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 May 18, 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: Reconcilable differences. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould explains the Federal Government's new changes to the way Canadians divorce, which he says are designed to put kids first.

JD: Take me to church. Until recently, if you had asked a curator at the Art Gallery of Ontario that day to walk you to a classic called Indian Church. Now, that painting goes by a controversial new name.

CO: They're afraid they're going to have to leave it there. It's a wrap for Interview Magazine. But our guest recalls its halcyon days of the 70s and the watchful eye and stylish wig of Andy Warhol.

JD: Face value. The web masters at www.mugshots.com are charged with extortion for charging people to have their photographs taken down, including our guest, who was exonerated after 15 years in prison.

CO: You could call it a wild goose chase, but only because Professor David Bird is shooting Canadian geese away from national Bird's status and hoping it's bestowed upon the newly renamed Canada jay.

JD: And… what's the matter is the cats got their own tongues. An Ontario man's dramatic video of two lynxes arguing goes viral. And while their vocalizations may sound tough to each other, humans are howling they're howling.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Tuesday edition. Radio that suggests you click on the hyper-lynxes.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Family law changes, interview mag closes Canada jay

Family law changes

Guest: Jody Wilson-Raybould

JD: Ottawa is calling it the biggest overhaul to Canada's divorce laws in the past 20 years. This afternoon, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould tabled legislation that would rewrite three federal laws governing the way Canadians divorce, especially, what happens to their kids. The idea is supposed to be to put the interests of those kids front and centre. But that's been the idea before. We reached Minister Wilson-Raybould in Ottawa.

CO: Minister Wilson-Raybould, what is wrong with the way Canada's family courts are working now? What are you trying to fix with this legislation?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well, there's nothing specifically wrong with the way the courts are working. What we're doing on bills C-78 is amending threes federal pieces of legislation, including the divorce act, and wanting to update the act, which hasn't been substantively updated in over 20 years. And specifically, if I was to sum up in one line, we're putting the best interests of the child at the centre in terms of how we proceed in separation and divorce.

CO: Isn't that already the case? I mean isn't that how the courts are supposed to be looking at divorces and separations when there are kids involved? They’re supposed to be looking after the best interests of the kids. So what's wrong with that that you needed to fix?

JWR: Well, there's nothing wrong with that, and we're continuing with putting the best interests of the child at the centre. But what we've done in this bill is that we want to provide clarity around the best interests of the child by putting more information into the divorce act that would list specific factors to be considered beyond the primary consideration of the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

CO: Can you add some specifics? like what needed to be added?

JWR: Well, sure. We want to put in the nature of the relationship of the child to the parents. We have put in a provision that would take into account the child's interest if they have the ability to relay their interests in terms of which parent they would want to reside with. Another factor looks at the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including indigenous upbringing and heritage. But we also have put in there factors dealing with family violence, which is a substantial change that is not currently in the in the Divorce Act.

CO: But you're changing things like language — instead of talking about custody and access where we're going to be talking about what? You're changing the Nomenclature around this, right?

JWR: We are. The proposal is to remove the language, as you say, of custody and access and a move from what has been deemed by many as a winner and a loser situation in terms of custody and access towards and more parent-friendly where the child is at the centre language. Where we talk about parenting time, where we talk about parenting orders that specifically look at the responsibility of each parent to the child that’s in question.

CO: But isn't the court really an adversarial system to begin with? I mean isn't it about winners and losers? How much does actually changing words like custody and access to making parental responsibility in parenting time. What difference does that make in a system where we see angry parents trying to settle scores through their court battles?

JWR: Well, I think a number of things. You know one of the measures that we've proposed in this bill is to look at out-of-court processes. Look at mediation and other measures to solve these issues out of court. But changing the wording from access and custody to having it focused around the duties of the parents, and ensuring that the best interests of the child are at the centre removes the back and forth between parents in these difficult situations. And ensures that the factors that are in place here that have been drawn from recommendations dating back decades ensure that the child is at the centre and the focus should be on the child.

CO: You mentioned that linguistic, cultural and spiritual heritage should be recognized as part of the things that need to be considered about the child's wellbeing and psychological safety. So we can back to the Sixties Scoop, but we were doing stories even now of children removed from their homes and put into places that have no contact with their spiritual or cultural heritage. How will you change that?

JWR: Well, as I said, in terms of the factors additional factors to be considered with respect to best interests of the child is that a judge or an out-of-court process would take in account many factors, including the cultural and linguistic spiritual upbringing of the child that includes Indigenous children and upbringing. And so that is one additional factor that will be considered depending on the individual circumstances of the particular case the background of both parents. But most specifically the interest of the child in ensuring that they're brought up in a background and have an upbringing that is commensurate with their best interests.

CO: How is it different? What will be the considerations around Indigenous children that will be different?

JWR: Well, I mean it's hard to say specifically on how something will unfold in that particular case because every case is different. I mean some considerations will be around an Indigenous child and their parents, both of whom may be Indigenous, one might be Indigenous. But this is one factor that a decision maker — a judge — would take into consideration in terms of the issue of parenting orders. How tied that child is to their Indigenous heritage, to their culture, to their community. And how parents can ensure that that heritage and culture and background if it's in the best interests of the child to do so continue to ensure that that child is still immersed in that culture. And that maybe by both parents, one parent, or another individual that the child is close to.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. Minister Wilson-Raybould, thank you.

JWR: Thank you very much.

JD: Jody Wilson-Raybould is Canada's Justice Minister. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music: Jazz]

Interview mag closes

Guest: Bob Colacello

JD: The interviews sometimes were dead boring. The kind of mundane chit-chat you might make with your friend. Other times, they were so revealing, it was almost too intimate. That's how Andy Warhol's magazine, “Interview”, worked when he launched it in 1969. It published raw, mostly unedited transcripts of conversations with everyone from David Bowie to Nancy Reagan to Salvador Dali. This week — after nearly fifty years — the magazine filed for bankruptcy, and announced it would be folding "effective immediately." Bob Colacello cut his teeth at Interview magazine as the editor in the 1970s, alongside Andy Warhol. We reached him in New York City.

CO: Bob, what would Andy Warhol say today if he knew Interview magazine had folded?

BOB COLACELLO: Well you know Andy always like to pretend that he didn't care and even that feeling, so he'd probably say oh gee, well, you know we should start something new, you know? But I think he would be crushed. He really loved Interview. He loved having a magazine where he could put all his friends, he could discover new young talents, whether it be in acting, or art, or fashion. He loved the magazine. He loved the idea of having a magazine.

CO: It's a magazine unlike anything else — and never has been. Even in 50 years, we've never seen another thing like it. So how would you describe it if you were talking to someone from Mars?

BC: Well, I think it was the first magazine that focused entirely on people. Every story was on a person — not a theme or a subject. And it was kind of more like a documentary than you know than journalism really. It was like the school newspaper of And Warhol’s factory is how it started off. And it was basically like Andy and his friends: Mick Jagger, Truman Capote, Diana Ross and Cher you know tape recording each other. And you know it was kind of an elite celebrity magazine, or avant garde celebrity magazine. It wasn't you know People magazine actually came out after us.

CO: I mean there are and have been a lot of gossipy celebrity publications — all kinds of rags like that. But this is not like anything else, right?

BC: I mean like everything Andy did I think Andy was a pioneer in mixing the high and the low. And you know art and gossip, or the serious and the humorous. People would say you know even about Andy's paintings like “Campbell's Soup”, or when he did “Mao” or something you know 16 feet high. Is this a joke? And he’d say well, it’s sort of a joke, but it’s also really serious. There was always you know this great high-low mixture, and with a big dose of humour, and also beauty. I mean it was always visually beautiful, very simple layouts, big photographs, which he told me there's only two rules for you as editor: every photograph should be full-page, and no type on photos. I mean he really believed in photography as an art form.

CO: You were 22 years old when you started there, but what was the direction you got as to what you're supposed to do with these interviews?

BC: Well, I remember one of the first issues I edited with my deputy — who also was at Columbia Film School named Glen O'Brien that passed away earlier this year — but anyway, we did this special Elvis Presley issue. And we both wrote poems about Elvis. And Andy looked at those poems and said no more poetry, no more writing, just tape recording. That's what's modern. Andy always said you know everything he did should be fast, easy, cheap and modern. And by modern he meant new. He thought if anything was too hard to do or cost too much money to do, he shouldn't be doing it. We were learning on the job, and he was learning on the job; he’d never published a magazine before, you know?

CO: And, of course, you had this high-tech innovation called the cassette tape recorder.

BC: Right, which Andy carried everywhere he went. He called it his wife, Sony.

CO: Let’s talk about some of the big names that were in Interview magazine. I mean Mick Jagger, Truman Capote, David Bowie. How did you do them? Just describe how you got these stories out of them?

BC: Well, most of these people you just named were already friends of Andy, or in the case like David Bowie, much younger and admiring Andy, and wanted to do a play with Andy — a musical. So they just kind of landed on our doorstep in a way. I mean Jodie Foster, for example, when she was about 13, I got a call from her mother saying this is Brandy Foster, my daughter, Jodie, who was already a big star from “Taxi Driver” is starting to collect art. Can we come down to the factory and look at some prints? They arrive for lunch, and we turn on the tape recorder, and it's our next cover story.

CO: How did the Elvis Presley go?

BC: Well, we didn't do Elvis Presley. We did an interview with Priscilla Presley, who had been divorced from Elvis, and she was a very difficult interview. She came for lunch with a very controlling, very handsome male model boyfriend. And she like wouldn't give an answer until she sort of looked at him, and we couldn't get her to mention the name Elvis. So finally Andy said something like Oh, we went to this really great party at the Iranian embassy last night. They had so much caviar. And Priscilla blurts out Elvis hated caviar. Elvis hated fish. And we were like oh, wow! We finally got like a line about Elvis.

CO: A headline.

BC: A headline, right.

CO: What was your favourite? What was your best moment?

BC: Well, I really like to go to the White House to interview. One that was really fun was when Bianca Jagger interviews Jack Ford, President Ford's young son, in the Lincoln bedroom. And he was wearing his jogging shorts and she was in a Giorgio di Sant' Angelo evening dress, and they were interviewing each other in Jack’s bed while the White House photographer took pictures, which caused this sensation. And then a kind of surreal moment was going to the White House again to interview Nancy Reagan with Andy, because Andy and Nancy were just like on two different planets — she was really square, and she just didn't get Andy. And Andy started off by saying gee, Hollywood people are so mean. They talk behind your back before you even leave the room. And Mrs. Reagan said, “Andy, I think I am a Hollywood person.” So it was an awkward interview. But from a kind of surrealist point of view, it was… you know? I mean that's what Interview did. We just put together a lot of bizarre combinations of people, even if they weren't interviewing each other. It was in an issue you would go from Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve commission, to Iman, to Diane Furstenburg. Every issue is like some crazy dinner party where nobody really knew anybody else, but they all ended up having a great time.

CO: Tell me about Salvador Dali, because that's probably one of the most famous interviews?

BC: Well, Salvador Dali and Andy really liked each other. Dali's spoke in English, French and Spanish simultaneously, so it was not an easy one to transcribe. But Andy was dying to trade portraits with Dali. And you know Andy’s portrait started as Polaroids. Dali, of course, was a real painter painter. Dali would always say yes, let's do each other's portraits. And then his wife, Gala, who was a very tough cookie, would say no trade oil painting for photograph. And then we’d leave, and Andy would say oh, I hate her. I hate her. You have to turn her around, Bob. You have to charm her. But she could not be turned around.

CO: Bob, I could ask you so many more questions, and so many more stories about Interview. But we have to leave it there. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

BC: Oh, thank you for speaking with me.

CO: Take care.

BC: OK. Bye.

CO: Bye.

JD: Bob Colacello is the former editor of Andy Warhol's “Interview” magazine, which announced it would be folding this week after nearly fifty years in circulation. We reached Mr. Colacello in New York.

[Music: Indie rock]

Canada Jay

Guest: David Bird

JD: "Team Canada Jay just got some VERY exciting news." That's what David Bird wrote to us over the weekend. Professor Bird is an Emeritus Professor of Wildlife Biology at McGill University. He wanted to make sure we didn't miss a big decision from North America's big naming authority. They had decided that the birds known as Grey Jays will all now change their names and become Canada jays. But Professor Bird doesn't think the bird's status change should stop there. We reached him in North Saanich, British Columbia.

CO: Professor Bird, you wrote to us on the weekend that you had HUGE news — all in caps. And that this news was spreading like wildfire in birding communities. What is it that's so important about having this name — the Canada jay — restored?

DAVID BIRD: Well, it's a big deal because you know we've already got about 16 compelling reasons as to why the Canada jay — and I can now say that — should be the national bird for Canada, and this is the 17th reason. I think having a national bird with the name of our country in it is actually a pretty spectacular achievement. I don't even know if any other countries got such a thing. And there are over 100 countries that have a national bird. All of the states, all of the provinces, all the territories have an official bird. We have a national mammal. We have a national tree. A national game — summer and winter — ice hockey and lacrosse. And even a national horse, so why not a national bird? This year is the best year to announce this because it’s the year of the bird.

CO: We should point out for listeners that you are playing a long game here. This is not your game. This is a first step in a long series of steps you need to get the Canada jay declared as Canada's national bird, right?

DB: Absolutely. I mean this was a big step achieved by Dan Strickland. He's basically Canada's foremost Canada jay expert, and he's an Ontario ornithologist. He's been at this for a lot of years. Even has Canada jay in his license plate; he changed it to that from Grey Jay. Even before the news anticipating this would happen. He's pretty keen, like myself, on this bird. And Dan spent countless hours sort of wading through these archives in the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. to try and find out why did the name get changed from the Canada jay back in ‘57 is when it happened to Gray Jay? The very short answer to that is that in 1957, the ALU checklist committee decided to reassign common names to what are known as polytypic species. Those are species that can look one of several different looks to them. And they for some reason instead of giving the bird back its old name that it was called for hundreds of years — The Canada jay — they called it the grey jay. And it’s an even further insult by giving it American spelling. So this is just a big boost for us, and we're really hoping that the government will do something this year in the year of the bird. Don’t get me wrong, we won't give up.

CO: The point you make is that the North American Classification Committee — formally known as the American Ornithological Society Nomenclature Committee — had to sign off on this. This is a big deal to get this. But it does feel like an incremental development in your march toward the national bird though, isn't it, Professor Bird?

DB: Well, I think funny you should mention the word march because I have vowed that if this doesn't happen in 2018, that I'm going to march across Canada in the “Great Canada Jay Walk” to garner, hopefully, a million signatures. I'm hoping I don't have to do that because that's a significant amount of time and effort and who knows. I mean I might break my legs doing that. But the point is that all of us on Team Canada jay feel very passionate about this issue.

CO: OK. But besides having the name Canada jay because, as you know, there's another bird called the Canada Goose. And you know there are those who argue that just as passionately. Give us your pitch as to why this is the most Canadian of all birds.

DB: All right. I'll give it to you in a really short version. First of all, it's extremely friendly; it’ll land without being enticed by food or whatever on your head, on your hand, and so on if you come across it on the trails. It's extremely Intelligent; a member of the corvid family: crows, magpies, jays and ravens. And thirdly, it is an extremely hardy bird, which does not migrate south like many other birds do. They basically tough it out in our Canadian winters, and even breed temperatures of minus 30. Those are those reasons, and it figures highly in the First Nations culture. It's not a hunted or endangered species. It’s found in every province, every territory and about a great portion of its range is found in Canada. I just don't think you could find a better bird for Canada than the Canada jay.

CO: OK. But what could be what could be more symbolic than the Canada goose, right? I mean the flying, but they don’t even fly south many of them anymore; they hang around, they’re in the cities, they’re everywhere. I'm going to tell you the Canada goose has a lot of people thinking that's the bird.

DB: I don't think so, Carol. Therein lies the problem, you just said that a lot of them don’t go south anymore. Canada geese have become so numerous now, not just here in Canada, but also down in the States, over in the UK. Listen, I love them. I love watching them fly over, honking and so on. But they defecate enormously. They are pooping machines. And down in the States, they're actually culling them down there — they're killing — them because there are too many of them down there and people don't like them. Do we want to have a Canadian bird that's being killed by the Americans? I don't think so. I just don't think it's a good choice really. We've got them on a coin; We’ve got the Loonie for the loon, and we've got Canada geese somewhere in our currency and so on. So you know I think it's honoured that way.

CO: All right. I'm sure we'll be talking. Professor Bird, thank you.

DB: Thank you a lot, Carol.

JD: David Bird is an Emeritus Professor of Wildlife Biology at McGill. We reached him in North Saanich, British Columbia. And we did contact the Department of Canadian Heritage about Professor Bird's appeal. The wrote back to say, quote, "At this time, the Government of Canada is not actively considering proposals to adopt a bird as a national symbol." We've got more on Team Canada Jay, and on the Canada jay itself, on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Part two: Emily Carr painting renamed, lynx video guy

Emily Carr painting renamed

Guest: Georgiana Uhlyarik

JD: Even without seeing the nameplate next to the 1929 painting of a site in British Columbia, you might recognize it as an Emily Carr. It's currently hanging at the Art Gallery of Ontario. This month, the gallery re-installed Ms. Carr's piece. But if you were familiar with this particular painting, you might be surprised to see it's no longer called "Indian Church". Instead, it has a new name. And that change has sparked discussion among some Indigenous artists. Georgiana Uhlyarik is the curator of Canadian art at the AGO. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Ms. Uhlyarik, this painting of Emily Carr’s is well-known to many people. But for those who don't remember it, or haven't even seen it, can you describe it for us?

GEORGIANA UHLYARIK: It's actually quite an extraordinary painting. It's very tall. In the forefront, the first thing you see is a beautiful white church — a very geometrical shape. But above it, more than half of the canvas is actually the glorious Northwest Coast Forest. And it really feels like every kind of shade of green that you can imagine is engulfing this beautiful church.

CO: Emily Carr called this painting “Indian Church”. What have you decided to call it?

GU: In the reinstallation, we decided to be very specific about the place. There was a time — actually the very first time that she exhibited the painting — she exhibited as “Indian Church, Friendly Cove”. And so we thought we would look at the specificity of the site, and we wanted to give the painting its place, sort of located kind of if you like on the map. And so that's what we did. We contacted the nation, and we wanted to ensure that they wanted to be associated with the painting in the first place, and then ensured that it didn't have necessarily a very poetic or beautiful title, so it was clear that this was a title that we were referring to the painting as.

JD: Last week, Alberta passed a bill that would give it the power to — as Premier Rachel Notley put it — "turn off the taps." And today, its neighbour, British Columbia, announced that it had pursued legal action in response. Alberta says the bill would give it the power to restrict shipments of oil and gas to British Columbia, if the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is delayed. It has not been proclaimed yet. But BC's attorney general, David Eby, has already called the move unconstitutional — and his government has filed a statement of claim over the bill. This afternoon, Mr. Eby took questions during a teleconference. Here's how he responded when the Vancouver Sun's Gordon Hoekstra asked what BC would do if Alberta stopped oil and gas shipments.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID EBBY: The government is preparing for the highly unlikely possibility that Alberta would take the reckless action of actually using this bill. I want to just take a step back and note personally that I was surprised that the bill was called forward in the legislature by the government because it's so obviously unconstitutional on its face — let alone passed. So we are preparing for the unlikely scenario in which Alberta might attempt to use the legislation. The preparations are taking place on two fronts. One is we're prepared to file an injunction to stop Alberta from using this unconstitutional law if we need to do that. And the second is that the government is looking for alternate sources of refined products to ensure that that harm in British Columbia is minimized if Alberta attempts to use this, and we’re unsuccessful in an injunction application. Any details about what are any contingency plans related to this will be released at the time when it's necessary. So I mean in short, the Government's been working on a range of contingency measures, but we’ll only be talking about these measures when and if they're needed, which at this point, still we think it's highly unlikely.

GORDON HOEKSTRA: Why are you keeping those contingency plans you know private until you need to use them? What’s the secrecy?

DE: We don't think it's helpful to speculate about the highly improbable possibility that Alberta attempts to use an unconstitutional law, and we are unsuccessful in seeking an injunction to stop them from doing that. We would rather encourage all parties: the Federal Government, Alberta and certainly we're willing to go to the Supreme Court of Canada and get this matter resolved without harm either Albertans, or to British Columbians, or to Canadians generally in terms of economic impacts.

JD: That was the attorney general of British Columbia, David Eby, speaking earlier today. Yesterday, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley announced she would not be attending the Western Premiers' Meeting because of the ongoing dispute with BC.

[Music: Ragtime]

Lynx video guy

Guest: Ed Trist

JD: On a tree-lined gravel road, two lynx — or "lynxes", if you prefer — are staring each other down. And they're not projecting what one might call quiet strength; they're shrieking at one another. If you've seen the viral video, you know what I mean.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A lynx dispute]

JD: Odlly familiar sounding. That was from a video captured by Ed Trist on Friday, a video of a rare sighting of two lynx — or lynxes. We reached Mr. Trist at his home on Avery Lake, Ontario.

CO: Ed, what were you doing when you came across the lynx?

ED TRIST: Well, with it being the May long weekend, and walleye season opening in Northern Ontario, I had set some minnow traps out. So we had checked them, and as we were driving away from the pond, we got onto the logging road, and there was there was two lynxs on the road, which isn't unusual. But as we get closer, they didn't move. And usually, they would just take off in a hurry. You're lucky if you see the back end of one. We pulled right up — 30 feet away from them — and I still was amazed that they hadn’t left. So I shut the engine off on the ATV, and both of us started filming.

CO: And so the ATV, did you have a hood on that? Is it covered or is it open?

ET: It’s a side-by-side, so it had a cab.

CO: OK, good, because it would be alarming to be that close to them without it. And so what were they doing? Describe what we’re hearing in that clip?

ET: Well, what was going on is they knew we were there, they just didn't care. Like I'm assuming because we had a late spring, it was still there still in the mating season there. Because May’s pretty late for them, but I think it was two males and there's probably a female in the bush. I mean I don't know for sure, but that's my guess. And they were trying to see which one was the dominant male. But when we got out of the ATV and started recording, they just were continuing what they were doing, and basically stand-offing each other, trying to show which one was tougher basically I think. They didn't care what we did, they just continued on. Like it went on for I'd say just over 10 minutes. But eventually I had to go back because I had company coming to the cabin, so we just got back on the bike and drove away. They just continued on. I had a lot of people online asking me well, how did it end? And I really don't have a clue.

CO: Well, it ended with one of them getting the girl, I would suspect.

ET: Yeah, yeah. We would hope that, yes. My daughter just loved it. She sat in the cab there and watched the whole thing.

CO: And how old is she?

ET: She's 11.

CO: Was she scared.

ET: No, because, quite honestly, about three years ago — maybe two years ago — her mother lives up the road from me here. Anyways, they had a lynx jump on the back of their pet goat. And when they opened the door to let the goat in, the lynx came in the house. They had to shoot the lynx in the house. Crazy! it was on CBC News too I think a few years back. It made some headlines, but he didn't have it recorded. So yeah, we have some strange lynx issues around here.

CO: You've had your encounters with lynkx. But just to go back to this encounter — these two lynx — it seems that they never really touched. They’re eyeball-to-eyeball, having this incredible conversation. And whenever they get even close to touching, they pull away. Did they ever touch? Did they ever actually engage?

ET: Well, I don't know if it shows it, but in the ten minutes there, they kind of head-butted each other several times. If they did head-butt, then they swung their paws. Like they never did fight, they just made themselves look big. They were half- decent-sized cats. I mean I've seen a lot of lyx, but they're a little bit more from about middle-sized to maybe even a little bit large, and very healthy-looking.

CO: Have you ever heard them speaking before?

ET: I've heard them cry like at night time you know the sound coming across the lake. I have heard it before, but nothing like this. I mean that bantering back and forth, and I think that's one reason why I went viral is just because I don't think it's been recorded before like that. Like with two of them squared off like that. There might have been some stuff in captivity, but I googled it, and I couldn't find anything.

CO: What kind of attention have you been getting since you posted the video?

ET: Well, between the two of us now, we're over 13 million views in just a few days. It's absolutely crazy. I just had a Russian TV station call me just before you called, the BBC in Britain, Australian news. I know it's like every radio or every news outlet in Canada has called. I've done interview after interview all day long today.

CO: Why do you think people are so fascinated with this video?

ET: I personally think it's the sound. Because a lot of people had said oh, it's Dubbed — like it was fake. But I can tell you it was 100 per cent real. And there’s biologists that have checked it to it and agreed completely. So I personally think it's all the audio that really did it. I mean the actions of the two cats too are pretty cool, but that audio really stands out, I think.

CO: It actually sounds like there are distinct words they're saying; you can almost hear the conversation. And it's not pleasant.

ET: No, no, no, I almost think it should be Canada’s national mammal or something because they’re such a beautiful creature and so private. It's just cool to capture that. Like when we filmed it, I was saying right there like you know how rare this is. Because I knew it was rare.

CO: Ed, I'm glad you're there to capture that. It really is extraordinary. And thanks for telling us about it.

ET: No problem. Thank you.

CO: Bye.

ET: Bye.

JD: We reached Ed Trist at home on Avery Lake, in northwestern Ontario.

[Music: Folk]

Crab fishing closure

JD: Time ran out for some New Brunswick snow crab fishermen today. The fishermen had until late this afternoon to haul their traps out of an area of the Gulf of St Lawrence where two North Atlantic right whales were recently spotted. The closure of the area is just the latest order from the federal government to protect the endangered whales from getting entangled in fishing gear. Jean Lanteigne is the general manager of the Acadian Federation of Professional Fishermen. Earlier today, he told Norma Lee MacLeod, host of “Maritime Noon”, how the changes are hurting fishermen.

SOUNDCLIP

JEAN LANTEIGNE: It's making their life miserable. They was just one that left the office prior to your phone call. This guy actually just got into wharf Sunday to find out that new area was closed. And that's where he was fishing actually. And his 150 crab pods are located in that specific area. So he had to rush unloading his load, preparing his boat to sail back to try to remove those traps and try to find another location. So it's a very tough and very delicate situation.

NORMA LEE MACLEOD: And are fishermen going to be squeezed together as they seek out new grounds? Are there going to be conflicts on the water because of that?

JL: We are afraid of that happening. So we just got a new report a few minutes ago. We have 45 per cent of the quota that has been caught, so there's another 55 per cent we’ll try to catch. But this year it's been kind of slow.

NLM: So there's a risk they may not get their quota, you think?

JL: It's going to be very tough to be able to land the whole quota this year if it continues like that. And as we can understand, the whales start showing up last week in the Halifax area. Two days after, it was in the Cape Breton. Over the weekend, it’s now in the Gulf. So as you can see they do travel fairly fast. What is the next direction they'll take? We hope that the move in to this static closure area, which is already closed. But if they move elsewhere, that means we're going to be out of some more fishing grounds being closed. Are we going to be closing the Gulf in the coming weeks? We may have to face that.

JD: Jean Lanteigne is the general manager of the Acadian Federation of Professional Fishermen. He was speaking with “Maritime Noon” host Norma Lee MacLeod earlier today.

Part three: Mugshot website charges, Yukon alcohol study update, Swedish war pamphlets.

Mugshot website charges

Guest: Terrill Swift

JD: www.mugshots.com is still up online. But don't bother trying to email the website's owners: they're currently a little busy — facing charges of extortion, money-laundering, and identity theft. The site posts people's mugshots, and then publicizes their arrest information. If you want your shot taken down, the owners demand money. Last week, the California Attorney-General laid charges against four men associated with www.mugshots.com — saying that it, quote, "attempts to profit off someone else's humiliation." Unquote. Terrill Swift's mugshot is still up on the site. He's been trying to get it removed since he was exonerated, after spending 15 years in prison for crimes he did not commit. We reached Mr. Swift in Los Angeles.

CO: Mr. Swift, what does it mean to you to learn that the creators of www.mugshots.com have now been charged?

TERRILL SWIFT: It means that people finally were listening to the rest of our cries. Like it's hard enough for us coming out of you know situations where we're pretty much nonexistent for, in my case, 15 years — Some people longer wrongfully. That's a challenge in and of itself. It's already hard to try to find employment anyway because you're a ghost. And then when you get your name cleared — because that's what we fight for — and we still have this roadblock right here. I think it's well-deserved, long overdue and maybe they'll like it if their pictures are all over a police website or something like that.

CO: They may get a taste of their own medicine here?

TS: Yeah, yeah, you know?

CO: Your name was cleared through DNA evidence in 2011. You had been convicted for rape and murder; you spent 15 years wrongfully convicted. You spent that in prison. When you got out — when you finally got exonerated — What did you have to go through in order to get this kind of information online offline? I thought that once you were exonerated, that every plane would take care of itself. You would think, right? And I mean even with the police department you have to fight to get your name cleared. I mean it's a fight every step of the way.

CO: And you found that with some effort, you were able to get the authorities to recognize that. But this website isn't the authorities — this is a company. These people run a business here. So what efforts did you go through to try and get them to take your mugshot off of their website?

TS: I mean we reached out to them. My attorneys reached out to them, and their reply was it was a fee. There was a fee for us to get our picture removed off of their website. That's absurd! Like seriously? I have to pay you to take my picture off of your website that should not be one there anyway?

CO: How much money were they going to charge you to do that?

TS: It was a few years ago, I believe it was a couple grand — a few thousand I believe or something like that. It could have been a dollar, why should I have to pay?

CO: Other people who’ve tried to get their mug shots off of the site, they said they were told that 399 dollars I guess was the special that if you paid that, ostensibly, it would get removed. It didn't mean that it necessarily would, right?

TS: Right. You could pay to get off of this website, and then he'll give it to his friend, and then he'll put it on his website, and then you have to pay him. It's like come on it! I shouldn't have to pay a guy.

CO: They argue that they have a disclaimer on www.mugshots.com — on their website — and it says the mug shots and/or arrest records published on www.mugshots.com are in no way any indication of guilt. And they are not evidence that an actual crime has been committed. Does that exonerate them?

TS: No. Hold true to your statement and just remove it. It’s a play with words.

CO: They also argue that they're somehow doing a service so people who are victims of crime can go on these sites and see what's happened to the person who's been convicted of the crime against them. Do you see them performing any valuable service to victims?

TS: No. Because I mean if I'm a victim, I would reach out to the local authority. I wouldn’t reach out to a random website to find you know information in regards to my assailant. Why would I need a fifth or six party website, you know? It’s like why when I can go right to the authority?

CO: Having this mugshot up on the website, what effect does it have on your life?

TS: I spent 15-and-a-half years for a crime I did not commit; from 17 years of age until I was 32 years old a ghost. Not able to build credit. Not able to get jobs. Not able to do anything. I'm a ghost for 15 years, right? So I come out a fully grown man — 32 — it’s hard enough to try to find a job because I have no history, right? It's hard enough to get an apartment because I have no credit. And then once you finally start to establish that, and then you go to these different places you want to go and get an apartment, hold on! Why is your picture on this particular website? And then you have to explain the very thing that you try and remove yourself from because it's a memory that you want to get past. But you can’t because it’s always in your face everything you do. I need to get a place to stay they run a criminal background, and if they have access to these third-party websites like www. Mugshots.com and oh! Something happened, I’ll reject him. Or I’ll charge him an obscene amount of security deposit for him to stay here.

CO: What about employment?

TS: Fortunately for me, when I was released, I had a family member who got me into a company entry-level, and I worked my way up to a manager. Thankfully for me, but other guys who I've spoken with, they have had issues with it. I mean these are men and women that are trying to do something with themselves that have been wronged. And you’re going to continually aid that wrong? That's not right!

CO: Well, it's interesting. I mean what you're saying is that if they are now being sought for these crimes — these men — and they have been able to wiggle out of class-action suits, it’s been difficult to serve them, difficult to find them. Their business is registered in one country, and operates out of another. It's very cleverly done to keep them away from the authorities. Do you think that you're going to see these guys brought to book?

TS: One thing I understood from my time of being incarcerated was I had to learn patience, and everything comes when it's time. You know truth needs no support. And it is the absolute truth that we should not be on that website. And I believe that it will come.

CO: I hope you're right, and you do get to see justice for this. And I wish you well. Thank you.

TS: Thank you much. You have a great one.

CO: You too. Bye.

JD: Terrill Swift was exonerated in 2011 after spending 15 years in prison for crimes he did not commit. We reached him in LA. We have more on this story on our website.

[Music: Electronic]

Manchester anniversary

JD: One year ago today, a suicide bomber detonated a homemade, shrapnel-filled bomb at an Arianna Grande concert in Manchester, as the singer's fans were leaving the Manchester Arena. Twenty-two people were killed. Music had brought them together. And today, it brought them together again at a memorial in the city's Albert Square, where choir after choir performed tributes to the victims and survivors. There was a choir of first responders, a choir of health care workers — and finally: a choir made up of survivors of the Manchester Arena attack.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: A choir of Manchester attack survivors sing ‘’Rise Up” by Andra Day, and clap along to the beat]

JD: The Manchester Survivors Choir, performing Andra Day's "Rise Up" at a memorial on the one-year anniversary of the attack that killed 22 people at an Ariana Grande concert.

[Music: Sombre]

Yukon alcohol study update

Guest: Tim Stockwell

JD: It all sounded so straightforward. A public health experiment looking at the effectiveness of labels on alcohol bottles warning about the cancer risks associated with drinking. It was backed by Health Canada and the Yukon government. But back in December — just a few weeks into the study — the Yukon Liquor Corporation suspended it. And now, emails obtained by The Globe and Mail via an Access to Information request have confirmed what the researchers suspected: that the industry had been lobbying the territorial government to shut the study down. Tim Stockwell is the Director of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research. He's the co-principal investigator on the study. We reached Mr. Stockwell in Victoria.

CO: Professor Stockwell, what do you make of these emails that reveal how the alcohol industry lobbied the UK government?

TIM STOCKWELL: There's nothing in them that surprises me because I was in touch with the Yukon government to try and salvage our little study. So we knew this was going on, but it's a relief to see it finally you know in the glare of full daylight, so everybody can see what was actually going on.

CO: And it's in the glare of full daylight because The Globe and Mail did an Access to Information request and got these emails. And in the emails, they describe your labels — your study — as false and alarmist. What did the labels actually say?

TS: They said three simple things. One is that alcohol can cause cancer, and we listed three specific varieties — there's many more. We described Canada's low-risk drinking guidelines with little images and numbers of standard drinks to have in a day. And then we haven't yet done this, our third label, which is still coming, is helping consumers know how many standard drinks there are in their bottle of beer or a bottle, of wine, or spirits.

CO: And what was the point? What were you trying to achieve?

TS: The position appears to me that warning labels might change awareness a little bit, but there's no evidence they change behaviour. But the point is they haven't really been designed very well. So our hypothesis was that if any label could change behaviour, it would be these — this sort of cascade of giving people information that they wanted to know. And our focus groups showed in the Yukon, the residents really, really, really wanted this information. So our theory was all of these things together would help people change their behaviour. But now we won't know.

CO: When you were told that you couldn't continue — labels couldn't be on these bottles, or not the way they were written — what were you told were the reasons for that?

TS: We knew it was private and confidential information provided by the Yukon government that they completely understood the science. The only reason was that they discontinued the cancer warning labels because they didn't have the resources to fight the alcohol industry in court. We had an independent legal analysis by one of Canada's leading academic lawyers, Robert Solomon, who said actually, their liability is the other way around. They’re liable if they don't inform consumers of risks to the product that they are helping distribute and sell. So really the reality was they were worried about being tied up in knots in court proceedings that could go on a long time until this was resolved, and they would run out of money in the process.

CO: Some of the letters from Beer Canada, Spirits Canada and the Canadian Vintners Association — those were the three groups that were lobbying Yukon Liquor Corporation. They said, for instance, Beer Canada said that your claim on the label that alcohol can cause cancer is a misleading statement. What do you say to that?

TS: It's utterly false. I mean really for the last 30 years, the International Agency for Research on Cancer — which is a World Health Organization-funded body — they have determined that the alcohol in alcoholic beverages causes breast cancer, cancer of the esophagus, cancer of the mouth. The American Society for Oncologists put out a statement in the in the Lancet recently celebrating 30 years, and saying why has there been no action? Why is it hardly anybody knows that alcohol causes cancer? This is the reason. Because when you try and put the message out there, it's squashed.

CO: Some are suggesting that this reaction on the part of the alcohol industry to any suggestion that there is a link to cancer is similar to how the tobacco lobby reacted to the same claims. Do you see that that connection?

TS: Absolutely. I suspect — I'm not a lawyer — but I suspect they're opening their industry up to litigation in the future. Of you know the multi-billion dollar lawsuit variety for you know the healthcare costs and the human suffering caused by a product when they've made active steps to intervene to stop consumers being made aware of these risks.

CO: This is a very small study that you had going in Yukon. So why do you think that they reacted so strongly to such a small sample study?

TS: The fear is is that this is government-funded research — federally-funded — the results get out. Obviously, it's bad for sales of their products. So they just wanted to squash it. To you know stifle it at birth basically was their strategy. But I think it backfired because of all the publicity that it generated.

CO: And was there a plan to see the study done elsewhere, or to put these labels on in other parts of their jurisdictions of Canada?

TS: Well, we were just delighted that we were invited by the Yukon to do this study. We thought if any label could change behaviour, we thought these ones could. We took four years designing them, yellow and red colours, large enough font size to be actually readable. And if anything, we were just open-minded. We were accused of actually having decided what the results of our research would be in advance, which is impugning our reputation — utterly unfair. I've been put in print that at the present, time there's no evidence that warning labels change behaviour. And if any study could have done this, this little study in the Yukon could have shown that in principle, there was a change in behaviour. We don't know. If we'd been able to complete the study, we'd have found out.

CO: Professor Stockwell, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

TS: Thank you.

JD: Tim Stockwell is the co-principal investigator on a study looking into the effectiveness of health warnings on alcohol bottles. That study was suspended by the Yukon Liquor Corporation back in December. It did resume in March, but references to the cancer risks associated with drinking are no longer part of the mix. We reached out to the Yukon Liquor Corp for comment. We did not hear back by the time we went to air. But the corporation’s president did tell The Globe and Mail the cancer labels were removed due to, quote, “The potential for protracted litigation.” Unquote. Not about the science itself. For more on this story, head to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Folk]

Swedish war pamphlets

Guest: Christina Andersson

JD: Sweden has not been at war with anyone for more than 200 years. But when residents open their mailboxes next week, they may think that long peaceful streak may be coming to an end. For the first time since the height of the Cold War, the Swedish government is distributing a 20-page pamphlet on how to prepare for war. It's titled "If Crisis or War Comes". The federal government commissioned the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency to design the pamphlet. Christina Andersson is the project manager. We reached her in Gustavsberg, Sweden.

CO: Ms. Andersson, is Sweden preparing for a war or a crisis?

CHRISTINA ANDERSSON: I would say that we actually are preparing for a crisis, but information in this leaflet that we're going to distribute to all Swedish households next week the focus in that leaflet is peace-time crisis.

CO: What does that mean? Because the title is “If Crisis or war Comes”. Are you preparing for certain scenarios which are conceivable?

CA: Yeah, we are we're talking about different threats in this leaflet. For example, it could be cyber-attacks that knockout important I.T. systems. It can be sabotage of infrastructure. It can be terror attacks. And it can be also major terror attacks. But the focus is you know like the consequences of climate change. We already experience in Sweden more flooding, bushfires and so on. So we need to prepare for climate change, and how it affects our society.

CO: How are you telling people to prepare?

CA: We're asking people to prepare to cope by themselves without support from society for some time. And we ask them to prepare so they can handle basic needs as water, food water, warmth or heating and also communication. How you can prepare so you can receive important information from the authorities during a crisis, but also so you can follow how media reporting during an event, and also, of course, how you can stay in contact with your dearest and nearest.

CO: You know one of the most chilling parts of this — because I'm sure people are taking this very seriously — you say that you warn people to check all sources of information. And say that say that states and organizations are already trying to influence our values and how we act, and reduce our resilience and willingness to defend ourselves. What are you referring to there?

CA: Well, I can't give you a specific example actually. We are talking about what it looks like in the world as a whole. I mean you can read almost every day in a newspaper, or you can hear on the radio, or watch the TV, and you will hear about certain I.T. attacks.

CO: We've always warned about propaganda and false information.

CA: You could find the same information actually in the pamphlet from the Cold War.

CO: But is it different now? You say that if Sweden is attacked by another country, quote, “We will never give up. All information that suggests that there's no point to resist that's all false.” So what are you trying to warn people against?

CA: Well, war propaganda actually, and false information as a whole. Because false information and information that will try to influence our country, our decision makers or inhabitants they are I mean ongoing, and not only in Sweden. I think we can find them in many other countries.

CO: You mentioned that climate change is part of this, but most of the warnings are about some kind of attack: cyber-attacks, sabotage, terrorism, military action, war. And I wonder what the face of the attacker is? I mean Sweden has identified Russia and the recent actions in Crimea for instance, and the violation of Sweden's airspace. There are security measures that are of concern there. Is Russia a principal face of the attacker that you're warning people about?

CA: In the leaflet, we’re not pointing out any specific country. Actually, we're talking about deteriorating security policy in the whole. And we know that many people in Sweden are worried about the situation in the world. And I think we have to take this seriously, and we need to give people tools so they know what threaten us, but mainly, how can they prepare? So they can be able to handle a difficult situation in our society.

CO: We also know though that there has been a sweep of xenophobia through Europe and Sweden as one of those countries as well. And that people fear that migrants — that refugees — are a principal threat that they are actually terrorists — they're Muslim terrorists. And so do you have any concern that putting out a warning like this so stark might create some kind of a backlash against the migrant population in Sweden?

CA: No, absolutely not. This information is something that each individual in Sweden — all people who live in Sweden has the right to know. All people are equally important when it comes to stand up for peace and security. So that's the main message in this leaflet. All individuals in Sweden are important if we are going to cope with a serious threat in the future.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Andersson, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

CA: Thank you so much.

JD: Christina Andersson managed the "If Crisis Or War Comes" pamphlet project. We reached her in Gustavsberg, Sweden.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 22, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode