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 January 24, 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 Douglass. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: For years, he was a free to abuse patients who trusted him. But Larry Nassor won't be ever free again. Today, the former doctor for the U.S. Olympic gymnastics team was sentenced to a minimum of 40 years in prison.

JD: An attack on defenders. The humanitarian group Save the Children suspends its work in Afghanistan, after ISIS attacked its offices in Jalalabad — killing three members of the staff.

CO: The political becomes frighteningly personal. A local councillor in a small Alberta town says she was assaulted at home by a man who told her to leave town, and keep quiet.

JD: Worlds apart. The late Ursula K. Le Guin reinvented Sci-fi and fantasy fiction by infusing it with artistry, complexity, and a feminist sensibility. And in doing so, she inspired her readers and fellow writers to think differently.

CO: The beginning is Naya, and the end isn't nigh. Naya is the name of a wolf who's just shown up in Belgium. And our guest says her arrival there signals that wolves are reclaiming some of the habitat they'd lost.

JD: And… she's lost that lovin’ feline. Not completely, mind you — but because a Chicago woman let her cat outside, the rescue agency she adopted Reggie from took them back. Now, there’s a custody battle.

JD: As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that hopes they can put aside their pet-ty grievances.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Larry Nassar sentencing, councillor assault, cat custody

Larry Nassar sentencing

Guest: Morgan McCaul

JD: After seven days and more than 160 statements from those he assaulted and betrayed, Larry Nassar will spend the rest of his life in prison. The former U.S. Olympic gymnastics team doctor was sentenced today to a minimum of 40 years, and up to 175 years, in Michigan state prison. The sentence is part of a plea deal in which Mr. Nassar admitted to multiple counts of sexual assault against girls and young women, including Olympians. Here's a clip of Judge Rosemarie Aquilina delivering the sentence in court.

SOUNDCLIP

ROSEMARIE AQUILINA: Sir, I'm giving you 175 years, which is 2,100 months. I just singed your death warrant. I find that you don't get it that you're a danger. You remain a danger. I'm a judge who believes in life and rehabilitation when rehabilitation is possible. I have many defendants come back here and show me the great things they've done in their lives after probation, after parole. I don’t find that’s possible with you.

JD: That was Judge Rosemarie Aquilina sentencing Larry Nassar to what will amount to the rest of his life in prison. That sentence is in addition to a 60-year federal sentence the disgraced doctor is also serving for child pornography crimes. Morgan McCaul is a dancer. She was one of Mr. Nassar's patients, and was in court today. We reached her in East Lansing, Michigan.

CO: Ms. McCaul, how did you feel when you watched the judge sentence Larry Nassar today?

MORGAN MCCAUL: I felt a lot of emotions. I felt like she had heard us and that she had taken our statements into account with her sentencing. For that I'm grateful. I felt sad that this is where I found myself when I'm 18-years-old. I felt a little bit of closure because finally, my predator will be behind bars.

CO: And that's what the judge said: I’ve given you a death sentence. This is for the rest of your life. He will be in prison. How do you feel about him at this point?

MM: I, honestly, have purged myself of a lot of feelings towards him, especially with that letter — that six-page letter — that he wrote to the judge in which you know he explained in his own words that he does not believe that he's guilty. He doesn't believe he's violated these hundreds of women. I don't feel sorry for him. I don't know if I feel anything for him anymore, to be honest.

CO: You're referring to this letter the judge Rosemarie Aquilina read, which Mr. Nasser sent her that letter to say that you and others fabricated your allegations to gain money and fame. Did you know about that letter when you heard her read aloud?

MM: That part of his letter was only revealed to us today. I think it speaks to Larry's character. I think it speaks to where he mentally stands right now.

CO: You should limit what you want to tell us about what happened — your encounters with him. It's up to you, but I know that you encountered him when you were 12-years-old.

MM: Yeah, my experience was very similar, if any of your audience members have been following these victim impact statements and victim testimonies, essentially you've heard my story over and over and over. I met him when I was 12. I stopped seeing him in 2015, at the age of 15. I believe I had 15 appointments with him, and I believe that he molested me at multiple appointments, and I'll never forget the first time that it happened.

CO: From what you heard from the other testimonies of the women and what's been reported in the papers since the story broke is that Dr. Nassar would give invasive and unnecessary examinations into the girls who came to see him for sports injuries, and you were one of them. And you sought advice didn't you? When you're 12-years-old, you try to figure out why is this happening? What did you learn from others? What advice did they give you?

MM: Yeah, so a number of girls at my dance studio were patients of Dr. Nassar's — former doctor Nassar’s. And I hadn't heard anything of his invasive procedures. But after my appointment with him, and I was very uncomfortable, I asked one of my fellow dancers if that was normal? If that was appropriate conduct? If he did that to them? If he had to do that? And the girl that I asked assured me that it was normal. It was a medical procedure. He did it to her. He did it to all of her friends. So I shouldn't think twice about it. And I never did.

CO: You also had trouble even when the story broke believing that this had happened. Because you were very young, you couldn't make sense of it.

MM: I mean I should specify: I didn't disbelieve that this had happened. But I was still holding on to the myth that this was medical in nature.

CO: At what point did it finally hit home to you what he was and what he was doing?

MM: A little part of me wavered when I saw the Indy Star article, but I still defended him. I still said you know maybe there's hope this is medical treatment. But upon finding out that he possessed 37,000 images of child pornography, I realized that this wasn't medical treatment and that he was a pedophile. And what he was doing was so inappropriate.

CO: You were there on Friday with your statement and telling the court what happened to you in front of Judge Rosemarie Aquilina. What was it like to face him?

MM: It was scary. It was nerve-wracking. I thought I was going to be sick that morning. It took a Zofran because I was so nauseous. And when I got up there, and I looked him in the eye, I just knew that I had a lot to say and that whatever happened I was going to make him look at me and make him listen. It felt like I was back in control.

CO: Did he look at you?

MM: He did look at me. In fact, he cried.

CO: And what do you make of that?

MM: The optimistic part of me wants to say that I got through. However, knowing what I know about Larry Nassar, and knowing what he wrote in his letter, and what he continues to spew, I can't even say that I got through to him — that he heard a word I was saying.

CO: Well, it seems the judge certainly heard what you had to say, and she had invited all those women to come and give their statements even though they were not the cases that were part of his conviction. What were her words? What did they mean to you when Judge Aquilina spoke so strongly about the victims?

MM: Yeah, so specifically with mine, she personalizes what she says to each victim. And she told me that even if I'm not dancing today that my words danced through the courtroom. Which gives me first, a little bit of a giggle because it's kind of funny, but the more that those words sank in, it made me realize that you know a lot of survivors of sexual abuse never get the opportunity to face their abuser in court. They never have the encounter with the judge that I was so privileged to have. And so I think that we were really lucky to have her. I think that she was the perfect judge to handle this case. And what she did: listening to each and every woman that wanted to come forward, even statements written by people who were there who were states away — countries away. She really impacted me and empowered me to share my voice, and I believe she did that for a lot of women.

CO: Ms. McCaul, I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

MM: Thank you.

JD: Morgan McCaul is one of the women who was abused by former U.S. Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar. We reached her in East Lansing, Michigan. And you can read more of this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient jazz]

Councillor assaulted

Guest: Donna Courage

JD: Small-town politics can often get vicious. But in Claresholm, Alberta one town councillor says it got violent. Donna Courage, who was recently elected to council, says she was attacked in her home on Saturday night. She alleges that a man broke in and held her by the neck before running off. She was left with a black eye, which was visible to her fellow councillors when she stood up to speak at a meeting this week. We reached Donna Courage in Claresholm, Alberta.

CO: Ms. Courage, how are you holding up?

DONNA COURAGE: Much better today, thank you for asking.

CO: I hate to ask you to go through this again, but what happened on Saturday night?

DC: My husband's been out of town on a business trip, so my friends come over usually from about seven till nine to keep me company and check up on me. They were here till quarter-to-nine or so I guess. And at about five or ten-after-nine — about 15-20 minutes later — I heard the doorbell ring, and I just assumed that it was them back again. And I just started to open the door, and I leaned in to see the window and then, all of a sudden, they just kicked the door in. The door hit my face because I was leaning into the door looking. And then they just pushed me up against the wall and held me and said keep quiet, and leave town. And then they bolted and went out into the darkness.

CO: You say “they”, how many of these people?

DC: There was one that came in the house, and I saw a shadow of somebody walking out around the front porch.

CO: Both men?

DC: Well, the one inside was definitely a man; the one outside I don't know what. They both had black jackets on and tuques.

CO: Could you see their faces, or his face?

DC: The one in front of me certainly did; I didn't see the other one.

CO: And is it anybody you knew? Anyone you recognized?

DC: No, otherwise I'd be on their doorstep.

CO: And what injuries then did you sustain?

DC: When the door hit my face, it cut my forehead and gave me a black eye. When I tried to shut the door, I got a cut on my hand, bruise on my leg, and when they pushed me against the wall, I have had a cut on my head.

CO: And what did you do?

DC: Fell to the ground, I couldn’t stop shaking, then I just called my neighbour right just across the road. I didn't know what else to do, so I called him, and he came running over, and settled me down. He didn't know what to do, so he just called the police — he called 911 — and the police came.

CO: Is it the Mounties?

DC: RCMP, yes.

CO: What do you think he meant? Have you had any thoughts as to what he meant by be quiet, and leave town?

DC: I have so many people that have asked me that, you know? And the only thing that I have been very outspoken about as a political councillor is the things that are going on in our town. I'm very vocal, I’m very transparent government, and there's a lot of people in town that don't like that. Why? I don't know.

CO: What kinds of issues have you taken on that you think might have angered people?

DC: I have ever have a campaign page that I try to post on with the issues that I try to deal with. The only things that have been on there are for the town office that were doing. I'm not against the town office. I've said that from the beginning. I'm not against it, but we have to have it done environmentally-first. It's an old, old school full of asbestos, and it needs to be done environmentally before we put millions of dollars into it. And I've been very vocal about it. And every time I post something on my campaign page, I say we have alternatives. Look outside the box. We have another building that we're selling. Maybe we could change that? Look at the other school college that's possibly leaving. Maybe we could use that building?

CO: And the people who disagree with you on that?

DC: Absolutely. I have huge, huge turmoil and texts and mails and everything that comes back saying you don't have your facts straight. You don't know what you're talking about. You're dishonest. You’re manipulative. I mean I've got thick skin. Just because they call me names doesn't matter. Like that's my job. I understand that being in an open situation or an open employment like I am, that's expected. And I don't mind that. And I like that people have different opinions than me. That's what makes a good democratic society when everybody has their voice. Whether it's good or bad or indifferent, you have to listen to them. But you do not — do not — ever have to be violent about anything.

CO: What's happened to you I'm so sorry that is the case, but I just have to ask why are you so convinced that it was because of your politics that there may have been no other reason — if you can give them a reason to attack somebody — but no other motivation for this?

DC: I can't imagine anything that I've done. I have no enemies that I know of in town. I have wonderful neighbours, so I know there is lots of great people out there. It's just one small group that seems to have taken over social media. I mean just to me it just appears like hate mail — like it just doesn't make any sense.

CO: Do you think the police are looking through those comments the people are making — those comments and Facebook posters — to see if there was a suspect?

DC: Yes, there was many, many on there that said resign, leave town, if you don’t like it don't be here, that kind of thing. So, Of course, that's the first place they're going to look. The reason I came forward I think that if this is happening to me in our town, it's happening in a lot of places, and somebody has to step forward and stop it.

CO: You are getting a lot of flak, aren't you? I mean there are those who say they disagree with you on council. This is even since you were attacked. Others were saying stay strong. Don't let this defeat you. Even if we don't agree with you, democracy has the right to a voice — that's one comment. So what have you decided to do?

DC: I am absolutely staying on as councillor. I am not letting bullies or vigilantes that are cowards enough to come into my house and threaten me to win this. And I know you know this town is wonderful. We have so much to offer. And we have wonderful, wonderful people that have just taken too much to heart of what one small group have done. So let's get it together people. We have everything to offer to everybody. We need to reach out to each other, and not let this kind of thing happen again.

CO: What have police told you about what they're doing in their investigation?

DC: They're going over all the posts and pouring through the streets, hoping that somebody might have seen something on Saturday night.

CO: But you could identify the one person who came into your house, could you not?

DC: Yes, I'm going to see a sketch artist tomorrow. And I'm going to give him the best description I can possibly do.

CO: And do the police agree with you that it looks politically-motivated?

DC: Yes, well I am assuming that. They haven't said. I'm sure that's not in their agenda to point fingers one way or the other.

CO: Ms. Courage, I hope you get some news about this, and they find a suspect. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DC: Thank you so much

Donna.

JD: Donna Courage is a town councillor in the Claresholm, Alberta — population 3,000. And we reached her in Claresholm

[Music: Ambient]

Cat custody

Guest: Rae Bees

JD: Reggie the cat is in the middle of a custody dispute — an actual, bonafide, lawyered-up, court-dates, visitation-rights custody dispute. On one side is Rae Bees. Yes, "Rae Bees". Rae Bees is a Chicago artist who adopted Reggie from a rescue agency and gave him a home. On the other side is Feline Friends Chicago. They're the rescue agency who adopted Reggie out to Ms. Bees, under the condition that she never let Reggie outside. But the agency says Ms. Bees did let Reggie outside, violating their agreement, and putting the cat in, quote, "mortal danger." We reached Rae Bees in Chicago.

CO: Ms. Bees, under what terms are you currently able to see your cat?

RAE BEES: Well, currently, I am seeing Reggie every Friday at 1:00 p.m. at a local vet office.

CO: And is this arranged? Is this where Reggie is staying?

RB: It is arranged for like an hour time. And it’s like a sad room that I'm pretty sure used to like tell pet owners that they have put their pet down. So it's like kind of covered in Kleenexes, and I have like an hour period to stay with him. He is currently staying with someone that's part of Feline Friends network — like a foster parent.

CO: How's Reggie doing?

RB: You know I'm getting a little concerned because he's gaining weight so rapidly. I guess he's like eating his feelings like I am right now. But other than that, he seems to be in good spirits. When he sees me, he's really excited. He's just getting pretty fluffy. I don't know if they're like trying to make it so he can't run out the door?

CO: Which is what the whole thing is about, isn't it?

RB: Yeah, that's what it's about.

CO: Now just before you go on, how does he get named Reggie? Because I think they call him Forrest, do they not?

RB: They call him Forrest, which is ridiculous. That was his like pre-adoption name. And he's had Reggie for you know almost five years now. So I named him after Reggie Watts, which is my favorite comedian just because he's a really mischievous, off the wall character of a cat, and reminded me of Reggie Watts.

CO: So now you're in a custody battle, and it's being fought in the courts, there are lawyers involved. Do you ever wake up and think how did I get here?

RB: Yes, it is surreal, it's absurd, it's like getting comical at this point that I'm you know going through all these legal avenues to get my cat back. But you know he's part of my family, and I love him. So I think I can't imagine not fighting for him. I think they thought I was just going to give up. And like I got this email from them initially that was like never contact us again from their lawyer. And I wasn't about to just be intimidated by that.

CO: Now, Feline friends of Chicago says that you had an agreement that you would not let Reggie go outdoors. And they say that you violated — repeatedly violated — this agreement. What's their evidence?

RB: So evidence solely is based off of looking at my social media — my Facebook. So instead of calling me or talking to me, they just looked at my social media, and saw that I had photos of Reggie outside. I live in a communal art space that we focus on music and art, and we also have a garden space. So every Saturday during our growing season, Reggie is allowed to be outside under supervision, and so they had photos of him sitting in people's lap, sitting on the porch that they were very upset about. And as far as him being allowed outside, that was the only time. Otherwise, he was a Houdini; he knew how to like hop through people's legs when people were carrying in their gear and run out.

CO: How did Feline Friends come to have Reggie in their possession?

RB: So Reggie escaped right after Halloween. And he usually has a GPS collar on because if he runs out, we can quickly track him, and like go scoop them up. But it was charging, so when he ran out it was raining, so I assumed he ran across the alley. But I think another neighbour scooped him up, he didn't have a collar, and then they went and got his microchip scanned. And the microchip was still registered to Feline Friend.

CO: So it's interesting that they kept him in their name because this is what much of this is about. Who actually owns Reggie?

RB: That is I guess to be determined. I wish you could be one of those things where they just like put Reggie down and see who he runs to. But I guess you know the judge is going to have to determine where Reggie really belongs.

CO: But you did sign some sort of a contract with him, did you not?

RB: It's an aspiration of a contract. It's this one-page list of things like you're going to feed your cat well, you're going to take him to the vet, and it says like if the cat ever runs away, I will contact them. I didn't do that. I it was years later, and it never crossed my mind. He wouldn't be allowed outside. He was allowed under supervision with you know at least 15 people outside. So there are things that I admittedly did not follow. But here's the thing: I would have never adopted an animal from them if they said here's what's going to happen if you breached something on this contract, we are going to come and scoop up your cat and you can never see him again. No one would adopt a cat that way.

CO: Because they don't consider this an aspirational contract, do they? And they say that they would never have given you Reggie if they had known you are going to break the contract.

RB: Right, you know and had I know that that was a situation — had I known Reggie was once a feral cat — he's ear-tipped, and he's a TNR cat, which is cats that are rereleased by the city after they are spayed or neutered to control rat populations and cat populations. That's what he was, and I did not know that when I adopted him, so he retained all of these like killer instincts and like escape instincts, and I didn't know that when I adopted him at all.

CO: So this is in Reggie's nature. This is in his fiber.

RB: Right, he's living with some other feral cats that they all have to be separated in separate rooms right now. And he’s by himself. Had he been home with me, I have like ten people that are home all the time that like he's our unofficial mascot of our place. And instead, he's in an apartment with some woman who works nine-to-five, and he's by himself. Like I'm trying to give my cat the best life he can have, you know?

CO: And when's your next day in custody court?

RB: It is to be determined. I believe that it will be mid-February, and it's unfortunate, you know? Cats don't live like humans, so his cat years are going much faster than mine. So, hopefully, we’ll be done with all of this in a couple of months.

CO: Well, we'll check back with you to see how you're doing, and how Reggie is doing.

RB: Oh, I hope so. Hopefully, I've got some great news.

CO: All right. Ms. Bees, thank you.

RB: Thank you.

JD: We reached artist Rae Bees in Chicago.

Part two: Save the Children attack, Ursula K. Le Guin obit

Save the Children attack

Guest: Humayoon Babur

JD: The charity Save the Children came under attack from ISIS in Afghanistan today. In the eastern city of Jalalabad, there was a large explosion, before a group of gunmen stormed the organization's offices. In the hours-long attack, five people were killed, including three staff members. The attack has prompted Save the Children to suspend all of its operations in Afghanistan. Humayoon Babur is an Afghan journalist. He was at the scene of the attack. We reached Mr. Babur in Jalalabad.

CO: Humayoon, tell us what you saw when he arrived at the Save the Children offices today?

HUMAYOON BABUR: Actually, it was a terrible situation. The explosion happened around 9:10 am local time when people are going into their work and children are also going into their homes. I saw the children fleeing from the incident place. Also, I saw three women from work running away. The situation was really bad.

CO: Now, you got there as it began, but this went on for hours, didn't it? There was ten hours of this siege. What was going on at the time? Were people inside with the gunmen there with them?

HB: The first thing that happened was a big explosion. And they entered the gate of the Save the Children office. And the other three gunmen were able to enter inside the building. And they just started firing toward the security guards of Save the Children. And one of my friends who was working for Save the Children, he was trapped inside the building. And when I talked by phone with him, he was in the basement, and he said don't call me because I'm inside the safe room. And if I talk, maybe the attacker will hear my sound, and they will recognize our place.

CO: Just so I understand, these numbers of people were inside in a safe house, and the gunmen were looking for them? Is that what you understood — that they didn't know that these people were hiding in that safe room?

HB: Yeah. Actually, he told me they're just looking floor by floor, room by room. They reached the third floor and the second floor.

CO: We understand there were 45 people still inside when those security forces arrived, is that your understanding.?

HB: Yeah, that's right.

CO: And now, this attack has been claimed by Islamic State and ISIS. Why would they target Save the Children? Did you learn anything as to why this building and this organization was the target?

HB: When we talked with some people there, they criticized the local government why they allowed they Save the Children office inside the residential area? They are looking for revenge. And if they get any easy target, they will attack. And that's why Save the Children is one of the really easy targets for them.

CO: We heard that there are schools very close to the Save the Children building. Kids’ parents were trying to get them away from the area. That all kinds of civilians were around who were in trouble because of this attack. So it really was a difficult scene for many people, wasn't it?

HB: Yeah, of course, the people were angry. People criticized before the incident because they said the government should not allow those types of organization inside the residential area because the government knows every organization and other organizations are targeted for the militants And they should be in the place where the security is good, and far away from the residential population area.

CO: So we know five people have died in this attack, three staff members of Save the Children. And there's many dozens of people wounded. How are they doing?

HB: More than 20 people were brought to hospital, and they’re injured. But my friend who was trapped inside that building, he said many of our staff disappeared, and are still missing so far. And he also said we lost some security guards because we finished this meeting around 8:30, and some security guards just returned to their normal routine. And he said he did believe maybe they were also killed in the attack. He doesn’t know about the exact number. But he said like we had a very good safe room, and that's why 80 per cent of the Save the children staff survived in this incident.

CO: All right. I know you're very tired. It's been a long day, Humayoon. I appreciate you staying up to talk to us. Thank you.

HB: You're welcome.

CO: Goodnight.

HB: Yeah, likewise.

JD: Humayoon Babur is a freelance journalist. We reached him in Jalalabad.

[Music: Cultural]

Ursulsa K. Le Guin obit

Guest: Molly Gloss

JD: "The King was pregnant." That's a sentence from Ursula K. Le Guin's 1969 novel, "The Left Hand of Darkness". And it rocked readers' worlds. Ms. Le Guin wrote fantasy and science fiction about sorcery and space. And it was also about gender and class. Her work was hugely influential and wildly popular. It was translated into more than forty languages, and her books sold millions and millions of copies. Ursula K. Le Guin died on Monday. She was 88-years-old. Molly Gloss is also a writer, and a close friend of Ms. Le Guin's. We reached her in Portland, Oregan.

CO: Molly, first of all, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.

Molly Gloss: Thank you. I appreciate that.

CO: And I think all of us are sorry to lose Ursula K. Le. Guin.

MG: It's kind of a strange thing for me to mourn the loss of a close friend — thirty-five years. And at the same time, I perfectly understand and feel the same loss that everyone else is talking about. The loss of this literary icon who we all looked to as a beacon of who we can be as writers, and what we can publish.

CO: How did you first meet her?

MG: I took a science fiction writing workshop in 1981 at Portland State. It was then college. Now, it's university. She's an amazing teacher, and she could look at a piece of really bad writing, and she could find the one thing in it that was really beautiful — really admirable. If it was a sentence or a phrase — a turn of phrase — and she would point that out, pull it forward, and say look at this. Look at what this writer can do. And then for that same piece of really bad writing, she would make one suggestion that would pull the writing just up a little bit. Not trying to fix everything wrong with this piece, but just this one suggestion that would lift it one level — make it that much better than it had been. It's an amazing feat.

CO: Wow, it is!

MG: And I watched her do it over and over again. And it's really fantastic.

CO: And of her own writing, what was your first introduction? What was your first book?

MG: The first book of hers I read was “The Left Hand of Darkness”. I had come to science fiction kind of late in my life; I was in my 30s. And I was trying to catch up by reading all the Golden Age stuff, of which you know it was almost all white males, and then I read “The Left Hand of Darkness”, and it was wow! Wow, you can do this? This is what you can do in science fiction? But more than that, from a personal level, because I was already beginning to be a writer, I thought why should I even bother? I mean I truly thought that. This book is so deep, so rich, so full of thought and wisdom, and imagination. The world does not need one more mediocre novelist. And if I can't write like this, then why would I want to bother? But then you know the next book of hers that I read was “Rocannon’s World”, which was one of her very, very early works. And then I thought oh, this is where she started. And I've told her that; she’s laughed about it.

CO: Because you told her that there was hope for you?

MG: Yes, indeed. I mean not be able to ever aspire to right “The Left Hand of Darkness”, but I could aspire to eventually work up to “Rocannon’s World”.

CO: “The Left Hand of Darkness” is extraordinary, isn't it? 1969, and this set in Gethen. Tell us about the Gethenians?

MG: Well, they’re a people who are un-gendered I guess I would say, except during brief periods of rather frantic kemmer when they assume one sexual behaviour or the other. But mostly, they are un-gendered. It was a thought experiment as she said in what is gender? Who would we be if we were not male or female?

CO: But she was on the cutting-edge of so many things, especially in terms of gender in science fiction. I mean way ahead of everybody. And I just want to play a clip of Ursula Le Guin in a CBC Radio program called “Ideas”. This is from 2004.

SOUNDCLIP

URSULA LE GUIN: Once you get the F word written on your forehead in red, apparently, you have to talk only about men and what men do to avoid being accused of talking always about women. I have aroused a level of suspicion among my critics that it simply is not going to go away. And I have no intention of trying to make it go away. I'm going to write what I damned please about both men and women. And refuse stupid notions. Really, it’s very annoying.

CO: And, of course, the F word being “Feminism”.

MG: Feminism, yes.

CO: Or feminist. And so what did she say to you about that? What was her view on herself as a feminist?

MG: Oh, I think she was a very strong feminist, but her opinions were her own. And she was not going to be pushed into any sort of box of belief around that. She's a very fierce and opinionated person, and not afraid to express those opinions. And not afraid to change her opinion if she was led down to understand it differently.

CO: In the past twenty-four hours since we learned the news, there's been such an outpouring of remarks and gratitude from writers like yourself, saying what an influence — what an effect — she had on their work. What do you think made her science fiction so important to you and other writers?

MG: Well, she, first of all, made it possible for us to understand that the science in science fiction didn't have to be robots and laser guns and physics. It could be archaeology, anthropology, sociology, psychology; it could be the social sciences. And for a lot of us, that was opening a door really wide. It could be work centering on women. That was new as well. I think there are many things about her work that make those of us writers who admire her make us want to please her in a way. She's always been my first reader in a metaphorical sense. I'm always thinking about her as I'm working on something. Imagining is this something Ursula would be pleased by? And I think that's true for a lot of writers — a lot of us. And I think it would have been true for me whether I had ever met her because I so admired her work and my goal was to try to write as well as I could for her in a sense.

CO: And you stayed friends with her for all these decades.

MG: Thirty-five years.

CO: What's your memory? What are you thinking about her today?

MG: I think about trips we took together. We took a long trip to the southwest. And we took a trip to Steens Mountain, and the Northern Cascades — long car trips where we were laughing and talking in the car for hours. Having a glass of whisky in the evening in the motels — those are really strong memories for me.

CO: so loving memoires. Molly, thank you so much.

MG: You're welcome.

JD: Molly Gloss is a writer. We reached her in Portland, Oregon. Her friend, the celebrated sci-fi fantasy writer Ursula K. Le Guin, died Monday. She was 88 years-old. To hear more of “Ideas”' fantastic 2004 two-part series with Ms. Le Guin that we excerpted in that interview, go to: www.cbc.ca/ideas.

[Music: Classical guitar]

Kellie Leitch

JD: Mild-mannered Andrew Scheer won't have Kellie Leitch to worry about come the next election. Because today, the former Conservative minister announced that she won't be running. Dr. Leitch is paediatric surgeon in civilian life. She built a far-from-mild political reputation with a pair of controversial policies. There was the values test for new Canadians that Dr. Leitch made the centrepiece of a leadership run. And then previous to that, during the dying days of the last election, Dr. Leitch proposed a tip line where Canadians could report what she called "barbaric cultural practices". She did eventually apologize for that — or, at least, for the way that policy was sold. But there were no apologies when reporters approached Kellie Leitch this morning. Here's part of their exchange.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Everybody wants to know why are you not going to run next election?

KELLIE LEITCH: Look, I often get asked who is a pediatric surgeon, why did I ever run? And the answer is that public service is good for you. You know I'm very fortunate to have represented an amazing riding, and I'm going to continue to do so — fabulous people that work hard every day, and are generous to Canadians. But for myself, right now, what's core to my being is public service in another way. And I'm looking forward to getting kids back on the playground to play. It's going to be a great opportunity for me.

REPORTER: You’ve seen the papers. Is this a repudiation of your Canadian values position —the Canadian Values test — did that ultimately lead you here?

KL: Not at all. You know for myself, it's about public service. I'm a pediatric surgeon, I love to take care of kids, and those kids need to get back on the playground to play, and I'm one of the few people in the country that can do that. So I'm looking forward to getting back at it, having a great time, and taking care of kids.

REPORTER: Looking back, is there something you whished you’d done differently?

KL: No, not for myself. For myself, I think that we live in a great open democracy, one that we should be able to share ideas. And I shared some ideas, and individuals had their say. And I think that's great. And one of the things that I'll be asking today since I've stepped out running in my nomination, is that we have an open candidates search, and an open nomination in Simcoe-Grey. So another great Canadian can step forward and had the opportunity to serve.

REPORTER: Do you think you would have been beat if you had gone ahead and had two people challenging you?

KL: Not at all. I can tell you 100 per cent confidence my riding association, the people in Simcoe-Grey, completely support me. Our last polling that was done in the riding I was polling at 55 per cent. Well ahead of where I was last time.

REPORTER: Think we’ll remember you for the Canadian Values test? Is that OK, Dr. Leitch? If that's what you’re remembered for?

REPORTER: Are you proud of that legacy of the Values test?

JD: Conservative MP Kelly Leitch, speaking to reporters in Ottawa earlier today.

[Music: Cultural]

Mark E. Smith obit

JD: Mark E. Smith marched to the beat of a different drummer. I mean, it's literally true that he marched to the beat of a lot of different drummers because he was famous for firing musicians from his band, The Fall, which had 66 different members over its long existence. But that's not exactly what I meant. I meant that he did everything differently. Before he showed up in 1976, reeking of cigarettes and spitting out often-brilliant non sequiturs, there was no one like him in pop music. And if there were people like him after he showed up, they were following his lead. Mark E. Smith died this morning. He was 60-years-old. He once told The Guardian that, quote, "When I was 18, the vision was to make music that didn't exist, because everything else was so unsatisfactory." He did that with The Fall — in all its different incarnations — over more than forty years, and dozens of records, he did that. Sometimes those records sounded like each other, but they never really sounded like anything else. Which was down to the vocals and lyrics of Mr. Smith himself, which often sounded like improvised nonsense, but they were neither. In the U.K., in particular, he was a legend. Not for being nice because he was prone to fits of rage and offensive remarks, and in 1998 he was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend, who played keyboards in the band. But he was a magnetic frontman who lived up to his own teenage ambition: to make music that had never existed before.

Part three: Wolf journey, net neutrality, Hati deportation

Wolf journey

Guest: Hugh Jansman

JD: Her name is Naya, and she's just arrived in Belgium for the first time. It's likely not a very big deal for her, since she's not even aware she crossed the border. But it's a big deal for humans, because Naya is the first wolf recorded in Belgium in 100 years. Naya's travels are just part of the general resurgence of wolves in some parts of Europe. Hugh Jansman is an ecologist in the Netherlands. He’s been following Naya's journey. We reached him in the town of Radio Kootwijk.

CO: Mr. Jansman, how have people reacted to the wolves returning to Belgium?

HUGH JANSMAN: Ooh, that's quite interesting. I think the emotions regarding to wolves are quite mixed. Some are quite positive. Most of us people now live in cities, and they have lost contact with nature. And wolves are quite symbolic of the wildness. And some people have negative emotions based on fear and anger because they see wolves as a threat for people, cattle, or their pets.

CO: We should point out that we're talking about one wolf at this point, Naya. And what's she been up to?

HJ: She was born in May 2016, she was caught by my colleague Norman Steve from the Technical University. He runs a project recording the behavior of wolves. And so Naya got a transmitter in October 2016. She spent another year with her parents in the wolf pack. And she left last October and traveled over 700 kilometres through Germany into the Netherlands. She spent a few weeks in the Netherlands during Christmas and New Year’s. And then the third of January, she passed the border into Belgium.

CO: Does she have a mate?

HJ: We are not sure yet. And probably he hasn't at this moment. But her physiology tells us that in the next month she ovulate for the first time, and probably she's now marking her territory quite actively in order to lure a male into her territory.

CO: And is there a male around who might be lured?

HJ: We don't know. If one thing did show us then it’s that Naya is a wolf with a radio collar, so we do know her whereabouts. How she wanders through our country in the Netherlands, and in Belgium, and in Germany. She has not been seen travelling over 700 kilometres, crossing many highways, many rivers, many chill channels. So it’s a big mystery. We have no idea how many more wolves are traveling through our country. They can be quite elusive.

CO: What was Naya doing for food as she did this long trek?

HJ: Well the things that we did notice is that the were, in the Netherlands, four locations, and in Belgium, now one where she has been caught by wolves. And they match with the track that we could see from the GPS collar that Naya has been wearing. So now, we are referring to genetics whether or not it has been Naya killing those sheep? So yes, she has been eating cattle and sheep in this case. But I have been expecting some cases where she has been spending more than a few hours in the Netherlands, and I found the remains of road deer and hares as well.

CO: You mentioned that the people working in agriculture are not happy to see Naya show up, and the possibility that there may be more wolves. How is that being treated politically? Because this is not the first part of Europe that’s been dealing with the return of wolves. What's been the response to the farmers who are saying that they are losing their sheep?

HJ: Yeah, that's indeed in the liner. It has been very well dealt with in the Netherlands. We have a wolf management plan made by the public ministries. And it says that if there is a chance that sheep damage has been caused by wolf, damage experts are checking the situation, they take DNA swabs if necessary, and we run those DNA samples at our university to see whether or not the genetics are from a wolf. And if wolf cannot be excluded, damage is compensated.

CO: And any permission given to kill the wolf?

HJ: No, that's definitely not the case. The wolf is still a highly endangered species in North Western Europe, therefore European Union prohibits that measures on control are taken. The only exclusions are if wolves are really showing habituated behaviour, and being a risk for public or cattle.

CO: Now wolves, wild wolves, gray wolves were just wiped out of Europe for the very reasons we're talking about, isn't it? Because of agriculture and the competition for that space, so when did the wolves come back?

HJ: Well, wolves remained in a few areas within Europe, but in the more human-dense areas, they were completely eradicated two centuries ago in the Netherlands and Belgium. In 2000, we had the first breeding pack in the far eastern corner of Germany. And now, we are talking 80 years later, we have 74 breeding packs in Germany, and the first breeding pack in Denmark. Now, the first settling down wolf in Belgium, and already, in the last few years, a few wolves migrating through the Netherlands. So we are in the front of the wave of wolves recolonizing former habitat.

CO: And why are they coming back?

HJ: Mostly because better protection bylaws within the European Union. Next, tolerance is increasing; more people live in cities, and they have less conflict with predators. And lastly, many people moved to cities because there are better chances for career. So mainly in Eastern Europe, you see that many rural areas are being abandoned, returning from agriculture back to nature, and those areas are big options for nature to come back.

CO: And they’re fascinating creatures. And that's the reason why many people are delighted to see them back. But what's the argument against those who say that no matter what you think of wolves, they are killing the sheep, or they're affecting business, that farmers are struggling against them. What's the argument in their defence?

HJ: I can't say. There are many things going on. For instance, there are areas in Europe where wolves never have been away, and sheep farmers there never have complained about wolves. It's matter that in parts of Europe, sheep farmers have lost dealing with sheep farming in the presence of a big predator. And they have to learn again how to deal with that. So yes, there is a lot coming to those farmers. They really have to change the way of management. But policymakers are really assisting and coaching those farmers.

CO: Mr. Jansman, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

HJ: Thank you very much.

JD: Hugh Jansman is an ecologist and a researcher at the Wageningen University and Research Centre. We reached him in Radio Kootwijk, the Netherlands.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Don Lemon

JD: "There's nothing random about this — nothing." On CNN last night, that's how host Don Lemon described a series of death threats the network received earlier this month. A Michigan man has now been arrested, after allegedly calling CNN multiple times and threatening to kill its employees. In a monologue, Mr. Lemon went on to address President Donald Trump directly — and linked the threats to his inflammatory rhetoric against the media.

SOUNDCLIP

DON LEMON: This is what happens. When the president of the United States, Donald Trump, repeatedly attacks members of the press simply for reporting facts he does not like — the president, just this morning, blasting our very own Jim Acosta, and calling CNN “fake news”. A charge he has leveled at the press, not just CNN, over and over. I’ve heard from a number of very credible sources from within the White House that you watch this show; you deny it all the time. But then you know you say something disparaging about me, and the only way you would know that is if you saw the show. So Mr. President, I'm going to speak directly to you. We are not the enemy. We are not trying to silence you. It is the job of the free press to report the facts. To ask questions — tough questions — ones you don't like, even if you don't like the facts or those questions. No matter how many times you attack us as fake news, we will continue to do our jobs. When you make that baseless and incendiary charge, be aware that people are listening to you — some very dangerous people. According to a federal affidavit, the caller who threatened to kill CNN employees made his threat using these words, quote, “fake news, I'm coming to gun you all down. Fake news, I wonder where he got those words? And the second call, quote, “I am on my way right now to gun the effing CNN cast down. I am coming to kill you.” So I can only speak for myself. But I know my co-workers have also had threats of this network, other news organizations, there is an open case with the NYPD right now of someone who is threatening to kill me. When you Donald Trump tweet the post of a train hitting CNN you might think it's funny. It's not; it's stupid. It’s actually childish. My ten-year-old nephew wouldn’t even do something like that. When you tweet a doctored video of you body slamming CNN, people take that message seriously. And if one of us has heard or God forbid something else in some way or another because you either don't understand the power of your words, and/or you don't care, it won't be a fake injury or sadly a fake death it will be real. And how will you answer those questions then, not only from journalists, but from our loved ones because you're going to have to do it? Let's hope it doesn't happen. Let's hope you see the error of your ways as well.

JD: CNN host Don Lemon, calling out President Donald Trump last night. Earlier this month, CNN received death threats from a caller who referred to the network as "fake news".

[Music: Jazz]

Net neutrality

Guest: Patricia Fahy

JD: The fight over net neutrality in United States has only just begun. In December, the Trump administration put an end to Obama-era controls that made it harder for internet providers in the U.S. to either slow down services or speed up some services, depending on which one is better, not necessarily for their consumers, but for their bottom line. But more than 20 states though are fighting that move in court. Earlier this week, the Governor of Montana issued an order barring companies that restrict internet traffic from doing business in his state. And now, a New York State Assemblymember has announced legislation that would do the same thing in the State of New York. We reached Assemblywomen Patricia Fahy in Albany, New York.

CO: Assemblywoman Fahy, what are you trying to accomplish with this bill?

PATRICIA FAHY: Well, the key accomplishment is to make sure that we keep the Internet free and open. And if the FCC, or our Federal Communications Commission, does not want to keep it free and open by abandoning the net neutrality principles, we are going to insist that it remain open here in New York.

CO: And it's something that I think is just slowly dawning on people what net neutrality principle is because most people we thought that equal access to everything on the Internet was just kind of a naturally-occurring in the system. What is the effect of what the FCC has ruled possibly going to do to net neutrality?

PF: Well, by abandoning the net neutrality principles, it means that ISP, or Internet Service Providers, could use unfair practices, such that especially wealthier Internet providers could do a paid prioritization. Such that let's say it's Facebook, only those that are paying for ads would get a priority on those ads, and those would show up for some entrepreneurial ads or posts. So what we think is that this would really hurt the entrepreneurial and innovative economy that has really been the lifeblood of upstate New York, if not most of the country. If you think of the entrepreneurial economy that is so dependent upon that free and open Internet.

CO: What can you actually do though? I mean these companies are global. Some of them are hsve profits the size of the GDP of small countries. You mentioned Spectrum, Charter, Comcast, AT&T — they're huge. What can you do as a state to resist that?

PF: Actually, we think we're actually already having a tremendous impact because California we've already spoken to folks — the legislators in California — we've got North Carolina talking to us. Rhode Island, State of Washington, there's already multiple states looking at this, and we think that many states will end up adopting a similar concept. Because they recognize you cannot grow your entrepreneurial class in innovators without keeping that Internet free and open and equitable to all. So one of the reasons we're really pushing this bill is because it will have a chilling effect. So you're right, AT&T is a big company, but New York state budget’s is, next to California, it's the second biggest in the country. So that 168 billion can have a real chilling effect to say you better practice good business behaviour.

CO: But if all the states in the U.S. start to have their own policies on that I mean that the Internet is a global movement of ideas and information, isn't it? I mean do you end up with a patchwork quilt of policies across your country?

PF: Again, a great question. And the beauty of what we're doing here in New York is there's no patchwork — there's no regulation. We're not saying we're going to regulate you. We're saying we’re going to check what you are federally mandated to disclose. And then as long as you are practicing the net neutrality principles — as long as you're maintaining them — even if the FCC has abandoned those principles, you’re certified here in New York. So it’s not a regulation. We're taking what is already federally disclosed, and that's why I've called it a side door. No new regulation. It's just we're saying unless you maintain fair practices the way you now have to do or that you had to do a month ago. And we think many will be good. When you've got Facebook, Google, and Netflix all agreeing to these principles, those are pretty big heavies coming up against the multibillion-dollar ISP companies — the Internet Service Providers. So remember, it's not just state government saying this. We've got some other big heavies here who are going to say we're going to maintain these principles, regardless of whether the Trump administration does or not.

CO: Just finally, are you an Internet geek? I mean is there some reason why you're the one who ends up being responsible for this?

PF: OK, that's the best question of all. No, I'm the furthest thing from a geek. But I have a 21-year-old son who is a complete geek. And when I mentioned this to him — when this started bubbling up around Thanksgiving here in New York State — I mentioned it to my son, and I've rarely seen him so animated. He was so outraged at the mere thought that the FCC was going to abandon these principles because he too is a budding entrepreneur; he's just finishing college with a filmmaking degree. So he will be hugely dependent upon that free and open Internet to sell his business, to sell his work, and to find work in the creative economy. And then I also have a young man on my staff, also a millennial, who also understood this. And so between both of them, I was educated as to how important this is. And it was me then that came up with the idea that since we can't regulate it, let's just use the power of the purse to say you can do whatever you want if you know your Charter One, or Spectrum, or AT&T. But in New York, with the power of the New York State purse, you must play fair and maintain those principles if you want our dollars.

CO: Assemblywomen Fahy, thanks for speaking with us.

PF: Thank you so much for the interest.

CO: Bye.

PF: Bye now.

JD: Patricia Fahy is a New York State Assemblymember. We reached her in Albany, New York.

[Music: Classic rock]

Haitian deportation

Guest: Jean Montrevil

JD: Jean Montrevil has spent most of his life in the United States. He immigrated to the U.S. from Haiti in the 1980s. And now, he's been forced to return to Haiti, for the first time since childhood. In 1989, Mr. Montrevil was sentenced to 11 years in prison for cocaine possession. He was released in 2000, began a business, began a family, he also became a prominent immigrant rights activist in New York City. He says he's had no further trouble with the law since his release. Last Tuesday, he was deported. We reached Mr. Montrevil in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. And please bear with us — the phone line isn't great.

CO: Mr. Montrevil, where have you been staying since you returned to Port au Prince?

JEAN MONTREVIL: I've been staying with a friend of mine who also got deported. He got deported about 20 years ago. And he was the only one to have the space for me. He showed me around the city that I left about 30 years ago.

CO: It's not a good line; I'll repeat things. You haven't lived in Haiti for 30 years?

JM: Thirty-two years to be exact, yes.

CO: How old were you when you left?

JM: I was 17-years-old; just turned 17.

CO: And do you have any family left in Haiti?

JM: No, all my family is in the United States. I have 17 brothers and sisters in the United States

CO: And you also have a wife and children. How many children do you have?

JM: I have four children all together. Me and my wife have three children together.

CO: They're all in the United States?

JM: Yes, they were born in the United States. My wife is a U.S. citizen; she’s not a Haitian.

CO: Did you have any warning that this deportation from the United States to Haiti was going to happen.

JM: I didn’t know exactly when because my case is still in court even as we speak now. I had to check it. I was checking with them every two to three months. And I had to check in on January 16^th. So I was very surprised when they came to my house on the third.

CO: And I understand that you're referring to your check in, this is something you have been required to do to Immigration Services in the United States since you were released from a prison sentence, is that right?

JM: Yes, I was released in 2000. But in 2005, that’s when Immigration picked me up when I was supposed to finish my parole. I went there to sign the papers, but Immigration was there. Back in 2005, Haiti was not accepting deportees at that. The country was in turmoil politically. After seven months in Immigration detention, they had no choice but to release me. And I've been checking with them since 2005. I got the news.

CO: So I'll repeat some things back. You said since 2005, you have been in this supervision. You have always made your appointments. You haven't been in trouble again. You've volunteered. You had a job; you pay taxes, and everything. Why do you think you were targeted now?

JM: Well, because of my activity; I’ve been speaking against them since 2005. I’ve been on the news speaking about them, and I don’t think they appreciate that too much. And I truly believe now that’s the reason I have been targeted.

CO: And you're referring to your activism. So you believe that you were picked up. After all these years of not being targeted, you were picked up because of your work with what's called the New Sanctuary Coalition. Your activism with them, is that right?

JM: Yes, it definitely is. And they tell me themselves don’t you see who we have as the president now? They mentioned Trump’s name on my way to detention. That’s what they were talking about: Trump, Trump, Trump. There's no doubt in my mind that because of the new ideas system we have in power now, they are really targeting.

CO: Just so I understand, did say that the Immigration workers as they were deporting you they were referring to Trump? They were referencing the president?

JM: Yes, and not once but a couple times.

CO: So they're saying that they told you the reason why you're being deported is because of President Trump?

JM: Yes.

CO: That's what they told you?

JM: Yes.

CO: I have many questions, but because the lines not good, it's hard to go into too much detail. But what will you do? Are you going to now be living in Haiti?

JM: Well, you know it’s a very good question. I’ve been trying to debate in my head since I’ve been here — maybe for a week. This country, like the president stated, is a [censored]hole. And it is hard for me to see the options to live here. But I have no other choice. I have to plan to stay here because I have no faith in the justice system in America.

CO: You're saying you have no faith in the justice system. But It's interesting, your name is Jean Montrevil in the United States. Are you Jean Montrevil now that you’re living in Haiti?

JM: Yes.

CO: Do you speak French?

JM: I used to. I understand it a little bit, but it does sound very strange to me. I have to try and learn it before I can do anything as far as working.

CO: Mr. Montrevil, we’ll have to leave it there because it's hard to hear you. But I appreciate what you're saying. We'll see if we can get some answers. But thank you for speaking with us.

JM: You’re welcome, Carol

CO: Bye bye.

JM: Bye bye.

JD: Jean Montrevil was deported to Haiti from the United States last week. We reached him in Port-au-Prince. We did also contacted Mr. Montrevil's lawyer in New York. He said it's possible Mr. Montrevil could come back to the United States if his appeal is successful — but that process could take years. We contacted ICE — Immigration and Customs Enforcement — to ask if it had targeted Mr. Montrevil for political reasons? We did not receive a response.

[Music: Guitar]

Quote/Unquote: Hawaii Governor Password

JD: And now, Quote/Unquote.

[Music: That funky 808 song]

JD: In most cases, seventeen minutes is a pretty respectable period within which to catch yourself in a mistake, and issue a correction. But as we learned earlier this month, when that mistake is falsely alerting your country of an imminent ballistic missile threat, people attend to be less forgiving. On January 13th, of course, Hawaii's Emergency Management Agency made a mistake. It sent out a missile alert on Twitter. In all caps, the message read, quote, "BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTHER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL." Unquote. This was not how most people in Hawaii wanted to start their Saturday morning, especially Governor David Ige. Like most people, Mr. Ige panicked. Unlike most people, two minutes after it was tweeted, Mr. Ige was swiftly alerted that the alert was false. But then, for some reason, he took an additional fifteen minutes before he let everyone else know it was a false alarm. An excruciating seventeen minutes after that initial tweet was posted, Governor Ige finally tweeted, "There is NO missile threat." To be fair, as we know now, Mr. Ige was probably frantically typing "1234" and "password" into his Twitter login — and, when that didn't work, desperately trying to remember the answers to his secret password recovery questions. Because, as the governor admitted on to reporters on Monday, quote, "I have to confess that I don't know my Twitter account log-ons and the passwords, so certainly that's one of the changes that I've made." Unquote.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 24, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode