Instead we are going to do everything in our power to keep our heads above the water. We harbor no illusion about the dangers and we are acutely aware of the vulnerability. Climate change is a national security issue for the Maldives -- it's an existential threat for the Maldives. But that doesn't mean that we are going to give up. We Maldivians are a nation of survivors, and we will doing everything we can to ensure the survival of our country. But we can only survive as a nation if we also survive as a planet.

JD: That was Mohamed Nasheed the head of the Maldives delegation at the UN climate talks. He was speaking earlier today. And yesterday the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres also flew to Poland to urge for quicker and more significant progress. To some observers his return was a sign the talks are not delivering. Here is what Mr. Guterres had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTONIO GUTERRES: The IPCC report outlined the catastrophic future if we do not act immediately. It also clearly states that the window of opportunity is closing. We no longer have the luxury of time. That is why we need to have all work here in Katowice finalized, and finalized in less than three days. Excellencies, I understand that none of this is easy. I understand some of you will need to make some tough political decisions, but this is the time for consensus. This is the time for political compromises to be reached. This means sacrifices that will benefit us all collectively. To waste this opportunity in Katowice would compromise our last best chance to stop runaway climate change. It will not only be immoral, it will be suicidal. This may sound like a dramatic appeal but it is exactly that, a dramatic appeal. It's about more than the future of each country. I have three granddaughters. I will not be here at the end of the century. The same probably applies to all of you. I do not want my granddaughters or anybody else's to suffer the consequences of our failures. They would not forgive us if uncontrolled and spiralling climate change would be our legacy to them.

JD: That was UN secretary general Antonio Guterres speaking yesterday at the climate talks in Katowice, Poland. The summit is scheduled to end tomorrow.

[Music]

Maria Butina guilty

Guest: Julia Ioffe

JD: On the surface Maria Butani was just a gun-loving Russian trying to make some connections with like minded conservatives in the United States. But today she pleaded guilty in a U.S. court for conspiring to act as a foreign agent. As part of a plea deal Ms. Butina admitted to being part of an organized effort by Russian officials to open up unofficial channels between Moscow and the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party. She is the first Russian national convicted of seeking to influence U.S. politics during the 2016 campaign. Julia Ioffe met Ms. Butina long before the headlines. Ms. Ioffe is a correspondent for GQ magazine and in 2012 she wrote a profile of Ms. Butina from Moscow about her love of guns. We reached Julia Ioffe in Washington D.C.

CO: Julia you first met Maria Butina at a Moscow shooting range. Today you're watching her plead guilty in a U.S. court. What was that like for you to see that?

JULIA IOFFE: It's strange and I'm kind of kicking myself for not having seen her as you know as a spy or a Russian agent earlier. I had met her in Moscow when I was doing a story about how pro-democracy protests of the winter of 2011-2012 had basically created a lot of civil society organisations -- and Maria Butina was one of the young organizers who created her own organization pushing for gun rights and I thought it was interesting because a lot of Russian liberals wouldn't be Democrats in the U.S. they'd be more like libertarians -- so things like gun rights obviously appeal to them and I thought that was an interesting perspective and I had no idea at the time that six years later I'd be reading her guilty plea.

CO: And things really began -- the place where you wanted to pick it up would be when she arrived in the United States and she was a very young woman in her 20s -- but already moving in pretty interesting circles, right? And making friends in high places, chatting up the National Rifle Association because she'd already had this right to bear arms organization in Moscow -- she saw friends there. But she was making other friends in the Republican Party. What is it -- this idea, this thing called 'the diplomacy project' -- what was she involved with?

JI: Well it started with her being in Moscow and moving in high circles in Moscow. She was friends with Alexander Torshin who was a well-known Russian senator later became an official with the Russian central bank and then became embroiled in various Russian money laundering scandals in Spain. Then when she came to the U.S. she outlined in this proposal back to Torshin in Moscow and said you know why don't we try to infiltrate the National Rifle organization and the Republican Party -- because the NRA is very influential. It doesn't take a spy to glean that if you spend a few minutes looking at American politics. And she suggested you know various measures to kind of infiltrate both the Republican Party and the NRA -- having friendship dinners, helping Torshin bring a Russian delegation for the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017 and regularly reporting back to him. I feel like that's not something standard you know masters student at an American university would do.

CO: That's what she was -- she was a student when she came to the United States. She became very good friends and started to date, I guess, a high ranking Republican operative by the name of Paul Erickson. What did he bring into the plot?

JI: Well she kind of it seems used him as a consultant. You know she would ask him to write memos about who was important and who wasn't -- and the short biographies on the Americans she invited to this meeting in Moscow where they would meet various Russian officials. He was kind of her 'Sherpa' as it were to conservative American politics.

CO: And at the same time she was courting the National Rifle Association. What did that lead her to?

JI: Well it seems like it led her to lots of meetings with important Republican officials. It seems like it led her to asking a very pointed question about anti-Russia sanctions of Donald Trump who was just a candidate at the time, trying to kind of suss out what his policy would be on sanctions. You know people in the Kremlin noticed and it was probably one of the things that made them think that this would be somebody good to work with.

CO: What it shows is that were a lot of back channel is going on, right? So back channels -- that it seems that Ms. Butina was trying to help establish a back channel that could connect Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, yes?

JI: If anything in the proposal she sent to Torshin she says, don't focus on the very top on the government -- let's try going kind of a level lower. You know it's what one former Obama official told me -- the official said you know they were kind of throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing what would stick. And I think that's kind of a classic Russian method of trying all kinds of different ways and hoping that one or two work out.

CO: This case we should point out this is not part of the special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation -- though certainly does touch on it. What about this case and Ms. Butina will interest him?

JI: I think it would be interesting to see if there were money that flowed from the Russian government to the Trump campaign through the NRA. I think they'd be interested to see just how much cooperation was established between people close to the Russian government., people close to the Trump administration -- to what extent they coordinated their efforts to try to influence the 2016 presidential election.

CO: Do you think that this is going to set up problems for her in Russia? I mean is she in trouble once she's free?

JI: What surprised me was talk in the plea agreement about her deportation -- that she would be deported after serving out her sentence or after cooperating. I'd be surprised if she didn't try to push for some kind of asylum in the States because Vladimir Putin has been very clear about what he thinks should be done to traitors and what happens to traitors and somebody who like Ms.Butina who was clearly some kind of agent for the Russian state if she then flips and cooperates with the American government she would be a traitor in Putin's eyes -- and Putin has said repeatedly that traitors die and should die. I think she would be foolish to go back to Moscow and not to try to seek some kind of witness protection from the United States government after everything she's done and everything that's been exposed.

CO: We will leave it there. Julia I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JI: Thank you so much Carol.

CO: Bye.

JD: Julia Ioffe is a correspondent for GQ magazine. We reached her in Washington D.C.

[Music]

Cigarette fined

Guest: Marc Gourdeau

JD: A theatre in Quebec City is being fined 500 dollars for its latest play -- not because of the near constant parading around of genitalia, we will get to that later, but no this fine was all because of the cigarette. Marc Gourdeau is the artistic director of the Premiere Acte Theatre in Quebec City -- we reached Mr. Gourdeau there.

CO: Marc why is the main character in your play smoking a cigarette onstage?

MARC GOURDEAU: At that time of the play he is a young adult -- really nervous, really stressed, he's having a strong argument with someone and because he's nervous and he's a smoker he lights a cigarette.

CO: Right. In theatre you use cigarettes that use sage in them -- there is not tobacco , right?

MG: Exactly.

CO: When did the trouble begin then with this sage cigarette of yours?

MG: For us it happens in December 3rd -- two inspectors of the Quebec government showed up at the theatre and saw the play and saw the actor smoking and gave us an amende we say in French.

CO: You get fined 500 dollars.

MG: Yup it's the minimum fine.

CO: Did they come -- did they just happened to be there in the audience watching the play?

MG: No, they had a complaint.

CO: I mean sage -- is it so offensive? I mean I think you've said elsewhere it's something you use in your spaghetti sauce.

MG: Yeah. [Chuckles] It's a herb. It's because the law -- the way the law is written it can be read in different ways. We feel that they make a mistake the way they are reading that law -- it's quite complex and really subtle but that's what we think and we're not sure actually if we will pay the fine or if we will contest it. Maybe to have some kind of we say in French jurisprudence so that doesn't happen again.

CO: What are your arguments about why they said -- I think you've compared this to other things that you can do on stage -- so what argument will you give?

MG: Well the fact is if the law is to protect the audience against a dangerous matter smoke that is not safe for the health -- well what we are lighting on the stage is not dangerous.

CO: And you've also said that there are other examples -- that can shoot a gun with blanks.

MG: Well if the idea is that we don't want to show people smoking because for a social matter, for not to give an example, we say that the art -- the object of art is not to help government to improve that kind of compartment. We are allowed onstage to shoot blank gun and stage a murder which is highly illegal. As far as I'm concerned I think that smoking is still legal. Why can't we show that but we can show people faking sniffing cocaine?

CO: Pretty good arguments but now I just want to ask you about the play itself --the character who is smoking the cigarette and having an argument discussion, who is the character arguing with?

MG: His penis.

CO: He's arguing with his penis?

MG: Yeah. The play is a conversation with my penis.

CO: That's the title?

MG: Yup.

CO: Okay. And is the penis -- is it his penis?

MG: It is an actress who is dressed like a very large penis. And the idea of the play is to talk about some part of the male conditions -- the conflicts between compulsion and what you have in your ad -- the way you feel about sex when you're a teenager or when you get to 60 years old. The format of the play is funny, it is humoristic, but basically there some something serious that wants to help people think about that. And it's a very good play by the way.

CO: I'm sure it is Marc. But his penis is a woman?

MG: Yeah.

CO: Okay. [laughter] Alright.

MG: It is the director who decided that because basically in the original play it's not said if the penis has to be performed by a man or a woman. When it's been created in New Zealand the first time it was a man who will play the penis. But here our director chooses. And when they both argue it makes something a little more strength and possibly more sensitive if the penis is performed by a woman.

CO: Does she have a personality is she pretty convincing?

MG: Well yes yes. She's a strong character. [Laughter] She's a pretty good actress. We only see her face which is so expressive that makes it really funny.

CO: Where is her face in the costume?

MG: At the top. [Laughter] At the end we would say.

CO: Right. Okay that makes sense of course it would be there. Does she smoke? Does the penis smoke?

MG: Nope. She drinks coffee by the way. [Laughter]

CO: You need caffeine when you are a penis probably. Now just a question, did the health inspectors, the government inspectors, have any issue with a giant penis or just the cigarettes?

MG: Nothing at all. Just the cigarette.

CO: Right so that's cool. The penis is okay.

MG: Penis is okay. Killing people on stage is okay. All kinds of things are okay. But smoking sage cigarettes not okay. But that's it for now. But we will try to have it clear.

CO: Alright Mark. Good luck with your play and good luck with your case. Thank you.

MG: Thank you very much. Bye bye.

CO: Bye.

JD: Marc Gourdeau is the artistic director of the Premiere Acte Theatre in Quebec City, that is where we reached him. And for more on how a sage cigarette and not a giant penis costume set off alarm bells for Quebec health inspectors, go to our website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: Where does space really begin?

China arrest: politics

Guest: Roland Paris

JD: Ottawa says that the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is not political. But U.S. President Donald Trump isn't helping to bolster Canada's argument because this week he said he wouldn't hesitate to intervene in the case if it would serve his country's trade interests with China. Now those words come at a very fraught moment for Canada with news that a second Canadian working in China has been detained. We told you about that Canadian businessman, Michael Spavor, earlier on in the program and we heard his friend's fear that he has been targeted in retaliation. Roland Paris is a former foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He now teaches international relations at the University Of Ottawa. We reached Mr. Paris in Ottawa.

CO: Professor Paris we have seen not one but now two Canadians arrested in China. Is there any doubt in your mind that these arrests are political?

ROLAND PARIS: Well there's no direct evidence linking these arrests to the case against Ms. Meng, but given the timing this could well be an attempt by the Chinese government to apply pressure on Canada to release Ms. Meng or to suspend the extradition proceedings against her.

CO: Canada says it had no choice but to arrest Ms. Meng -- it was a request by the United States seeking her on a warrant. Canada was just following the law. Now as you know President Trump is talking about intervening on her behalf -- he told Reuters on Tuesday that he would intervene in his extradition case if it would help him win a trade deal with China. What do you make of that?

RP: I thought that that was an outrageous comment for him to make. The idea of linking this prosecution to the outcome of a trade negotiation, it put Canada in a difficult position of course because we have quite rightly been emphasising that Canada is operating according to the letter of the law and there has been no political interference in this case and we're operating also under the terms of our extradition treaty with the United States in good faith. Trump's comments also undermine the position that has been taken by his own officials who have emphasized that this prosecution is based on a long standing Justice Department investigation by law enforcement officials. And ultimately his comments may complicate the extradition proceedings because Ms. Meng's counsel may wish to raise these comments in her own defense.

CO: I just want to play a bit of what Canada's Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in response to President Trump. Here's what she had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: It is incumbent upon parties making an extradition request to be sure that that extradition request is about ensuring that justice is done, is about respecting the rule of law -- and our extradition partners should not seek to politicize the extradition process or use it for ends other than the pursuit of justice and following the rule of law.

CO: That's Chrystia Freeland -- it's interesting always when you hear her speak that way with those long pauses -- you know she is choosing every single word very carefully.

RP: Absolutely. And as she should. And I think the message is a very important one you know because President Trump's comments obviously play to the fears of those who see this as a politically motivated effort against China, to hurt Huawei -- and ultimately it's important that Chrystia Freeland be careful here because there is a role for her colleague the Minister of Justice at the end of a process potentially to sign the surrender order for Ms. Meng if that's where the judicial process ends up. So I think that the Canadian government is saying very clearly to the U.S. administration that this kind of politicizing of this prosecution is unacceptable and it does place Canada in a very difficult position.

CO: Some people are suggesting that Canada should actually drop this whole extradition process -- that given what Donald Trump has said that the process has been perverted by a political declaration.

RP: Well I think that that would be unwise right now. We have a judicial process that's underway. It should take its course. This issue of Donald Trump's remarks could as we've been discussing very well come into the deliberations before the court and it may be something that the court considers. But I think that if the U.S. administration continues to describe this prosecution as something that is kind of tradable literally for commodities then I think that it puts the extradition case on a much more fragile ground.

CO: But an extradition case can go on for months and even years. What is that going to do to Canada's relationship with China in the meantime?

RP: We're in a very difficult situation right now. We are seemingly already paying a price for doing the right thing with standing up for the rule of law and abiding by our treaty obligations. The Chinese are convinced that this is not a legitimate prosecution and this will be a significant irritant in Canada-China relations and if it turns out that the two Canadians who have reportedly been detained in China are being detained as bargaining chips that will put Canada-China relations into a deep freeze.

CO: Again President Trump is pursuing this negotiation with President of China. He's trying to improve -- make, as he says, the largest trade relationship in the world. Canada was trying to get a better trade relationship with China as well. We now jeopardized that relationship, that potential trade relationship with China, in order to do something for the United States while it continues to pursue exactly what Canada wanted.

RP: There is something to what you're saying -- the other side is that we are doing this for ourselves too because this is our treaty obligation and this is the law that we are following and it's essential that we insist upon following the rule of law. Having said that we have for a very long time operated in a comfortable international context in international affairs. Canada has benefited from that environment for decade -- that environment is changing. We're seeing the rise of this geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China -- and an American government that is much less likely to have Canada's back.

CO: We'll leave it there. Professor Paris thank you.

RP: Okay thank you.

JD: Roland Paris is a former foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He is now a professor of international relations at the University of Ottawa, that is where we reached him.

[Music]

Petty crimes

JD: Oh poor poor New York Times tweet -- you never stood a chance. Last night the respected paper of record put out a call on Twitter requesting stories from those who have experienced a petty crime in London, England. A reporter was looking for personal contributions that would speak to the surge in violent crime in that city. The responses however were very very London and very very petty.

CO: Alistair Pinkerton wrote: "I once heard a mobile telephone ringtone in the quiet carriage of South West Train, somewhere between Richmond and Kew." And Harriet Marsden said: "Someone held the door open for me when I was still ten feet away and then I had to run and pretend I was grateful. I was sweaty and fuming.

JD: [Chuckles] Another Twitter user added: "I was drinking at a pub when someone dropped and broke a glass. There were no gangs of lads present to give it a big cheer or yell 'sack the juggler.' I cried all the way home." And Claire Cohen recalled: "I was 'aving me shoes shined when I feels a commotion in the back pocket of me breeches. Little fella he was, goes by the name of the Artful Dodger. Got clean away with me purse."

CO: More testimonies rang a little familiar. Like this one: "My children were abducted by their nanny and discovered cavorting with a troupe of dancing chimney sweepers." And, "A Peruvian immigrant carrying a suitcase full of marmalade sandwiches was recently kidnapped by a rogue taxidermist. It was all caught on film but the authorities did nothing."

JD: And to wrap it up, possibly the most London-est response of all: "I saw someone get on the tube before the other people had got off. So we killed him."

CO: Just a tiny fraction of the responses to the New York Times’ ill-considered tweet. As we go to air, shaken London residents had offered up nearly 7,000 stories of petty crime in their city.

[Music]

Space definition

Guest: Chris Newman

JD: What is space? Seriously man. That might sound like a question better asked in a hazy dorm-room. But today it has actually become important. The Virgin Galactic rocket-plane jetted off to an altitude of 82 kilometres above the earth. And billionaire owner Richard Branson tweeted: "Today, for the first time in history, a crewed spaceship built to carry private paying passengers reached space." But did it? Because a lot of people say that 82 kilometres is short of truly meeting that definition. Chris Newman is a professor of space law at Northumbria University. We reached him in Newcastle, UK.

CO: Professor Newman did Virgin Galactic really reach space today?

CHRIS NEWMAN: It is all a matter of perspective and it's all a matter of which interpretation of where space begins that you want to take. So in one sense, absolutely they did because there are certain accepted definitions that have space beginning at 50 miles and they went up to 51 miles. However there is another definition which has space beginning at 62 miles. So it's all a matter of which interpretation you want to take.

CO: So you're saying that space -- where space begins is a matter of opinion?

CN: Absolutely. It is very much -- because the atmosphere -- there isn't a digital point where we have space all of a sudden. The atmosphere just get progressively thinner and thinner and thinner as we go. So there is a point at which the atmosphere stops providing a lift and we stop getting aeronautical lift for planes and we start relying on centrifugal force and it's at that point that physicists and astronauts engineers have decided that space is going to begin.

CO: Alright. You've probably noticed that a lot of people are jumping in on this news and saying not so fast to Virgin Galactic. They say the ship did not reach the magic altitude that's apparently called the 'Karman line' which you probably know all about. And they say that Virgin Galactic was 20 kilometres short of that. So did they reach the Karman line or not?

CN: They did not reach the Karman line. The Karman line is a 100-kilometers which is 62 miles upwards. But the Karman line is an accepted definition of where space begins -- but as a space lawyer I can tell you that there is no international treaty and there's no international law which says where space begins.

CO: Well okay. So the Karman line -- we should established that the Karman line is established by the FAI, the Federation Aeronautique Internationale -- and this is the accepted fact. And now you're telling me that according to the space lawyers it's an opinion -- that the scientists they may say this is the Karman line -- they may say this is where space begins, but hey you know there's wiggle room.

CN: Absolutely because scientists have now started re-examining where the Karman line begins. There's been a paper recently by Jonathan McDowell who is a physicist working at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute and he says that if you look at the data actually it's much more like 50 miles where satellites fall into the 50 mile trap and they never get out of it. So you know there is dispute. There is even scientific dispute amongst this.

CO: And there's business interest, isn't there? Because Virgin Galactic is selling seats for wannabe astronauts for hundreds of thousands of dollars per. And they need to think that they're taking these people to space -- so they don't think they're going to space, they're not going to pay that money are they?

CN: I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head here. Whether I think they have got into space, whether you know the commentators think they've gone into space -- really truly, the test is going to be where the paying customers are going to be willing to pay a quarter of a million dollars to go up to 50 miles. That's going to be the real test for this. The question really is whether the marketplace is going to buy it.

CO: The marketplace wants like the full astronaut experience, right. That's going to be that there's no gravity, you can float around, and you can see -- what you think would be the full feeling of having been in space?

CN: I think you would want weightlessness. I would think you would want the Earth as a ball in your window effect. And up at that height you will absolutely get it -- at 50 miles you will absolutely get it. And this is where the area is -- why the area is so disputed because 50 miles to 62 miles -- things do start getting a lot more space-ier.

CO: But if you can get the full astronaut experience at 82 kilometres or 50 miles -- then really why would they need to throttle you deeper into space in order to --well at great cost probably, right. I mean don't they just want to get to the place for people have that -- get their jollies and come home again.

CN: I think that's right. I think that's absolutely right. They can sell that experience and it will be a credible space based experience because let's be right of course they're not going to be astronauts anyway. They're going to be visitors you know. Astronaut has a whole connotation in certainly an international space law -- the term astronauts has a connotation of training, of selection, of task orientated mission readiness, and that's going to have none of this. There is a good deal of settled international space law that says irrespective of the height they may not be astronauts anyway.

CO: Now you are a professor of space law -- which I'll admit I did not know was a category of law. And space lawyers do they spend a lot of time disputing and debating where space is?

CN: This is exactly the type of discussion that we have. And if you think about it it's just like any other aspect of law. We're talking about jurisdictional boundaries -- where does this law begin? Where does aviation law end? It's very similar to other areas of the law. It's just working in a really hostile and unique environment.

CO: If you had a quarter of a million dollars lying around with nothing to do for it, would you buy one of these tickets? Would you sign up for a Virgin Galactic flight to space?

CN: This is really ironic -- I'm very terrestrially in my viewpoint. I'm quite happy to look up and I really love watching things like this and there's nothing that raises the heart beating more than a rocket launch or a trip to space. But I'm very happy on Earth. But I think it's still a fantastic achievement and ultimately as I say they got into space, they got close enough.

CO: Alright. Professor Newman thank you.

CN: Thank you so much.

CO: Bye.

JD: Chris Newman is a professor of space law at Northumbria University. We reached him in Newcastle, UK.

[Music]

Not a negative word

JD: George Orwell once wrote, "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." That is one of our mottos here As It Happens -- even if no one here has ever actually said it or heard it. And it's why we cannot accept the suggestion of Shirley McAlary, Deputy Mayor of Saint John, New Brunswick. This week Ms. McAlary frustrated that the press keeps focusing on the negative when it comes to her city made a modest proposal to the media. According to the Telegraph-Journal newspaper she said, "Nobody says a negative word about anything -- the print media, the media in the city. Give it four months that you can't say a negative word about the city of Saint John." Well, Deputy Mayor we do not accept this proposition. It smacks of censorship. So we will continue to report whatever we discover about your city and your province, no matter how difficult it is for you to hear. And to prove it we share this shocking story of your provincial capital. According to the CBC, just outside Fredericton there is a tree which is visible from the city's south side because it is very tall. An investigation revealed that it is a lot taller than the other trees around it. Sources say it is a 'white pine' and it could be 200 years old. When confronted by a CBC journalist, the man who owns the land the tree is on said, "I think it's cool." And when pressed, the man admitted he has no plans to cut it down. I know that's hard to hear politicians of New Brunswick but we are devoted to the truth. And that means that you are not out of the woods yet.

[Music]

Bardish Chagger

JD: There are still some things that cannot be said in Canadian politics. Not without having to apologize afterwards any case. On Monday night, MPs were in the House Commons for a debate on the opioid crisis. A Conservative member of parliament had just mentioned the number of people killed in his riding. And then Liberal MP Ken Hardie got up to speak. You will hear his voice next. And then you will hear the Liberal House Leader Bardish Chagger -- heckling the Conservative with a comment that somehow seemed like a good idea to her at the time.

SOUNDCLIP

KEN HARDIE: I heard the honorable member mentioned that they had two murders in Barrie. And 36 deaths through fentanyl and opioids.

BARDISH CHAGGER: Oh that's it?

JD: That was the Liberal MP Ken Hardie trying to speak despite the heckling of his party's House leader Bardish Chagger on Monday night. Well this afternoon Conservative MP Candice Bergen raised the issue with Ms. Chagger in question period.

SOUNDCLIP

CANDICE BERGEN: Earlier this week when we were debating about the crisis we heard some heart wrenching stories of lives lost, including the loss of 38 lives in Barrie, Ontario. And unbelievably when the Liberals responded to hearing of these 38 deaths the Liberal House leader could be hearing saying and I quote "Oh that's it? That's not so bad is it." Mr. Speaker these heartless and cruel comments are incredibly hurtful to the thousands who have suffered because of this crisis. Why in the world would the Liberal House Leader say this and will she stand in this House and apologize?

BARDISH CHAGGER: Mr. Speaker this is a very serious issue for myself -- it is for my community, I know it is for all members across this place. I will tell you that my comments were not intended to diminish the seriousness of this. In Waterloo region we have seen 85 people lose their lives. Mr. Speaker on this issue if I offended anyone I can promise you have no problem apologizing. I apologize. Thank you.

JD: That was a Liberal House Leader Bardish Chagger apologizing for heckling a Conservative MP over the number of opioid deaths in his riding.

[Music]

Evelyn Berezin

JD: "Why is this woman not famous?" That is what one writer asked on his blog years ago. He was talking about Evelyn Berezin. Ms. Berezin was a pioneer in the field of computers. She built one of the first systems for reserving flights. And she also started her own company, the futuristically-named Redactron Corporation, at a time when few women had work in the tech industry. In 1971, she sold her product called the 'Data Secretary' and marketed it to women in the secretarial field. The New York Times calls it 'the first true word processor.' But it wasn't anything like Microsoft Word today – because at the start, the system had no screen. Ms. Berezin died this past weekend. She was 93 years old. In 2014, she gave an oral history to the Computer History Museum in California. She spoke about how she had been hired at the New York Stock Exchange by a man who was retiring -- but the position needed to be approved by the board.

SOUNDCLIP

EVELYN BEREZIN: He called me a few weeks later and he said I need to talk to you. I went down to the stock market and talked to him. And he said the board -- well the board said that they could not hire me. And I said why? You know at the time I was probably one of the two people in the world who could design a machine for them.

VOICE: Yes.

EB: I mean I was really just stunned. And he said what the board said, and the guy was so sorry to say this I mean he was very nice, and he said to me they said that you are a woman -- you would have to be on the stock market floor from time to time and the language of the floor was not for a woman's ears. I had worked in laboratories all my life.

VOICE: Yes.

EB: I had seen practically naked men working on these hot machines. I said what in the world was he talking about? But there was no way I could get back to them.

VOICE: Wow.

EB: So that tells you the situation of women at the time.

VOICE: And so what year is this?

EB: 1960.

JD: From a video posted to YouTube by the Computer History Museum in California that was Evelyn Berezin. Ms. Berezin was a pioneer. She died earlier this month. She was 93 years old.

[Music]

Part 3: Encore: Ontario man finds live WWI-era artillery shell in neighbour's trash

Facebook partnership

Guest: Brooke Binkowski

JD: It was pitched as a major step in combat the fake news that was so corrosive during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In 2016, Facebook announced that it was going to collaborate with fact-checking organizations like ABC News, Politifact, and Snopes, to rid itself of pernicious made up news items. But two years on, some of the fact-checkers who were parachuted in to help are raising concerns that they haven't been much help at all. Brooke Binkowski is the former managing editor of Snopes. She now holds that position at the website Truth or Fiction. We reached Ms. Binkowski in San Diego.

CO: Ms. Binkowski it has been two years since the start of Facebook's partnership with news organizations and fact-checking organizations. How successful has it been?

BROOKE BINKOWSKI: It looks like it's been unsuccessful by design. I mean I'm not talking about what I've come out with but I'm talking about the multitude of stories and articles that have come out about how Facebook has been manipulating the news and how it's been manipulating the timelines and how it's been you know doing all these things in order to create a narrative that they want -- all the while they're saying that they're against fake news and they're against misinformation and they're against bias. But it doesn't seem to be the case at all.

CO: How much of what one encounters in news feeds and information feeds on Facebook is fake?

BB: That's a really good question. And I'm afraid I have no idea. All I can tell you that it's a non-zero amount and that it spreads very quickly and very readily and that it is enough to create massive problems in the national and international discourse which is really my issue with it.

CO: Facebook has put out a statement today saying that criticisms about its fact-checking are not accurate, that it has a whole system in place, not just people like yourself are fact-checkers doing the work from the news agencies -- they had other platforms for doing it. And they said that the amount of fake news on Facebook is going down. What do you say to that?

BB: If it's going down I haven't seen any evidence of that. And I don't think that they're really in a position to say one way or another whether or not fake news is going down since they've already demonstrated their own readiness to spread fake news against their own critics. They are trying very hard to be in control of the narrative without doing any of the really hard work to moderate away fake news.

CO: You're referring to -- this is a consulting firm, a public relations firm, that Facebook hired to go after opponents to it or critics of Facebook by publicizing, suggesting, that they are getting money from the billionaire Jewish philanthropist George Soros and feeding into that trope that somehow there is some kind of a conspiracy in the background to undermine liberal causes and global events, right?

BB: Yeah that's exactly right. And I mean it wasn't just George Soros that you know this firm was spreading misinformation and smears about. But that was the one that Facebook asked them to look into Definers slash America Rising.

CO: You were at Snopes -- you recently lost your job there. What was your concern about the relationship between Facebook and Snopes?

BB: Well first of all I didn't want us to take any money from them at all. I didn't want us to work for them, I wanted us to work with them. And as it turned out Snopes was accepting money and I didn't really know about it until later. But another part was we saw how quickly, all of us, saw how quickly disinformation was spreading on all these social media platforms. And I knew that at some point we were going to have to write stories about Facebook and its own role in spreading this disinformation. I didn't know what it would be but I knew we'd have to look at it quite critically. And I also thought that if we were taking money from them it would set up a situation in which we couldn't feel that we were as critical as we needed to be.

CO: But it is business right? I mean Snopes is a business and you were hired by them to do a job. Why do you think that they would be compromised? I mean it's a very old organization -- a lot of people trust it. Why would it be necessarily compromised by a financial arrangement with Facebook?

BB: Because anybody would be compromised by it. It's not even a slam at Snopes. It's just if you're on a shoestring budget like so many newsrooms are in the United States and elsewhere you're not going to want to sneeze at that money -- and I just didn't want to set up that precedent because I know how easy it is to get used to a certain amount of money once you have it and how easy it is to start making excuses to hold onto that no matter what happens. Another thing that I had a concern about, a major concern about, was that we didn't know where they were getting their stories that they were sending to us to debunk. There was some kind of algorithm involved but nobody knows you know what the algorithms do or how they choose them or how they write them -- nobody knows what happens to the fact checks when you're done with them. There is no data. Facebook has offered you know certain things here and there where they say, oh well you know fact check a story and it diminishes its reach by 80 percent. Where's the proof? Where's the you know the primary documentation? I need to see more than that. I'm a fact checker. You know I'm not a PR representative.

CO: You've also suggested that Facebook was pushing reporters to prioritize debunking information that might affect Facebook advertisers first. What do you base that on?

BB: Basically our set up with Facebook was that we got a dashboard that showed us stories in the priority you know Facebook wanted us covering that or like here's how quickly this one is spreading and so forth. But we would get 10 versions of one story for example and we wouldn't get any versions of another story that was lining up -- it was very uncertain. They pushed us -- well they didn't push us, it was very subtle but we didn't get anything like about anti-Semitism in our algorithm suggested [inaudible] or anything like that. I frankly don't mind if people want to live in their you know sort of echo chambers. I mean I think that's kind of part of human nature. But I care when it's infecting the public discourse and turning my country and other countries around the world into something I just simply don't recognize because of algorithm tweaks. I care when there's a genocide that I am seeing happen in real time and Facebook is entirely responsible for it but they won't do anything about it. That's the kind of things I care about.

CO: When you say entirely responsible for it -- I mean you are referring to there's been noted disinformation about the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and other violent propaganda -- but do they really have to hold the bag for genocide?

BB: Yeah -- I mean they're the ones who are allowing Myanmar Generals to form sock puppet accounts and spread these damaging stories about the Rohingya Muslims about how they were you know child molesters and rapists and they were killing people -- and I shouldn't say they're entirely responsible because they didn't force anybody to go out and you know drive an entire population out of their homes and kill others, but they are definitely a big part of this yes.

CO: What do you think Facebook should be doing?

BB: Moderating. Absolutely moderating. Armies of moderators -- bring in journalists. They could hire journalists to be moderators, not to cover them, but to moderate comments and to look for hate speech and to look for disinformation and actually stop it.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Binkowski I appreciate you telling us about this today. Thank you.

BB: Thank you very much.

JD: Brooke Binkowski is the managing editor of the website Truth or Fiction. We reached her in San Diego.

[Music]

Brexit generation gap

JD: The never-ending debate over Brexit in the UK has not only pitted Remainers against Leavers, but it's also exposed a pretty substantial generation gap -- with many of the older generation of Britons voting to leave Europe and young people largely wanting to stay. Former Conservative deputy prime minister Lord Michael Heseltine is 85 years old. And in an interview on Channel 4 News he told Krishnan Guru-Murthy in very strong terms how he feels about leaving the union.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL HESELTINE: Just appalling. Appalling -- that 70 percent of young people want to stay in Europe and they are being ignored by the 70 percent of old people who want to leave for self-interest of this country, self-evidently, depends presence at the heart of Europe. And all this stuff about sharing power and gaining power and sovereignty -- it's all slogans, it has got no relationship to the real world that we live in. And those who are the Breixters who are driven by these obsessions of yesteryear -- by the delusions of the role of a medium sized economy and nation states in tomorrow's world -- ignorant of the wishes of the generations yet to come.

KRISHNAN GURU-MURTHY: If this goes ahead, what will you feel?

MH: Sad that my generation betrayed the young generation. Sad that we denied Britain's historic role at the centre of Europe. Sad that we stood down from our position as one of the leading countries of our sort in the world. We gave up power. I can't understand that.

JD: That was former Conservative deputy prime minister Lord Michael Heseltine speaking to Channel 4's Krishnan Guru-Murthy.

[Music]

Encore: artillery shell

Guest: Danny Vellow

JD: It was a normal garbage day in London, Ontario. But at one house it wasn't a garbage truck that came to collect. It was the local police, the army, and the bomb squad. Danny Vellow was the London local who discovered the dangerous trash. And his discovery made for one of our favourite interviews of the past year. With 2018 coming to an end, we are revisiting some of the year's most memorable interviews. And here from May is Carol's conversation with Danny Vellow.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Danny, what did you see in your neighbour's garbage?

DANNY VELLOW: Well, I didn't see — I wasn't garbage picking I was just taking the path through the backyard and they threw all the stuff out there the day before, three days before. When I stepped over my fence I almost stepped on an artillery shell.

CO: Artillery shell with the garbage?

DV: Yes, three bags of garbage and an artillery shell. He should've phoned the police right off the bat.

CO: OK, but wait a second. Were you sure right away what you were looking at?

DV: Yeah, from ironworking I worked at the Lac la Biche bombing range many times because I've worked out 25 years in Edmonton as an iron worker all over Canada. So every year you go out to Lac la Biche bombing range, they teach you three hours of the most boring video about bombs. Well, when I seen that bomb I knew it was not an inert bomb. I didn't see no drill holes in it. It was solid brass and I knew it was old.

CO: OK, so you know it wasn't inert? Were you worried? Did you think maybe this could explode?

DV: Oh, yeah. Well I had a doctor's appointment to get my broken shoulder looked at, because I cracked my shoulder blade, and on the way I phoned the police I was 100 feet down from the bomb. By 500 feet from the bomb I figured ‘OK, I won't go to the doctor’s I’ll go back and talk to the police officer because I've got to show him the bomb, right.’ So anyways, I got a phone call, the second phone call, I was at the Beer Store, which was five to ten. And they said “What are you doing at the Beer Store?” I said “I'm not going to doctor’s, I'm going to stand there all day, I'm going to get some beer and I'll be right back there in ten minutes.” So I got back there okay, now the bomb is three feet from me and the police officer drove up with his car right up to me, “Are you Danny from the Beer Store?” “Yes” he says “Where is this bomb?” And I pointed down to it, which was right where his front tire was, two feet away. He backed up right away and he came over and took two pictures. Ten minutes later the bomb squad is here. Ten minutes later the bomb squad took a picture. Ten minutes later Wisconsin, USA phoned them and said “Hey, don't touch it, it's military and they're sending somebody out here.” And then we sat there for 12-14 hours until they picked it up.

CO: You sat out there where? I mean, how close were you to the bomb?

DV: Probably about 70 feet. I made sure there was a big tree in front of me and the police were all away on the other side of the intersection over there. And they sat there all day watching that bomb.

CO: Now do you have any theories as to why there was this artillery shell on your neighbour's garbage?

DV: The people that were renting that apartment, they told me they're brothers. Apparently they're not brothers. And anyways, they offered me some empties. I went over to pick up the empties, they were kicked out. I heard yelling the night before so they were kicked out and then they had new neighbours in there. So anyways, the next day it looked like somebody was sorting out — I think it was the landlord —the good stuff from the bad stuff, you know. These two brothers were nefarious. The truck they were driving had no door handles on either side, they said they were broken into, it was probably a stolen vehicle.

CO: OK just back to the shell. So you think that these brothers —who were not really brothers — may have put this out with the kind of trash? Why would they have an artillery shell from World War I?

DV: No kidding. How does a 100-year-old bomb make it from a hundred years ago till today without blowing up? Where the hell has that bombed been in a hundred years to get here? That’s a military shell that should have been found in Europe, that you dig up in the farmland somewhere, not here in Canada. Anyways, the police told me I broke two records. I found the biggest bomb by a civilian and I found the oldest bomb by a civilian, which was a World War I artillery shell. A 90-pound shell, two feet long. And they said it had dynamite power of 24 sticks, and it was very hot.

CO: And so this could have gone off? I mean, in the right conditions.

DV: If somebody mishandled it, yes. Imagine a 100-year-old bomb. There’s elderly guy here, that guy actually panicked. “That's an artillery shell.” He's trying to tell a police of an artillery shell, they said the bomb squad’s right there and they can't even touch it. Military wouldn't let them.

CO: But they did eventually take it away, right?

DV: Yeah, the military showed up and took it about seven o'clock or so.

CO: And do you think they took it and they blew it up?

DV: Well they took it to Borden and they blew it up there — they have facilities there. And the police told me, “Danny, you broke a record and that was a spectacular explosion.” No kidding. I wanted to make a lamp out of it. I did “Hey, can I get it back?” They said “Danny, we blew up this morning.” And the guy, he's been 20 some years in the force as a bomb explosion guy, which is my second time for a bomb in six years. Last time it was a hand grenade he said “Yeah, I remember you.”

CO: You found a hand grenade?

DV: Well I walked into a Money Mart and somebody tried to push a hand grenade underneath the glass and it got stuck in the tray and we were all locked in there by magnetic lock until a bomb squad showed up. So I said “Yeah, six years ago this happened,” he said “I remember that.” I said “I was the guy inside the building.” The cops took me out and they held me for three hours over that. I had nothing to do with it.

CO: Danny, we have to go. I could listen to you all day. Thank you for telling this story.

DV: Well, you have a beautiful day and happy belated Mother's Day to everybody.

CO: Thank you so much.

DV: Nobody got blewed up.

CO: Nobody got blewed up, and you got your beer. Take care, Danny.

DV: You have a beautiful day. Bye-bye.

CO: Bye.

JD: That was the one and only Danny Vellow -- he discovered a First World War era artillery shell on the curb in London, Ontario back in May -- that is when that interview originally aired. But with 2018 coming to an end, we are revisiting some of the year's most memorable interviews, and that explosive interview with Danny had to be one of them. It had to be. And if you'd like to see a picture of that shell it's on our website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Collin Kennedy

JD: For years, Collin Kennedy was in and out of hospitals for blood cancer treatment. And when he saw what he thought was an injustice, he spoke out. You may remember hearing Mr. Kennedy's story in 2016 -- filled a meter in Winnipeg with spray foam in protest over parking costs near hospitals. He estimated that he had spent at least seventeen thousand dollars in parking over the years. His activism led to a petition that got more than 10,000 signatures and attention from politicians. Collin Kennedy died this week. He was 50 years old. Here he is speaking with the CBC back in 2016 about why he decided to put spray foam in that meter.

SOUNDCLIP

COLLIN KENNEDY: My issue today is since I've been coming here, especially since this new building took place, they put parking meters along the way. And at first I didn't think anything of it because everyone pays for their parking wherever we go pretty much. And then this year they jacked up the price -- like really jacked up the price. And I realized on my income that this was unacceptable. And then I started to really look into it and I'm like wait a minute, even before that it was unacceptable because this is a medical facility where people are not going for entertainment -- they're not going for productivity and commerce, we're here because of life and death. If you want to say yes you have a choice -- you have a choice to not park here and miss your chemo or park here, not pay, and get a ticket or towed. No, you should be able to come here, park, get your treatment -- however long that treatment takes, sometimes it's 15 minutes, sometimes it's all day. And people don't have a choice in that matter. When they're done to be able to come out and go home without that stress of going, jeez I'm running out in the middle of my chemo treatment or I'm sending a volunteer in the middle my treatment to plug the meter or I've got make this weird phone call to a place I don't know and give them private information to plug the meter. No. We're in front of a place of healing, not a place of extortion. There should be no financial burden between a patient and their treatment. And this is a major financial burden for everybody.

JD: That was Collin Kennedy speaking with the CBC in 2016. Collin Kennedy died this week. He was 50 years old.

December 13, 2018 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode