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 March 29, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

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: When all else fails. His city is proof that the current strategies for fighting the opioid crisis aren't working, so Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson wants to decriminalize the drugs.

JD: Home is where the harm is. Kenyan-Canadian opposition activist Miguna Miguna continues his bruising battle to return to his home country: this week, he says he was beaten, drugged and detained by police officers in Nairobi.

CO: He was holding a phone. Now, they're holding protests. After Sacramento police shoot an unarmed young black man, a local pastor tells us about the community's anger and a family struggling with grief.

JD: Worse safe than sorry. Canadian Indigenous leaders are disappointed that Pope Francis won't apologize for the Catholic Church's role in residential schools, including our guest, who's sorry the Pope won't be visiting Saskatoon.

CO: A story that probably won't hit close to home. Well, certainly not if you're in Canada, anyway. But in much of the rest of the world, you have a one-in-300-trillion chance of being struck by chunks of a falling Chinese space station.

JD: And...doubting Thomson. For years, our guest's father insisted the piece of art in the family basement was by a great artist, and might be worth something, which, since it's actually a Tom Thomson, is a masterpiece of understatement.

As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that doesn't know about the art, but that basement just made the "best cellar" list.

Part one: Opioids: Vancouver mayor, Miguna Miguna: lawyer, basement Tom Thomson sketch

Opioids: Vancouver mayor

Guest: Gregor Robertson

JD: Think of all the fatal car accidents in this country. Think of the murders. And now another sobering thought: a new report out this week indicates that more Canadians are now dying from opioid overdoses than both of those causes combined. 2017 is expected to be the worst year to date in Canada for these drug-related deaths. More than 4-thousand people are believed to have died of an opioid overdose. Governments have tried all kinds of initiatives to reduce deaths. Vancouver is one of the cities suffering most from the opioid crisis. And Mayor Gregor Robertson says a radical new approach is needed to tackle it: and that is drug decriminalization. We reached Mayor Robertson in Vancouver.

CO: Mayor Robertson, how would decriminalizing these drugs help deal with this opioid crisis?

GREGOR ROBERTSON: Well, it would enable people with opioid addictions to access a clean supply of those drugs, Hydromorphone being the most desirable option here that is affordable, that is not going to kill them frankly, and that enables them to stabilize as they figure out other ways of getting treatment and addressing their addictions.

CO: And would those kinds of resources be available to them? I mean what can they turn to for support after they've done that?

GR: Well, that's where decriminalization can't happen just by itself. There has to be treatment options. There has to be investment into treatment and prevention and education to support people dealing with their addictions and getting the health care that they need to recover. And also preventing kids from getting into drugs, we have to have that full complement of support from our health authorities and governments. In addition to making sure that there's a clean drug supply for those who are addicted to opioids that on the street are now deadly and killing thousands of people across Canada. We have to take more dramatic action here to make sure that those people are safe and can access proper health care and treatment to deal with their addictions.

CO: This is not legalizing the drugs. What does it mean to decriminalize them?

GR: Well, I think the important first step here particularly with this opioid overdose crisis is to save lives and to make sure people are safe and then have pathways to recovery. And so basically decriminalizing possession so that people can get a prescription, can get access to clean drugs, and then they're in contact with the health care system for the next steps on treatment. That's just an obvious step to save lives right now and enable more people to get into treatment. In Vancouver alone, there are thousands of people who are addicted to opioids — many of them because of the health care system prescribing opioids and then cutting them off of that prescription. They're addicted, they're forced to go to the street, and the street drugs are laced with poison. So that immediate priority is to make sure that those thousands of people can easily access the drug that they're addicted to and connect them to the treatment before they're dead.

CO: Where do they get the drugs that they would be allowed to use?

GR: Well, that's where the work needs to happen and there's some ideas around new dispensing technology machines that can dispense the drugs. At this point, I don't think it's realistic to think all of those people are going to access clean Hydromorphone opioids through the pharmacare system. I think it would overwhelm the system. And many people — because of the stigma — many people won't go to public place. They will need some way to access those drugs that makes them feel secure and enables them to access that legally.

CO: OK, so they’re not going to get the drugs they are craving with their addiction. They're not going to get it from pharmacare. You don't want them to get it from the street where it's laced with stuff — it's bad drugs. Dispensing does that mean that the city actually starts to distribute these drugs to people?

GR: Well, we're looking at a system. Obviously, we need the B.C. government to be involved because these are basically drugs that are a lot more affordable when the public health system is the one purchasing. So we're hoping to see leadership from the B.C. government. As a city, we've taken steps already to address the crisis. Every tool that we have — one of the more recent ones was helping to fund drug testing equipment in the supervised injection sites so people can test the drugs that they're getting on the street and know if they're poisonous or not. We are in a humanitarian crisis. We lost someone every day last year — 365 people died — and we have hardly lose anyone on the street. We don't lose anyone on the supervised injection sites. We're losing people alone at home who’re using these toxic street drugs and don't have anyone to save them.

CO: It really is what you're describing far beyond anything that we're seeing anywhere else for dealing with this, but I wonder how much public support you'd have? If you were to say that the public health system should be providing a safe alternative to what you get in the streets. Something that's affordable and able to access in an environment which is safe. How much support would you have from this city, from people in the city for that?

GR: My sense is given our success with the supervised injection sites here in Vancouver they've saved countless lives over a decade now, despite challenges from the Harper government to try and shut them down. The science is very clear: when you take a harm reduction approach when you invest in treatment. And we see this as a next step to save lives that there will be public support here. I think we are positioned as a city and a country where we can take leadership here and demonstrate that drug policy needs to shift to health-based approach, away from criminalizing and stigmatizing.

CO: And so what instructions can you give to the police — to Vancouver's chief of police? Should the police stop now arresting people who are caught with these kinds of drugs?

GR: Well, the Vancouver police already do not put a priority on arresting for possession of those street drugs. I think they're very well aware and dealing with the frontline impacts of so many people dying. That's very real for our police. And they’re I think a very progressive police force on this front.

CO: It's a very large, very radical idea, very ambitious. You've been mayor for ten years now, and you're not running again at the end of your term. Is this a kind of legacy for you? Is this something that you think you can do before you leave that office?

GR: I'm very hopeful. You know we've been just devastated by the impact of this overdose crisis and losing so many people. And seeing it spread across Canada and all over the states has been horrific. And I'm hoping that we can turn the tide here in Vancouver. And born out of necessity and saving the lives of our friends and family that we can actually finally get beyond the war on drugs and treating people with addictions like criminals. I think we have a real opportunity to do that. And whatever I can do to help down the stretch here I'm going to do that.

CO: We will be watching. Mayor Robertson, thank you.

GR: Thank you, Carol.

JD: Gregor Robertson is the mayor of Vancouver. That's where we reached him.

Miguna Miguna: lawyer

Guest: Julie Soweto

JD: Miguna Miguna is in trouble again. Last month, we spoke to the Kenyan-Canadian opposition activist, after he was deported from Kenya to Canada. And this week, he tried to return to Kenya. When he landed in Nairobi, he was barred entry from the country. And when he refused to back down, it sounded like this.

SOUNDCLIP

MIGUNA MIGUNA: I’ve got my luggage. I’ve got my passport. I am not going anywhere.

JD: After that episode, Miguna Miguna barricaded himself in an airport bathroom for three days. Yesterday, he says, he was beaten by police, drugged, and put on a plane to Dubai, which is where he is now. Julie Soweto is one of his lawyers. We reached her in Nairobi.

CO: Ms. Soweto, what is it like for you to Miguna Miguna crying out for help like that in Nairobi's airport?

JULIE SOWETO: It was very frustrating because I was there with him when he was being dragged away by so many men against his will and tried to force him onto a plane. When they did that on that day, he was fully awake, fully alert. And so he refused to get into the plane. He made such a ruckus that no one airline is actually supposed to carry a passenger who does not want to go and who looks like or sounds like they would create a disturbance on the plane. Mr. Miguna Miguna is very aware of his rights, so he knew that they could not take him against his will.

CO: At that point, he's saying he's not going anywhere. He ended up resisting going anywhere for about 72 hours. He was in a bathroom stall. He says he was beaten and drugged; he was unconscious before they could put him on a plane. How could that even happen? How is it possible that he could be deported on a flight when he is in that state?

JS: That is a very good question. We will be asking the Emirates Airline to explain to us how it is that they allowed a passenger who is comatose — who is drugged — not to walk by himself onto the plane. Considering that they knew very well that Mr. Miguna Miguna had protested. When we got the court orders as well, those court orders were shared with the airlines, so they knew that there was a court order prohibiting the removal of Miguna Miguna from the jurisdiction of the country of Kenya.

CO: And you mentioned the court orders. The courts had said that he wasn't allowed to be deported. He was supposed to be able to get into the country. There were all these people supporting him. Why is it so important for the authorities in Kenya to get Mr. Miguna Miguna out of the country?

JS: I'm at a loss at the conduct of the authorities of my country. As Miguna Miguna himself is fully aware and has said, this is political. It's a political question. They are actually breaching the law in order to settle political scores, in order to punish Miguna Miguna being very vocal and for his political views. He has been very critical of the current government. They have decided this is how we're going to punish him.

CO: We spoke to Mr. Miguna last month when he was in Canada, and this is after the first time he had been deported from Kenya. And he was in Canada because, as you know, he's a dual citizen. And the reason for this was that he was part of a protest against the presidential elections. He helped with a bit of theatre: a mock swearing-in ceremony for the opposition leader Raila Odinga. And then the government accused him of treason and did deport him at that point. So why do you think he returned to Nairobi, given how much opposition he knew he was going to meet?

JS: He was not the only person present at that swearing-in. They have not been deported or taken out of the country. And if the government did believe that Miguna Miguna has committed a crime, then they should have dealt with it in accordance with the law within Kenya. We have laws. Why is it that they choose to deport him rather than subject him to the law of a country?

CO: But as you mentioned, it's the law of the country. But today, we saw a high court judge give a fine to Kenya's interior minister, the national police chief, the Immigration secretary, all fined for contempt of court because of what they've done to Mr. Miguna. And they just defied that court order. So what can he possibly do?

JS: There’s little we can do at the moment. But the solace that I take is that you know a tree is not fall with one blow of the axe. It takes many blows. And so we will continue to fight for Mr. Miguna’s rights. We will continue to fight the impunity of this government. And eventually, we will bring this tree of impunity down. Eventually, the tree just has to fall. So the fact that we have not succeeded in falling the tree with one blow does not deter us from continuing.

CO: But in the meantime, what happens to Miguna Miguna?

JS: That is a question that is best directed at Mr. Miguna Miguna. What I am certain about is that he has made it very clear that he wants to come back to Kenya, and that is the course that I believe he will continue to pursue. And so we will be exploring all legal options that are available to see to it that he comes back to Kenya. He is adamant he will come back to Kenya.

CO: He's adamant to comeback. We spoke with Mr. Miguna’s wife, Jane, here in Canada, who very upset. She was very emotional when we spoke with her. She said she felt there was no need for him to return to Kenya — that others could carry the ball. And that he's put himself in grave danger, given how angry the government is with him, the president is with him. What do you say to her?

JS: You know once a person has a conviction about something it's very hard to shake it. And Miguna Miguna is a man of conviction. He is a person of principle. Once he has decided on a course of action, he's very hard to convince otherwise. He becomes intractable, and that is an admirable quality. It is through people like him that we have had changes in the world. It is through the conviction of people like Nelson Mandela who were willing to be jailed, to suffer personal loss at great expense that change apartheid was brought out in South Africa. And so Miguna Miguna’s conviction is what is now might just be the thing that we be change this country.

CO: Ms. Soweto, I appreciate speaking with you. We will be following this story closely. Thank you.

JS: Thank you too.

CO: Goodnight

JS: Goodnight. Bye bye.

JD: Julie Soweto is a lawyer representing Miguna Miguna, a Kenyan-Canadian opposition activist. We reached Ms. Soweto in Nairobi.

Basement Tom Thomson sketch

Guest: Glenna Gardiner

JD: The sketch has been in her family for 80 years. Her father insisted it was the work of a master. And despite everyone else’s skepticism, he insisted on it so many times that it became a bit of a running family joke. But when her dad died, Glenna Gardiner held onto the artwork, even though she strongly felt it was no masterpiece. She tucked it away in her basement to collect dust. But you know what? It turns out dad was right all along. We reached Glenna Gardiner in Edmonton.

CO: Glenna, what did you think when you found out that this painted sketch that's been in your family for decades was actually by Tom Thomson.

GLENNA GARDINER: Well, you know it's sort of surreal disbelief. This kind of thing doesn't happen to me. Other people might come across treasures, but I didn't expect it.

CO: But you could have expected. Didn’t your dad to tell you that it was by Tom Thomson?

GG: I know, but my dad used to joke around a lot. And so I used to think it was a hopeful thing for him to say on his part, not necessarily that it was a truth.

CO: So he never convinced you. How often did he say that this painting that you had was by the master?

GG: I wouldn't be able to put a number on it.

CO: And where was it when you finally decided that you should do something with it?

GG: It was in my basement. I had moved from one place to another. And I had a stack of paintings, and they were all stacked up, they weren't lined up or anything. And my girlfriend was visiting, and we were looking through these things. And she says oh, Glenna, this might be really valuable. You should get it evaluated. And I thought oh yeah, sure. And I didn't know who to go to do that sort of thing. But she persisted, and in another year she kept on after me. I guess it was October 2016, as a gag I sent it to her as a birthday present. She waited for about a year, but she finally took it in Vancouver.

CO: And what did she find out?

GG: Well, they said she treated it with great respect. I was very sort of casual with it. And, of course, it didn't look like much of anything. It was coats of varnish and stuff on it. It was sort of a dull picture.

CO: So you didn't like it?

GG: Well, I liked it because it was part of my dad's joy, you know? But I wasn't really taken by the picture itself.

CO: What does it look like?

GG: Well, before it was refinished, it just sort of looked like a yellowy color in the sky and dull looking lake. But what after it got restored, the sky is much brighter, and there’s more colour in the hills. And the waves are much more distinct.

CO: So your friend took it in for evaluation. How did she react when she got the news that it was a Tom Thomson?

GG: She was really excited; just really thrilled that it proved her right that it was something worth looking at.

CO: And so what happened when she told you? How did you react?

GG: Disbelief still, you know? When I see a check in my hand, I might really believe it. But all this seems sort of surreal.

CO: And you said the check in your hand. So how much does is this sketch worth?

GG: Well, they're saying between 125,000 and 175,000 for a sketch.

CO: So when you learned that, how did you react?

GG: Honestly, I’m going to keep on saying disbelief. It seemed like an awful lot of money, and what would I do with that? But I am going to take my girlfriend that got it evaluated we're going to go for a trip into the Mediterranean, and we'll take her husband along to carry the luggage.

CO: So you are going to sell this painting?

GG: Yeah.

CO: Glenna, just tell us how your father came to own this sketch?

GG: Well, he was at Emmanuel College, and there was some man that was in the library that was trying to get a gallery of sorts going, but he ran out of money. And the paintings that he had he gave to various students, and he gave one of them to my father. And so dad just had it since 1938 I think it was.

CO: Is there a part of you that is selling this with regret, given what it meant to your dad — the connections to your father?

GG: Yeah, there is some of that. But I don't know the true value of art, but I've got a good copy of it. And if I want to look at the copy I’ve got it with me, so I'll be OK.

CO: What would your dad think? Well, first of all, what would he think of the fact that it's now confirmed that he was right all the time he was telling you it was a Tom Thomson?

GG: He must feel vindicated. My friend feels that he's laughing now at us and all the fun we're having with this.

CO: So your dad you think he's having a good laugh. But you and your friend give a toast to him, and to Tom Thomson, when you're on that Mediterranean cruise.

GG: Oh for sure, It’ll be a special time.

CO: It sure will. Glenna, it's great to talk to you. Thank you.

GG: Oh, you're welcome.

CO: Take care.

GG: Same to you. Bye now.

JD: We reached Glenna Gardiner in Edmonton. And if you'd like to see some photographs of the Tom Thomson, head to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Chinese space station

SOUNDCLIP

LOTTIE WILLIAMS: Because my first thought was that it was something from a shooting star, which meant that maybe it might be radioactive or something, you know? So I didn't want to pick it up, even though I had gloves on.

JD: The voice of Lottie Williams. On January 22nd, of 1997, she was walking in a park in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Little did she know that she was on a collision course...with destiny. Oh! Or wait! Rather, that destiny...was on a collision course with her. For on that fateful night, Ms. Williams became the only person in human history to be pulverized by space junk. I'm exaggerating a bit. She wasn't "pulverized", per se. A six-inch piece of space debris lightly bounced off her shoulder, injuring her not at all. She later told Fox News, quote, "the weight was comparable to an empty soda can." Unquote. But just because only one person has ever been hit by space junk doesn't mean we shouldn't be afraid of the Chinese space station that's about to plummet to Earth. The European Space Agency's Space Debris Office currently projects that the Tiangong 1 space station will re-enter Earth's atmosphere sometime this weekend. It weighs 8-point-5 metric tonnes, it is the size of a bus, and some scientists speculate that China has lost control of it. On top of those scary-sounding facts, the Washington Post reports, quote, "Based on Tiangong 1's orbit, it will come to Earth somewhere between latitudes of 43 degrees north and 43 degrees south, or roughly somewhere over most of the United States, China, Africa, southern Europe, Australia and South America." Unquote. Now, yes, the odds of anyone in that vast portion of our planet being hit by a piece of Tiangong 1 are roughly one-in-300-trillion. But tell that to Lottie Williams, whose life was forever changed in one fateful moment. Because ever since, she's had to tell the same story over and over again, which, you know. Sometimes she probably doesn't feel like it.

Part 2: Sacramento shooting, Saskatchewan church follow-up

Sacramento shooting

Guest: Les Simmons

JD: Family, friends, and community members gathered for the funeral of 22-year-old Stephon Clark today. Hundreds of people gathered at the church in Sacramento — a week-and-a-half after Mr. Clark was fatally shot by police in his grandmother's backyard. Police say they believed he was holding a gun on the night of the shooting. Only a cellphone was found at the scene. And since Mr. Clark's death, angry demonstrators have staged multiple protests about yet another killing of yet another unarmed black man. Civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton delivered the eulogy at this afternoon's service. Here's what he said, as he was hugged by Mr. Clark's brother, Stevante.

SOUNDCLIP

AL SHARPTON: We keep saying we can do whatever, but I want you folks in California to know that there's nothing wrong with how these young people are standing up. They’re not being violent; they're asking for you to stop being violent to them. They’re not trying to hurt anybody; they’re trying to express their pain. And anybody else won’t stand with them, I wanted this brother, I wanted this mother, and this grandmother to know they won't stand alone. I flew 3,000 miles not for y'all, but for them. We got their back. I am. I am. I am. You can do louder than that. Louder. Louder

JD: Les Simmons is a pastor and social activist who has been supporting Stephon Clark's family. We reached him in Sacramento today, before the funeral.

CO: Pastor Simmons, what is going through your mind today as you prepare for Stephon Clark's funeral?

LES SIMMONS: The first thing that’s really going to is how hard this has been and will be for the Clark family, for his two kids, his fiancé, his brother, sister, his mom, his grandmother, entire family, and then secondly, for friends and close calls relatives. In our culture, you know our friends that we grew up with quickly become cousins, and then older folks quickly become uncles. And in our culture, we become family really close. And so my heart is really in a place of hurt for the family and the community as a whole.

CO: How is this family? I know you have spent time with them; you're trying to help them through this. How are they coping?

LS: The family is doing the best they can, especially the ones that are at the house during the time of the shooting. As you can imagine, this has been deeply traumatizing for them to process and go through. Going back to the house — I'm referring to Ms. Thompson going back to her house where her grandson was murdered, brutally shot, leaving him dead, and her having to see the image of that. As you can imagine, for Stevante, Stephon’s brother, he's in a place of trauma, but resilience as well. As you can imagine, for all of the family, it's been a difficult, difficult time.

CO: Of course, many people have seen the police body cam video that shows at least part of what happened, and the police arriving in the backyard. The family has seen that, you were with them when the family watched it. That must be very difficult for them?

LS: Yeah, for the family that chose to watch the video, during that moment of seeing both the footage from the helicopter, the footage from the two officers body cams, and then listening to the footage that they didn't mute their mics on, it was a very much surreal, challenging space that the courage of the family that did listen, and hear, and see that, I mean it did was a very, very tough moment. But they chose to lean in. And those that didn't you know bless their heart as well. It was such a fragile space to watch a loved one brutally killed with twenty rounds being fired. But now the world sees as a result of that footage being released.

CO: And, of course, it raises as many questions as it answers, doesn't it? The video coverage we can see. What questions does the family still have about what happened?

LS: I think the world has the same questions as a family has. First off, why did it have to happen? Which it's a real why? It's a real why when you understand that these officers were equipped with less lethal forms of weapons. Why did it have to happen to a person in his own backyard? Why did they have to use such lethal force? Why did they mute their mics? Why couldn't Stephon Clark been given the opportunity to live through interaction with law enforcement? It was as if he was seen doing something that is still in question. He was judged, he was sentenced, and he was executed. And the community is asking why? And then they're asking what are you going to do to stop this from happening? And then the community is asking what retribution is going to be given to the family? Restitution is going to be given to the family? How are we going to create healing for the family? And then how are we going to hold the officers accountable for their actions? How is the city, how is the police department, wow is the district attorney — which they've handed it over to the attorney-general — how are they going to give this community confidence in this moment, and hold these officers accountable?

CO: There are so many protests, aren’t there? And even some outside the NBA games. The way the team has responded It's just been extraordinary your city's reaction to Stephon Clark's death. What does that do for the family? Does that help?

LS: Well, it does help. The community and the world is actually responding, and in ways that with each march, each protest, there is an added momentum that says we see you, Stephon Clark. We see the Clark family. And so it definitely helps build the confidence of the family that they have the support of the community. And then the team's reaction to the tragic death of Stephon Clark, they’ve leaned in and really are doing some things to support the family. They're doing some things to support a youth forum that will take place this week. And they’ve leaned in to offer some sponsorship. And players are leaning in to help facilitate some discussion around trauma, around the difficulties of growing up in urban communities. Yeah the Kings have definitely said we want to do more, we want to create the renaissance that’s happening in the midtown area and around the other areas of Sacramento. We want to make sure that communities like Stephon grew up in are not overlooked. And so while we’re appreciative of that, we're still at a place where that won't bring Stephon Clark back. And we’re still at a place of wanting to reform and bring justice to the family and for the family, and reform the system that leaves so many young black men and women dead at the end of a police interaction.

CO: Pastor Simmons, I know you want to get going to the funeral. And I really appreciate that you would speak with us. Thank you.

LS: Thank you.

JD: Pastor Les Simmons has been supporting Stephon Clark's family. We spoke with him before Stephon Clark's funeral today from Sacramento, California. And if you'd like to see some photographs of the protests that have been taking place since Mr. Clark's death, visit our website.

Listener Response: Pope no apology/ Saskatchewan church follow-up

Guest: Mark Arcand

JD: No apologies about no apology. Last night, on the program, we spoke to Father Thomas Rosica about Pope Francis's decision not to apologize to Canada's Indigenous people for the Catholic Church's role in the residential school system. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops announced that Pope Francis had carefully considered the request but that, quote, "He felt that he could not personally respond." Unquote. Father Rosica strongly defended that decision on the program. And then we heard from you.

CO: Mike Warland tweeted: "This seems to be Vatican-speak for: Go away and find compassion somewhere other than the Catholic Church." Twitter user @hirider750 added: "Disgusting. Catholic teachings are full of the word forgiveness, yet its leader can't say we're sorry for their horrendous actions."

JD: But some of you did see it differently. Brett Blaikie tweeted, quote, "While I have no regard for the Pope whatever, apologies don't seem to have accomplished much: it's like they breed new apologies." Unquote. On Facebook, Shawn Charland wrote: "I'm willing to give this pope the benefit of the doubt. There are layers of bureaucrats between us and his true message. But to keep his credibility with Canadians, and anyone else who is awake enough to care, he needs to not staff this one out."

CO: And finally, on Facebook, Jai Mills wrote: "The Indigenous Peoples of Canada deserve an apology. Every other church has apologized for what they did to them; the Government of Canada has apologized as well. What possible theological grounds can there be for the Pope to refuse to apologize? This is NOT what Jesus taught. It is shameful. Hearing the generosity of some Indigenous Leaders in continuing to hope for an apology from the Catholic Church is heartbreaking."

JD: Mark Arcand is also disappointed with the Pope's decision. He is the chief of the Saskatoon Tribal Council.

CO: Chief Arcand, what did you think when you heard that Pope Francis said he cannot apologize for what the Catholic Church did in residential schools?

MARK ARCAND: My first initial thought was disappointment. For myself, I was disappointed that the First Nations people that have been through residential schools will not get the proper apology, but also the respect that they deserve. And the reason why I was disappointed in that is because of the legacy that the residential schools has been put on are people. The poverty — you have almost 5,000 children in care in the province of Saskatchewan, First Nations children. You have an extremely high population of First Nations inmates in the correctional system, and also the federal institution, the young offenders institution. These are all causes of residential school.

CO: We spoke with a Father Rosica, who was speaking on behalf of the bishops, and explaining the pope's letter. We spoke to him yesterday, and he said that an apology would not be a meaningful gesture. That the Church is seeking a more authentic encounter — a deeper relationship — and that the apology would be meaningless. You said that the Church is working in different ways on the local level. Have you seen these kinds of efforts from the Catholic Church in your community?

MA: Some of them, yes, they've been working together to work with First Nations organizations, right? So there is I don't want to say an extreme rise of working together, it's starting the discussion. However, the top person above the bishops is the pope. So at the end of the day, it would be meaningful to hear it from the pope because in Saskatchewan, we've had the most residential schools, the most people go to residentials. So this is why in Saskatchewan, we believe it's important that they come or he comes. And I've said this publicly: the door is open to come to the Treaty Six territory and address the First Nations people. And I hope he reconsiders that because it will be meaningful.

CO: Father Rosica said that the Vatican doesn't respond to interest groups or special interest groups. That they're having meaningful dialogue at other levels with the Indigenous community in Canada, they don't need to respond to this request or this this action number 58 that's in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. How much of the Indigenous community of Canada would like to see this apology from the pope?

MA: Well again, I think all the people from across Canada would like to see this apology from the pope. I feel that the pope has set a standard when we it comes to apologies because he's made apologies to Bolivia and to Ireland in regards to sexual abuse and colonisation. So when you look at the First Nations people, the residential schools had those same effects: sexual abuse, colonisation. And my point is the bishops that are saying it's not meaningful. Well, it was meaningful to the Bolivian people and to the Ireland people. It should be meaningful to us because we went through the same thing, if not worse. We also have in there physical abuse, mental abuse, you know sexual abuse, all of the abuses that have harmed our people for intergenerational trauma. It's not just the survivors, it's the families, it’s the children, it's the grandchildren. So they should be considering that if the Pope made those apologies to Bolivia and Ireland under the same circumstances.

CO: The Father Rosica we spoke with, and also the letter from the bishops says that the pope is not closing the door on some visit to Canada, and to be with Indigenous people. Though it may not even be this pope; it may be a future pope. So how important is it that the visit be soon, and this apology issued? How important is it that happens now?

MA: Well, I believe it's very important that it happens now because the pope doesn't do it now, we're still losing a lot of our first nations people — our elders — that were part of residential school. Somebody that comes in after and does it — a new pope — could be X amount of years down the line. And when all of our First Nations people have passed and gone onto the spirit world, they won't be able to hear that direct apology. So it's very important that it happens now. You know there was plans, there was discussions moving forward to have him in Saskatoon to do this. There was an extended invitation, and that invitation is still open for the pope to come out and be part of this because it's meaningful to the people that have been through the sexual abuse, the physical abuse, the mental abuse. So they can begin their journey to heal along with their families.

CO: Chief Arcand, I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

MA: Thank you very much, you have a great day.

CO: You too. Bye bye.

MA: Thanks, bye.

JD Mark Arcand is the chief of the Saskatoon Tribal Council. We reached him in Saskatoon.

Knuckle cracking

SOUNDCLIP

JEROME FRYER: I can spontaneously you know crack you know all my fingers.

CO: Do you want to give us a sample of that?

JF: Over the phone here?

CO: Can you do that? Put the phone down and crack your knuckles for us?

JF: Sure. There you go.

CO: That bothers me as much as it did when the boys did it in school.

JD: That's a clip from Carol's conversation with B.C. chiropractor Jerome Fryer, back in 2015. At the time, Mr. Fryer — who, incidentally, was known as the "Wayne Gretzky of knuckle-cracking" — he told us about new research he thought unlocked the mystery of the pop-locking finger trick. It was called the "pull my finger study". To the absolute delight of those of use with more base senses of humour, researchers used MRI-imaging to show popping knuckles formed bubbles in the joints that might be beneficial. Today though, research published in Scientific Reports burst those bubbles. The new study used an echo-free chamber to show the cracking sound occurs when the bubbles collapse, rather than when they form. Conclusion: when it comes to the value of popping knuckles, scientists still haven't cracked the case. Before we rap him on the knuckles any further, here's Mr. Fryer telling Carol about the mysterious joints back in 2015.

SOUNDCLIP

JF: This will help us understand more clearly about the physics of synovial Joints and their health. If we can understand the sound mechanisms and all the other things that go along with the joint — when the joint is separated, it makes a noise. My hope is that we can continue to look at improving manual therapies for these joints.

CO: So it actually might be beneficial to pop joints, or to stretch it out a bit and let this fluid get in?

JF: Yes, and I think there is a right way to do it and potentially a way that you don't want to do it. But this is all still speculation. Dr. Unger in I think I'm quite sure it's 2007, won a Nobel Prize on his knuckle cracking study. And he cracked his knuckles on his left hand for approximately 60 years. He did it daily, and he left his right hand alone. So he didn't crack his right hand at all. And after 60 years, they did an investigation and they couldn't see any comparison difference between the two hands. So I reached out to Dr. Unger because I want to know how he cracked his knuckle, and he cracked as knuckle by pulling. So I think it's the safest way to crack your knuckles.

JD: From our archives, that's B.C. chiropractor Jerome Fryer, telling Carol about the potential benefits of popping knuckles.

Part three: Mexico journalist shooting, Atlantic fiction author couple

Rusty Staub obit

JD: Au revoir, Le Grande Orange. The superstar former Montreal Expo Rusty Staub has died. He was seventy-three years old. He was born Daniel Joseph Staub. But thanks to his bright red hair — and the traditions of baseball — he was given the nicknames "Rusty" and "Orange". Mr. Staub was an original member of the Expos, he was traded to the team in 1969, just before the start of their first season. He only stayed for 3-and-a-half years, but he was a fan favourite for hitting home runs, and for learning French. In 1993, his jersey — number 10 — was the first to be retired by the Expos. After leaving Montreal, Mr. Staub played for the New York Mets, Houston, Detroit, and Texas. Post-baseball, he became a chef and restaurateur. In 1989, he told the late CBC host Stuart Maclean about the career change, on "Morningside". Here's part of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

RUSTY STAUB: I started to cook out of necessity when I was in instruction league in 1961. We weren't taking in very much money, and I used to write home and every once in a while, even call and say how do you do this? I made a deal with my roommates that I would do all the cooking and the buying, if they would do all the cleaning up. So that's how it really started. As my career progressed, particularly with this orange crop on top of my head, it got more and more difficult for me to be out and be only with a table that I was sitting at. I just started entertaining and a little more often, trying to become more proficient at it. Working with my family, and with my mom and my father were excellent chefs. You know I mean the cooks anyway. I think as I got to Montreal, I started working more in kitchens and learning from chefs directly. There started to be a little notoriety about that. I guess was a little unusual for an athlete to be involved in that. But I have never considered myself a gourmet cook. I've been able to work with some. I have been able to learn how to do certain things that are tremendous. Being a chef and being a cook are two really big different things.

STUART MACLEAN: Talk about that for a moment: the difference between a chef and a cook.

RS: Well, I mean anybody can get in their kitchen and cook. When you're preparing a meal and you have to serve it in a certain amount of time — up to 125-130 people sometimes — you've got appetizers come in at the same time main course is coming. It's a real profession. It's hot. It's never cool in those kitchens. People that think being a chef has is a wondrous thing probably have never really been in there when they’ve really had to work. It's a special profession. It's a certain dedication, just like there's a dedication for a baseball player, or somebody in the broadcasting field. These guys really do have a special dedication and take the lumps that come with being a chef you know quite easily.

JD: From 1989, that was former Montreal Expo Rusty Staub, speaking to Stuart Maclean. Le Grand Orange died this week. He was seventy-three years old.

Mexican journalist shooting

Guest: Jan-Albert Hootsen

JD: It's far too common to hear of Mexican journalists being murdered for doing their jobs. What you don't hear often is a journalist's killers facing justice. But in the Mexican state of Varacruz yesterday, two police officers were sentenced to twenty-five years in jail for the murder of local newspaper editor Moises Sanchez. And despite the rare conviction, two high-profile men accused in his death are still at large. Jan-Albert Hootsen has been following the case. He's the Mexico Representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists. We reached him in Mexico City.

CO: Mr. Hootsen, I know you have spoken to Moises Sanchez’s son. How is he feeling about this verdict?

JAN-ALBERT Hootsen: Well, the verdict took the family by surprise. They weren’t notified about the verdict until the state attorney-general's office issued a press release. Snd they have mixed feelings on the verdicts. On the one hand, they're happy that there is a slight advantage in the case because it was lingering in impunity for about three years. But on the other hand, the two people who have now been convicted were only convicted as accomplices — as police officers — who knew that the kidnapping and later the killing was happening and did nothing to stop it, while the main suspects are still either at large or in jail and not on trial yet.

CO: So what did happen to Moises Sanchez? This is going back to January 2^nd, 2015. Tell us what happened to him?

JAH: Well, Moises Sanchez, who was the editor of a small local newspaper he financed himself, had recently created some uncomfortable situations for the mayor because of his involvement in a local vigilante group, and because of his severe criticism of the mayor and local authorities in his newspaper. So he was kidnapped by a group of armed men, taken away from his home, and soon afterwards, killed.

CO: A lot of people were arrested. Who was initially held responsible for it?

JAH: Initially, the person who was arrested was a man who was a former police officer who became a drug trafficker and leader of a local criminal gang. And he confessed to the murder, and told the authorities that he was given the order by the head of security of the local mayor, who in turn had received the order to allegedly kill Moises from the mayor himself. Later on, the head of security was arrested as well, but released. And he hasn't been seen ever since, neither has the mayor. And the initial suspect is still in jail.

CO: But there were about 36 people — police officers — who were arrested right after this. What happened to them?

JAH: Well, they were arrested and questioned. But later on, there was not enough evidence to convict them, apparently. Although, obviously, the press freedom organizations and journalists in Varacruz have voiced their concern about the way the investigation was carried out. And ultimately, there was no substantial case against them.

CO: What did they do to Moises Sanchez?

JAH: Well, we don't know exactly what happened to him shortly after he was kidnapped. He was most likely killed shortly afterwards. But the killing was absolutely gruesome. He was the most likely tortured. His body was dismembered and dropped in a ditch later on, where it was found about 20 days after he was kidnapped from his home.

CO: And there was some suggestion that the argument was that he wasn't really a journalist — this wasn't the murder of a journalist. What was that all about?

JAH: Well, that, unfortunately, was quite a common practice under former Varacruz State Governor Havier Duarte. More than 20 journalists were killed while he was governor. And usually the practices of the authorities would either consider the motives to not have anything to do with their journalism. Or in the case of Moises and some others, just flat out deny that they were journalists. In the case of Moises, he was a taxi driver, and had lots of odd jobs. But he used those jobs to finance a local newspaper; he paid it all with his own money. And it was a serious newspaper that was circulated here on an irregular basis, which was for both the state and the federal authorities, the reason to not consider him a real journalist.

CO: Not only was he a real journalist and had this weekly newspaper, but he took on the mayor. I mean what he must have known because of the violence and the number of journalists who've been killed in that state. Did he know that he was taking his life in his hands by doing any kind of journalism, especially that which is critical of the government?

JAH: Absolutely, based on interviews that I've had with his family, with his son, and with journalists who knew him well, Moises was very well aware of the dangers of being critical, especially in the region which has long been known as a hotbed for organized crime. But according to Moises’s son, Jorge, the victim ultimately took the risk because he felt that it was a civic duty to inform people about what was going on in the area. And also because journalism and writing was his passion, his calling.

CO: As being part of the Committee to Protect Journalists, and you represent Mexico, you know that Mexico is regarded as one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists. And one of the worst for impunity for the authorities not investigating or prosecuting those who kill journalists. Is this a turning point? Are you encouraged to dob by the fact that some people have been prosecuted for this murder?

JAH: Well, as we stated in the alert that we released yesterday, we welcome this in advance, as a small step forward in a case that has long languished in impunity for about three years. We also have to know that in you know last year and this year, there have been a few arrests in a few pending cases, including one in the case of a journalist who was murdered in January in the north of the country. So we see some movement towards the right direction. But, unfortunately, the impunity levels Mexico are still among the highest in the world. Hopefully, what's going on Varacruz what's going on in Tamaulipas, the other arrest, may prove to be a move towards the right direction. We have to continue to be very vigilant. We have to be very critical of the authorities because the impunity level is still way too high.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr. Hootsen, thank you.

JAH: Thank you.

JD: Jan-Albert Hootsen is the Mexico Representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists. We reached him in Mexico City.

Rabia Chaudry

JD: His case was plucked from obscurity and put on the international stage. Adnan Syed was a teenager in Baltimore when he was convicted for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. For fourteen years, he sat in prison, with little attention being paid to his case, until 2014, when the hit podcast "Serial" brought to life new information about the investigation. Well, today, a Maryland appeals court said ordered Mr. Syed be granted a new trial. In 2015, we spoke with Mr. Syed's family friend, Rabia Chaudry — when he was first granted the right to appeal his case. She described a letter Mr. Syed had received from a former classmate named Asia McLain. Here's part of that interview, from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

RABIA CHAUDRY: You know when Adnan was first arrested, immediately after his arrest, and for folks who don't know, he was arrested for the murder of a classmate who also he had been dating briefly for about six months. And the victim you know she disappeared right after school. And the state's argument at trial was that she was killed shortly after school — literally by 2:36, at a very specific time. And you know by the time they had arrested Adnan you know it was weeks and weeks, maybe even a couple months later. And Asia had immediately written him letters saying I remember the day that Hae Min Lee disappeared, and I remember you were with me at the library after school. So he sent the letters to his lawyer, and the lawyer came back and said to him that her alibi does not check out. But after he was convicted when I spoke to him literally the same day, I said God, Adnan, it was just about like that 20 minutes of time. And you know your lawyer failed to establish where you were in those 20 minutes. And he said well, you know there was this girl who wrote to me, but it didn't check out. So when I followed up, I contacted her and she said that nobody contacted her. So you cannot raise this in a direct appeal, you have to wait for years for something called post-conviction appeal. When we didn't raise it — and it was almost ten years later, 12 years later — by that time, Asia had kind of forgotten about the case. All she knew was that she had never been to the trial. She just knew Adnan had been convicted and she assumed that there was other evidence. And so she thought there was convicted killer who has found me, and is now is trying to get me to come to his appeal. And she just got very scared. So our private investigator had reached out and she said I'm not interested. And so she didn't know even what her role was. And then she'd listened to the podcast, and she realized that what had really happened with Adnan.

CO: And so now she will be a witness if this is retried?

RC: Oh yes, she's come back, and she's given the affidavit, and she's told the court in a sworn affidavit that if he's given a new appeal, I will testify. And also she's alleged that she spoke to the prosecutor in the case when we first contacted her. And the prosecutor discouraged her from testifying, and said don't come. That you know her documents don't matter because she was pressured to write them. And so Asia's new affidavit actually says that the prosecutor under oath has lied to the court because I never said that I was pressured. I was not pressured. I remember writing those letters. I remember writing the affidavit. And I still stick by my story.

JD: From 2015, that was Rabia Chaudry. Today, a Maryland appeals court ruled that Adnan Syed should get a new trial. Mr. Syed's case was the subject of the first season of the hit podcast "Serial."

Atlantic fiction couple

JD: It may have been a fairy-tale wedding. But the marriage itself revolves around longer and much more complex stories. Now, a Cape Breton couple's vows are being tested like never before — because they're both authors, and they're both in contention for the same literary award. Sarah Faber's debut novel "All is Beauty Now" and Oisin Curran's second novel "Blood Fable" are both nominated for the Thomas Raddall Atlantic Fiction Award. We reached them both in Cape Breton.

CO: Sarah and Oisin, big congratulations to both of you.

SARAH FABER: Thank you.

OISIN CURRAN: Thank you very much.

CO: Sarah, I’ll start with you. How awkward is this?

SF: You know it's not really. We're really happy for each other, and we're happy for ourselves. I mean we're not completely without ambition. So, of course, it's always nice to actually get the win or the title because you know, for better or for worse, awards do help. But we do live in the same house and share all the same expenses, so it would be nice if either of us were to win.

CO: Oisin, are you competitive by nature?

OC: Sadly, I'm not at all competitive, which is I feel like we're a bit boring in that way. But I'm actually really, really excited for Sarah. I mean and for me, but I really will be equally happy if she wins. That said, I'm a bit competitive with our third nominee, even though she's reported to be a lovely person, I really hope that one of us wins.

CO: This is Carol Bruneau, and she's in Halifax. Who knows, right? OK, so let's talk a bit about your books themselves. Sarrah, your book is “All is Beauty Now”, and set in Rio de Janeiro. Tell us a bit more about it?

SF: So my book is set in the 60s in Brazil, and it's about a family who are about to move to Canada. And just as they're sort of getting ready, their eldest daughter goes missing. And that, of course, delays everything. And then they're also sort of grappling with the fact that the father has bipolar disorder. So he starts to kind of unravel. And the family is just at this real crisis point. And that's when the story takes place.

CO: And, Oisin, your book is “Blood Fable”, set in a Buddhist community in Maine.

OC: That's right, yeah. The year is 1980, and the community is unraveling. The leader of the community is being exposed as being a corrupt leader. And the narrator is an 11-year-old boy, whose mother is diagnosed with cancer. And so he's kind of to deal with these two issues in his life he starts to invent a fable about his past life. And he tells the story to his parents as kind of coping mechanism.

CO: So both books are about families in the midst of crisis. Hopefully, yours isn't.

SF: No.

CO: You have a couple of kids, don't you?

SF: We do, yeah. We have a five-year-old and a seven-year-old; a boy and a girl.

CO: OK, so how does that work? How do you get any writing done?

CO: Oh, go crazy, Sarah.

SF: Yeah, I know! I'm living like a wild life out here in the woods.

CO: Live the dream. Oisin, do you have anything like that that you're thinking about?

OC: I’d love to get a really good table.

CO: When I think about what goes on under that roof you're going to repair, I mean this range of imagination that you have for these two books going from Rio de Janeiro to Maine and everything in between, there's a lot going on in your lives — in your imaginations.

SF: Because it’s not really going on in our day-to-day lives.

CO: With these two kids and you are always looking for teachable moments, are you trying to show that you're both very supportive of each other, there's no competition, it doesn't matter who wins, it's how you play the game. Is this one of those moments?

SF: I don't know how much they've actually absorbed about how it actually works. They know that there's a book contest, and that we're both involved. I don't know if they realize it's going to be one or the other of us. I think they just understand that it would be exciting if one of us won.

OC: Our son said the other day oh, you won't win. You guys never win anything.

CO: Well, that's helpful.

CO: Sarah and Oisin, we will be watching in May to see Carol Bruneau win the award. Sorry! No, to see the award and it's just delightful to speak with both of you. Thank you.

OC: Thank you.

SF: Thank you so much.

CO: All right. Bye bye.

OC: Bye bye.

SF: Bye bye.

JD: That was the married couple Sarah Faber and Oisin Curran, who have both been nominated for the Thomas Raddall Atlantic Fiction Award.

Lloyd Robertson crash

JD: It's been seven years now since Lloyd Robertson has delivered his signature sign-off from behind his desk at CTV News: "That's the kind of day it's been." But today, the retired news anchor stepped out from retirement, and from behind the wheel of his car, to give a very personal account of exactly what kind of day it's been — at least for him. Early this morning, Mr. Robertson was involved in a multi-vehicle accident on Don Valley Parkway in Toronto — after a car struck his SUV and sent him spinning out of control. And after he determined he was, indeed, unhurt, it didn't take long for his reporter instincts to kick in. Mr. Robertson soon had mic in his hand, and delivered the following report for news channel CP24.

SOUNDCLIP

LLOYD ROBERTSO: I was coming along about 100K, no more. And bang! I spun out and I spun out because I was hit right here — this was the point of impact of the back end. And I'm told by police friends that this is where they hit them when they want to spin them out when they’re chasing someone. I was in the middle lane, I headed off to the left land, and then into the medium, crushed the medium, spun me out to the right, I headed around to the right, hit a van, knocked the van over, and then I continued on for a bit and came to a stop. When I came to a stop, you know you're trying to figure out where you are and what's happened. The airbags came out; they worked beautifully. I was still in one piece; I knew that. I got out of the car, and I was able to walk away from this. And it's a pretty bad accident as accidents go, and of accidents I've covered over the years myself. So anyway, we're in one piece. Here we are — just a little accident.

JD: For the record, veteran CTV news anchor Lloyd Robertson, stepping out of retirement to report on a collision on Toronto's Don Valley Parkway early today — in which he was involved. The driver of the vehicle that struck Mr. Robertson's car has been charged with reckless driving. Mr. Robertson, as we said, was unhurt, and only minor injuries were reported in the accident.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 29, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode