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

The AIH Transcript for February 20, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

ANGELINE TETTEH-WAYOE: Good evening, I'm Angeline Tetteh-Wayoe, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is “As It Happens”.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

ATW: Tonight:

CO: Retrenched warfare. ISIS is now clinging to one small patch of land in Syria — but our guest warns that the terror group will persist in the region, even after a military defeat.

ATW: Father confessors. The Vatican admits that it has a document on what to do when priests and nuns break their celibacy vows — to the relief of some children of Catholic clergy.

CO: Her son is grounded — and so is she. Because of passport problems, a Canadian woman is stuck in Port-au-Prince with her 5-year-old, while her partner has flown out of the country with their daughter.

ATW: It's off the rails to move it on them. An oil and gas analyst slams Alberta Premier Rachel Notley's plan to spend billions leasing rail cars to get her province's crude to market.

CO: The qualms before the storm. Scientists say that, without urgently needed repairs, a major dam in Los Angeles will fail in extreme weather — and that a so-called "megastorm" may well hit California in the next few decades.

ATW: And...chewing the scenery. In New York state, a growing population of hungry deer is devouring the underbrush — and new research shows that's changing the way sound travels through forests.

ATW: "As It Happens", the Wednesday edition. Radio that's not a big fan of dramatic sound effects.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Last days of ISIS, Haiti couple separated, California dam worries

Last days of ISIS

Guest: Richard Hall

ATW: When ISIS declared its caliphate five years ago, its territory sprawled across several countries. Its leaders controlled the lives of 10 million people. Now, the so-called caliphate is in its final days. The last of the terror group's loyalists are wedged into a small corner of territory in Syria. Over the past few days, you've probably heard stories about citizens from countries like Canada, the United States, and Britain, who have left the area and now want to return home. But that's only one of the complications created by the final battle over the last small patch of land still controlled by ISIS. Richard Hall is the Middle East correspondent for The Independent. He's in Beirut, Lebanon.

CO: Richard, I know you were recently in Syria watching this offensive against ISIS. What is now left of the ISIS caliphate?

RICHARD HALL: Well, not very much at all, actually. From the pictures we're seeing, it seems like merely a few dozen tents — maybe a few more than that. But it's been reduced over the last couple of months from a string of villages in eastern Syria along the Euphrates River to just this tiny patch of land in the village called Baghouz, which is in Deir Az Zor. And from the news today, it sounds like there were only a few hundred ISIS fighters left, and some civilians mixed in with them in these collection of tents.

CO: It's quite extraordinary when you think just not many years ago that ISIS commanded a territory a vast part of Syria and millions of people who were under their brutal regime, right?

RH: Yeah, that was one of the things that struck me when I was there. I was in Baghouz — it was a bit bigger than a couple of weeks ago when I was there. But you could see the entire caliphate. I've been reporting on ISIS for the past four years, traveled across thousands of miles to do so, and I was standing on this rooftop, and I could see the whole thing. And it was very, very, very strange experience.

CO: We're watching what the BBC is reporting and showing that the tracks leaving Baghouz — Baghouz being the place you just mentioned — it seems to have families with them — women and children there — so where will they go?

RH: So they go for processing first. When they come out of the ISIS-held territory, they go to a transit point, which is in a desert. I visited it when I was there. And they're arriving in horrible conditions. In fact, they've been without food for days some of them, they’re starving, and they go to this transit point. And the men and the women are separated. And the men are questioned. They're fingerprinted. And the women and children are questioned separately. If they're not arrested on suspicion of being ISIS members, they're taken to a camp further north, which has taken in more than 30,000 people in the last two months. It's just been an exodus from these last ISIS-held territories. And this camp is now overcrowded. The conditions there are horrible. And while they're at this camp, they face further questioning about their time in the ISIS territory, whether they have links to ISIS, whether they were members of the group, etc.

CO: And you were able to speak with some of these ISIS fighters who are now I guess it’s surrender or be killed I guess is the ruling, right?

RH: They were surrendering. Yeah, so it wasn't clear that they were fighters at this point because we met them just as they were leaving. So they were basically lined up for questioning at this transit point. There were American special forces there and Kurdish intelligence officers. And they were questioned in this in the middle of the desert — asked simple questions: where they're from, what have you been doing there. And I managed to speak to a few of them, and I couldn't find one Syrian man among the dozen or so men that came when we were there. There were men from Iraq and Kazakhstan — one from Kazakhstan. And their story was basically they weren't anything to do with ISIS. Obviously, they would say that. But one man said he was a cook. Another man said he was a butcher. And they're obviously just very eager to protect themselves and not be arrested.

CO: You say U.S. special forces and Kurdish intelligence are conducting these interviews and screening those men. What are the criteria? Are there any rules about how they are to treat what might be prisoners of war?

RH: So the Americans and the Kurdish intelligence they have their own database of suspected ISIS fighters — people who are involved with the group. They they've gathered that over years from people who have left the area. So they basically check these people against a list of names. And I think I saw there was around six men who were taken to one side who obviously came up with that database. And they are taken to jails. They're taking to prisons and treated as prisoners of war. And this is a debate at the moment of all these countries are trying to figure out what to do with these ISIS fighters — especially the one that's coming from countries from Canada, and America, and Europe. No one wants to take them back. And the Kurdish authorities holding them don't have the resources to hold them forever. This is an autonomous region — kind of a breakaway region. They don't have relations with the government anymore. And they're saying they can't hold them anymore, so there's this huge debate going on now about what to do with them?

CO: And we know that this camp where you just mentioned they get taken after they leave the territory. There's a controversial person there, Shamima Begum, who is a woman who went to join her husband in ISIS years ago when she was 15. Now, she's still in her teens. And that was a great controversy in the U.K. about whether she should be able to return. So she and all these others are in this camp. Were you able to see that place?

RH: I didn't visit [the camp] personally, no. But I saw them before they got there. Not her specifically, but I saw them before they would get there. But I've been speaking to people who are working in the camp, and the conditions there are just atrocious just because of the sheer numbers that are arriving there. I mean the number of people leaving this tiny ISIS-held area has just shocked everyone. There's over 40,000 people in this camp now. So the conditions there are really just awful. And that's something that's been lost in all this coverage on these ISIS brides as they're called.

CO: And we know that Shamima Begum gave birth in that camp just some days ago.

RH: That's right. And there are many more babies and children and they're just living in these awful conditions.

CO: Now, what's going on on the ground though is that Washington has announced it plans to leave Syria now that it says that ISIS has been defeated, and the caliphate is has been defeated. What you saw about how much reduced the territory is and its control influence. Is it your sense that ISIS is a spent force in Syria?

RH: Certainly not, no. So there is a distinction that should be made here. What has been defeated is the physical caliphate that ISIS once had — this huge territory that you were talking about. ISIS is already regrouping. It was a very capable insurgent organization before it had this caliphate. In fact, it was an insurgent organization longer than it had the actual territory. So it's really going back to its roots, and these attacks are already starting and kicking up again. In Iraq, they're kind of ruling the night in some areas. They're able to move around unharmed in these vast empty areas of Iraq. In Syria, attacks are rising again already. In fact on the roads down to Deir Az Zor — to this last ISIS-held territory — we were told it was more dangerous than the frontline itself because there were sleeper cells active in the area. They were attacking cars; they were attacking Kurdish forces down there. So we're already seeing the seeds of ISIS 2.0, if you will, or back to the original version of ISIS, which is an insurgent organization, which is very powerful, has lots of resources, and whose ideology hasn't really been defeated.

CO: All right, Richard I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

RH: Thanks very much.

ATW: Richard Hall is The Independent's Middle East correspondent. He's in Beirut. Mr. Hall mentioned Shamima Begum — the British woman who was part of ISIS. The British government has moved to try to strip her of her citizenship. We'll have more on that story later in the show.

[Music: Ambient]

Question Period Wilson Raybould

AWT: It was another wild day on Parliament Hill — with SNC Lavalin front and centre during Question Period. MPs were voting on an NDP motion that called for a public inquiry into the scandal over alleged political interference in the prosecution of the engineering company. The motion would also have waived the solicitor-client privilege that bars former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould from speaking about the case. As things got underway, Ms. Wilson-Raybould explained why she would abstain from voting on the matter.

SOUNDCLIP

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: The reason for my abstention is that the matter in part has to do with me personally, and I do not think that is appropriate for me to vote on a matter that has to do with me personally. I have said that I am seeking counsel on this matter of what I can and cannot say. I understand fully that Canadians want to know the truth, and want transparency. Privilege and confidentiality are not mine to waive, and I hope that I have the opportunity to speak my truth.

AWT: That was Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould during today's vote in Ottawa. The motion was voted down by the Liberal majority. But that was not the end of the matter. Here are Conservative MP Candice Bergen, and the NDP's Charlie Angus, just after the vote.

SOUNDCLIP

CANDICE BERGEN: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the former Attorney General indicated that she abstained from this vote because she believes that she has a personal interest in the result of this vote. Mr. Speaker, I would look to you for guidance. I think both the Prime Minister and the current Attorney General, who is making decisions regarding client-solicitor privilege, and whether it should be waived or not. If I could please have some respect, I know the Liberals don’t like when strong women speak. Yeah, deal with it. Mr. Speaker, if we can get some guidance from you as to whether the Prime Minister's vote, and the vote from the current Attorney General should be waived because they really should have abstained from this. If they don't, Mr. Speaker, there are other measures that we can take — which includes going to the Ethics Commissioner. But I think it would be cleaner, and probably a little wiser, if they would just abstain from this vote. Thank you.

GEOFF REGAN: The honourable member for Timmins-James Bay is rising on a point of order.

CHARLIE ANGUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You did make a ruling on the amendment, but I'm asking you to go back and examine precedent on this matter because the question of whether the client in an investigation is allowed to vote in a motion that would open up that investigation or shut it down is a clear conflict of interest. So if the solicitor is bound not to vote, then the client breached his obligations as a member of this House. And I'm asking you given the seriousness of this matter to take it back and reflect. Because we have great respect for the work that the Speaker's Office has done now and has done in the past, and this will certainly be setting a precedent. So I'm asking you to look into this matter on whether this client was in a conflict of interest. Thank you.

AWT: NDP MP Charlie Angus and Conservative MP Candice Bergen speaking earlier today in Ottawa. For the latest on this story go to: www.cbc.ca/politics.

[Music: Instrumental]

Haiti couple separated

Guest: Meaghan Balzer

ATW: As dozens of Canadians were trying to get out of Haiti, Meaghan Balzer had no choice but to stay. The New Brunswick woman has called the country home for a decade. But when the anti-government protests began, she and her Haitian partner had a decision to make. Ms. Balzer is in the process of adopting 5-year-old Deo, but he still doesn't have a passport, and can't leave the country. So, when the situation became too dangerous, her partner and their daughter boarded the last Air Canada flight, bound for St. John, New Brunswick — without her. We reached Meaghan Balzer in Port-au-Prince.

CO: Meaghan, how difficult was it to see your partner and your daughter depart for Canada?

MEAGHAN BALZER: Well, fundamentally, we had to keep in mind that we were doing the right thing. And that's what we try to focus on. And that's what keeps us strong. But it was the most challenging decision probably that we have had to make in our life.

CO: Why did you make the decision?

MB: Well, because the context is unsafe right now in Port-au-Prince, and it's unsure how much further it will go. It doesn't look optimistic. And so we had to make the choice to protect one of our children — even though it meant that we would be apart.

CO: How did the kids respond?

MB: Well, Iyanu was fine. She's in Canada. She thinks that it's a great visit to you know to go to Nana's house and see the snow. She's very excited about that, although she asks for Deo all of the time because they are like twins. Deo on the other hand, he is having a harder time because the house is empty without his sort of partner-in-crime, Iyanu. And, of course, he misses his father too. So for Deo, it's a much more difficult experience.

CO: And what's the danger level as far as you can assess as to being in Port-au-Prince right now?

MB: Ok. Today, and for the past couple of days, it's really hard to assess because there are incidents occurring, but it's not to the extreme level that it was over the past few weeks. However, there's a lot of anxiety because people know that the issues have not been resolved. And so until there are concrete steps towards resolving the issues, I don't think that it's going to become more peaceful. I think it's probably going to become more violent.

CO: I know it's complicated, but can you explain why you have remained behind with your son, Deo?

MB: I am Deo’s legal guardian, Will is not technically his legal guardian, my partner. So I have the legal responsibility to stay with Deo, of course, and also I would never leave him anyway as his mom.

CO: You're adopting him, is that right?

MB: That's correct. So I'm Deo’s legal guardian, and we're in the process of adopting. We have an adoption file with social services. However, immigration in Haiti is not allowed to — or they have not. I believe that they could, but they have not issued us a passport because Deo is not adopted; he's under my legal guardianship. And then also for Deo to get a visa to travel to Canada would also be complicated because the adoption is not finished.

CO: And so how did you come to be adopting, Deo? How did you meet him?

MB: Okay. Thank you for asking that question, because I love the story. So I was not supposed to be able to have children. A couple of doctors told me because of Endometrioses, it would be very difficult for me to have children. And so I had decided years ago that I would adopt, and it's just the circumstances I guess in life were such that I decided it was time. And I met Deo in February 2014. He was in the orphanage at that time. And then actually one month later, I was pregnant. And many people asked are you going to continue with the adoption process, it's going to be very difficult. And I said yes, of course, I am in it for you know whatever it takes. I am Deo’s mother from the first day I met him. So that's how I met Deo and became involved in this process.

CO: And so your kids are about the same age?

MB: Yep, they're ten months difference. So they're both born in 2014, which you know that's called Irish twins they call them. So we say that they're Irish-Haitian-Canadian twins.

CO: And your partner is from Haiti?

MB: He is, yes.

CO: What are the chances that you're going to be able to get the paperwork that you need in order to rejoin the rest of your family in Canada?

MB: Well, I think that I have all of the necessary documentation to support a file that would support me getting the adoption and the immigration files. And so if there was a focus on my file — if there was a concentrated effort to examine my file — then I think that it could go through the due process quite quickly if the right amount of pressure was applied.

CO: Are you getting any help from the Canadian embassy in Haiti?

MB: Well, the Canadian embassy has been supportive in acknowledging our status in terms of us being in a vulnerable situation, but they have not been able to provide any solutions in terms of how we could move.

CO: You have been in Haiti for the past ten years, is that right?

MB: Yes, that's right. I came in August 2009.

CO: I know you're trying to get to New Brunswick to rejoin your family, but is this Haiti home? Is that where you're hoping to return to?

MB: Well, I love Haiti very much. And it's taught me lessons that I feel very, very grateful to have learned. But nothing can really negotiate the safety of your children. And, unfortunately, even if you love a place where you are, if your children are in danger you have to leave it. And I would say that you know if there wasn't turmoil and vulnerabilities then I would have a hard time leaving Haiti as much as I love Canada. Ideally, we would be able to be in both places, but definitely where we feel like Canada's is the place where we will need to be.

CO: I hope everything works out for you, Meaghan. And thanks for speaking with us.

MB: Well, thank you so much for being interested in our story.

CO: Bye-bye

ATW: We reached Meaghan Balzer in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. And we have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

California dam worries

Guest: Daniel Swain

ATW: Not only are engineers in California warning that a crucial dam in Los Angeles might not withstand a rare, powerful storm. They're also warning that that storm — which they call "The Other Big One" — is a real possibility. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — which oversees the Whittier Narrows Dam — says it no longer meets its guidelines — and saying that it could fail in the event of a mega-storm, unless it gets hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs. Daniel Swain says the problem is even more widespread. He is a climate scientist at UCLA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. We reached him in Boulder, Colorado.

CO: Mr. Swain, what would a mega storm — known as The Other Big One — what would it look like?

DAINEL SWAIN: Well, one of the reasons why a storm — or really a series of storms — is called The Other Big One is because the Original Big One is a large magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault near Los Angeles or San Francisco, which itself would obviously be a devastating natural disaster. But in a contingency planning exercise that the state of California completed just a few years ago, they actually found that a flood of this extreme magnitude could actually be more economically destructive than one of these large earthquakes.

CO: And how devastating would it be? Just describe what you have figured and others have figured would happen in that region of California if you had such a mega storm?

DS: Well, the last time a flood of this magnitude occurred in California was 1862. So back then, California had a population of about 400,000. Today, it's closer to 40 million. And so many millions of people live today in what naturally are flood plains. And historically, they've been protected to large degree by a fairly intricate system of dams and levees and other flood protection infrastructure that's kept water for the most part out of the major urban areas. But a storm series of this magnitude would likely overwhelm most of those systems. And recent research has suggested could even threaten the structural integrity of a really important infrastructure like major dams.

CO: And in particular, the Whittier Narrows Dam. That's the one that's been under study, right?

DS: So the concern I believe right now is that the Army Corps of Engineers recently announced that that particular dam — the Whittier Narrows Dam — was potentially at risk of catastrophic failure. But it's also important to realize that it probably isn't the only structure that is potentially at risk in a sufficiently extreme flood event. And there was a recent study that came out just last week — not conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, but by independent researchers at the University of California — that suggested that the climate change actually would increase the risk of structural failure at major dams in California as the frequency and intensity of precipitation events increases.

CO: Now, California is… well, we've done a number of stories on the drought. And that's been the preoccupation just how there's just not enough rain. And what you're describing sounds hypothetical. I mean you haven't had a storm like this in 150 years. They call this a 900 year cycle that the likelihood is pretty small. So why would you put all these resources… why would you be preparing for something that doesn't on the surface of it look like it's going to happen because of all the drought into something that just might happen — a slim chance that might happen?

DS: Well, it's important to realize that hat is called the 900 Year Flood doesn't actually mean the flood occurs in a 900 year cycle. It just means that the likelihood in any given year is about one-tenth-of-one per cent, which is quite small. But there's a couple of caveats there. One is that the risk is increasing. We actually had a study that came out last year which suggested that the cumulative likelihood of a flood of similar magnitude to it occurred in 1862, which is the last time this really big one occurred, is something like 50 per cent over the next 40 years.

CO: For the people who live there and that's in that area around where the dam is — where the flood plains are. You mentioned there’s like 40 million people now living in that region. What would happen to them? What would their cities, what would their neighbourhoods look like if there was a storm of this nature and that dam did not hold?

DS: Although we don't like to talk about it, the consequences of a dam failing in a populated area are really high. Because, obviously, you don't just have a slow gradual flood, you have a rapid inundation from a wall of water. And the Army Corps study that just came out had painted a pretty dire picture of what some of the urban areas downstream of this dam would look like.

CO: So it wouldn't just be a river rising and swampy, muddy streets. It would be an inundation. That some of these cities and towns could be underwater completely?

DS: That's right. And that's the real hazard with something like the failure of a dam or another water control infrastructure is that if it collapses completely, which is very rare, but if it happens, the water rises very fast. And it can be a real threat not just to property but also to life and limb.

CO: And just finally, I guess what we're watching from Washington is the priority coming out of the White House is to get billions of dollars to build a wall between United States and Mexico. Do you think it's difficult to switch those priorities if that's considered with national emergency, how do you convince anyone in Washington that a more dire emergency is possibly in places where we're going to be affected by climate change?

DS: Well, let me put it this way, the risk assessment that the state of California put out a few years ago looking at the potential for a really extreme flood event to unleash a really catastrophic economic and humanitarian disaster. It suggested that the economic cost of such an event in modern day California could approach a trillion dollars. So the cost of not addressing the problem rises pretty quickly the longer that we wait to address it. And so I think from a cost-benefit perspective, I think that there's some pretty powerful motivations to approach this pretty aggressively.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr. Swain, thank you.

DS: Thank you very much.

ATW: Daniel Swain is a climate scientist at UCLA. We reached him in Boulder, Colorado.

[Music: Ambient]

Part two: Priest kids guidelines, forest acoustics study

Priest kids guidelines

Guest: Sarah Thomas

CO: Sarah, what does it mean for you that the Vatican has acknowledged that it does have a document that deals with clergy who have children?

SARAH THOMAS: I think it's a long time coming. And I think it's not a surprise that they do have a secret way of dealing with clergy who have children. I think what the surprise is that it's taken this long to come out. And that they have actually admitted it at last. It's very necessary.

CO: What we know about the document from someone who was able to actually see it… have you actually seen the document?

ST: I haven't seen it. But my good friend, Vincent Doyle, who runs Coping International, has seen it. I think an archbishop showed him two years ago. And then, obviously, with the media coverage that started in 2017 with the Boston Globe's articles initially of priest children, there was no response from the Catholic Church. And it was sort of implied that there wasn't an acknowledgement of priest children. But the fact that they've had an internal way of dealing with priest children for years shows that they've known for some time that priest children exist, and they've always existed.

CO: When did you find out that you were a daughter of a priest?

ST: I found out when I was 12. I'd always been told that my father was a lecturer in the London University, which he is. But when I was 12, I found out that he was also a Catholic priest. Because my mother and father met when she was doing a theology degree, and he was a seminarian training to be a priest. And he'd implied that he'd like to leave the priesthood — like lots of his friends have done — and marry my mother. But when he found out that she was expecting me, he wasn't happy at all. And a senior priest suggested strongly that he hurry through ordination and become a priest. But that my mother and I were in cahoots with the plan, and basically kept ourselves secret, and never identified him as the father.

CO: Have you ever met your father?

ST: I met him the first time when I was 14, but I've since been given letters that show that there was a pre-decided thing that he would never have a father-daughter relationship. Whereas I was going into the meeting hoping that we could have a relationship, he'd already decided that he couldn't have a father-daughter relationship with me. So the meeting was quite cold. And then I’ve met him a handful of times, but I haven't seen him since 2004.

CO: So there is a global support group for children of priests. And so have you met a lot of other children of priests, and know their stories?

ST: I have. I feel quite lucky in a way because in 2015, when I discovered Coping international online, I just started doing a Google search of you know biological children of priests. I started to realize the scale and the sort of phenomenon. And how hidden it was from the world basically of children of priests. And so I started doing a PhD at the Open University. And through that, I've interviewed many priest children from around the globe. And some of their mothers and some former priests who’ve also fathered children, and there were many patterns and similarities, but also differences across cultures and countries. But one thing that's common across any country in any culture with children of priests is the secrecy. And over 70 per cent of the participants I’ve interviewed say they feel shame and stigma attached to being born into the role of you know a child of a priest.

CO: This document that your friend Vincent Doyle was able to see, he says in the article in the New York Times that he was surprised to learn that they actually have a name for you and others: Children of Ordained.

ST: Children of the Ordained, yes.

CO: And there's a protocol. The protocol is that the document apparently says that protection of the child is paramount. And that that's the fundamental principle. And that the guidelines request — not demand, but request — that the father, the priest, leaves the priesthood to assume the responsibilities of helping raise the child. So does that fit with any experience that you've had or others have had?

ST: No, I think there are several problems with that. One of the problems is that, in my experience, and in many of the participants experiences I've interviewed, the child welfare is not put first at all, and neither is the mother's. And also by suggesting as it does in document that the priest leaves the priesthood, it's actually helping to further the secrecy that surrounds this. Because priests who know this are not going to be open to their bishop about the fact that they fathered a child because they don't want to leave. And I think Vincent and I are very much in agreement that it needs to be taken on a case-by-case, individual analysis of what's going on. Because it's not always appropriate for the priest to leave. And by being more open and the church acknowledging that priests have always fathered children, and will always continue to father children because they are human beings and that's what's going to happen. Instead of saying that they all have to leave, by actually helping that child and the priest to have a relationship, and the mother have a say in what's going on it's going to be much more healthy, and the only way to go forward with this really.

CO: And the desire for change, the Church at least acknowledges in this document that this is an issue. And there's a Vatican conference starting tomorrow that deals with sexual abuse within the Church — a quite controversial one as I'm sure you know. Is there any place, do you know if there is going to be any discussion about the issue of all the children of priests that the Vatican actually acknowledges?

ST: I believe that there is a place for that. And I know Vincent Doyle is going to be taking part. And, hopefully, his voice — and therefore through him the voices of many children around the world who are fathered by priests — and are going to be heard and have a place in that conference. I think it's hugely important. Through my research, I’ve found that this is a huge… I can't emphasize how big the scale of this is. It's on a par at least with the clerical sexual abuse scandal — probably bigger.

CO: Sarah, thank you so much for telling us this story.

ST: Okay. You're very welcome thank you.

CO: Bye-bye.

ST: Bye.

ATW: Sarah Thomas is a PhD student at the Open University, and the daughter of a Catholic priest. We reached her in Milton Keynes, UK. We've got more on this story on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih. And, tomorrow on As It Happens, we'll have the latest on the Vatican's first ever abuse conference which gets underway in Rome.

[Music: Sombre]

Autism parent

ATW: There were angry scenes at the Ontario legislature today. Several parents of children with autism spectrum disorder were at Queen's Park to vent their frustration over proposed reforms to the province's Autism Program. And amid the ongoing tension between parents, advocates, and Lisa MacLeod — the MPP overseeing the changes — another MPP got himself into trouble. Randy Hillier has been suspended indefinitely. Because yesterday, when autism funding was discussed during Question Period, he remarked, quote: "Yada, yada, yada". Unquote. Stephanie Ridley was at the legislature in Toronto today. And she's incensed about the government's handling of the reforms.

All of these kids are going back into.

SOUNDCLIP

STEPHANIE RIDLEY: All of these kids are going back in the system in the schools without the support they need. Without the therapy they need. This is evidence-based, these kids are desperate.

OBSERVER: Our families are desperate.

SR: They’re hitting their heads against the wall. Us parents are going into crisis. This is real. They are goig in a few weeks back into the school system with zero plan, zero support. The PCs have abandoned these kids. It's not fair, it's not right, it's not equitable. We are asking for evidence-based therapy, life-changing therapy. So our kids guess what? They don't end up in group homes. They don't end up in the psych ward. They don't end up in prison. This is what we're fighting for. We're not fighting for our kids to go to university or move on to do jobs. We are asking them to be a part of this community and have the best start. When is this government going to step up and help seven year olds, five-year-old kids that are trying to learn how to speak, to brush their hair, to put on their own pants? That's what we’re here for today. The government doesn't want to listen to parents. Get the stakeholders back to the table, and listen to what they have to say.

ATW: Stephanie Ridley, who's the parent of a child with autism, at the Ontario legislature today. Mr. Hillier has apologized — saying his "Yada, yada, yada" was "banter" directed at the opposition NDP, not at any of the parents present in the legislature yesterday.

[Music: Instrumental]

Forest acoustics study

Guest: Megan Gall

KG: Ah, the sounds of the forest: birds singing, babbling brooks, and the endless munching of voracious deer. Turns out that last sound might be changing the rest of the soundscape for woodland creatures. A new study looks at what happens to forest noises when there is less vegetation — thanks to hungry deer. Megan Gall is a biology professor at Vasser College. She is one of the authors of the study. We reached her in Poughkeepsie, New York

CO: Professor Gall, how much are deer and the appetites of deer changing the sound of the forest?

MEGAN GALL: They're changing it a lot, actually. Yeah, so deer are a big problem here in the Northeast — I'm sure in many parts of Canada as well. Their populations have increasing quite a bit. And because of that, there's been a lot of deer browsing in our forests. And that's really depleting the understory, and that's changing the way that sound is propagating.

CO: Where did you get the idea that you should look into how the sound of the forest and the sounds of animals was changing because of how many deer are out there eating?

MG: So I'm a sensory ecologist, and what that means is that I'm interested in how the environment shapes animal sensory system. And what we've known for a long time is that in forests, you tend to have a lot of reverberation — a lot of echoes because of hard surfaces. It's like if you go into a gym, right? There are all those hard surfaces, and so sound bounces around, and it hits your ear at different times, and you hear echoes. Whereas if you go out after a fresh snow, it's really quiet because that snow has all kinds of little air holes in it that are absorbing sound. And I thought hmm, deer are changing the environment. And I know the environment's affecting how sound is propagating. I wonder if deer browsing could be shaping the way that sounds are moving through the forest?

CO: And what did you find?

MG: So what we found is that deer are affecting one of two parameters we looked at. So we looked at how loud the sound is as it moves through the forest. And we also looked at how the shape of the sound is changing, right? So does it have echoes in it? Are there parts missing? And what we found is that the loudness doesn't change too much, but the fidelity — so how much the structure of the sound was changing — differed quite a bit.

CO: Changed though in what way? How does that affect animals? How are they hearing things or not hearing things because of all that vegetation missing?

MG: Yeah. So we actually found that the fidelity — so how clear the sound is — is getting better. Now that sounds like a good thing, right? But just like us, sometimes we want individuals that are close to us to hear what we're saying, but we don't want other people to hear what we're saying. If you're whispering at a party, you don't want everyone to hear it. And so a lot of animals that are talking to a mate or they're talking to one potential rival, and they don't want everyone else to hear it because that increases the chance they'll get into a fight. It could increase the chance that a predator will hear you. And so you might become dinner for someone. And that could be a really bad thing.

CO: How is it changing the way they relate? Are they being more sort of furtive? Are they changing their behaviour?

MG: So we don't know yet. This is really the first step in just looking at how the signals are propagating. But in the future, we can look at things like are animals changing the way that they respond to vocalizations? Are they being more cautious about their song? Are they singing at a lower volume? Are they changing the frequencies that they sing at?

CO: Because animals do adapt — they do evolve. And so this has been going on for a long time with the voracious dears. That didn't just start yesterday.

MG: That's right. It's been you know probably about one hundred years of slow increase. And really since the mid-nineteen hundreds, we've been seeing a lot of increase in deer.

CO: How did you actually do your study? I mean because must be very difficult to find any forest environment that hasn't been ravaged by hungry deer?

MG: It is. It is hard. So we have what we call deer exclosures. And what that is it's basically a big section of forest that's fenced off. And so the deer can't get over the fence. And then right next to it we have an area that we've marked off, but does not have a fence around it. And for us what that meant was we took out recording devices, and we played sounds — very specific sounds — through the environment. And then we recorded them using a microphone at different distances away from that sound source.

CO: What kind of sounds did you use? Did you use animal sounds?

MG: So we did not use the animal sounds because we wanted to have a more general palette of sounds that we were using. We didn't want to know just the cardinal sound is changing or just the chickadee sound was changing. So we used three types of stimuli. One was pure tones. So that sounds like a single note like baa baa baa. One was white noise, which sounds kind of like shush, and has lots of different frequencies in it. And one was trills, what those are short elements that are repeated, so it sounds something like Burrrrrrr.

CO: And we're all those sounds affected by the loss of the vegetation?

MG: Yes, all of them were. We found significant effects for the trills, for the tones, and for the white noise.

CO: We know that there are so many other things that are affected by the fact that there are all these deer in the woods. And now you're seeing sound as well. So collectively do these studies indicate that there needs to be some better controls — better I guess culling of the deer population?

MG: Yeah, that's a little bit of a minefield — the deer situation and what we should do about it. But it certainly does suggest that deer management in whatever form that takes is probably pretty important.

CO: I know it’s your job to listen and to see what kinds of sensory changes are in the woods. But we've done a number of interviews with people who listen to the woods. The songs of trees is a subject that has now just been immortalized in a number of different books. And how much of your time do you spend in the woods listening?

MG: I do spend a lot of time with my students, in the winter especially we tend to spend a lot of time in the forest doing work on black-capped chickadees. It's always the best part of my day is getting out there early with the students.

CO: Especially black-capped chickadees is in the middle of winter. There's nothing more delightful than to attract the little flock of them.

MG: It is, yeah. It's very cool.

CO: How do you listen in the woods in the winter?

MG: Well, it's really important to be quiet. If you're walking, especially when there's snow around, it's going to be hard to hear. Through a lot of the Northeast and Canada, you're going to hear things like chickadees. Chickadees are really cool this time of year because they're changing from there their calls, which they make in the winter which sound like chickadedede to their songs. So they're starting to find mates and get in fights with other males. And their song sounds like phoebe. So that's a great thing to listen to. It's really loud, and it's pretty obvious. So I would pay attention to them.

CO: That's just lovely. Ok, anyone who can get in the woods, even if you can't, those chickadees are around everywhere. Professor Gall, it’s delightful to speak with you. Thank you.

MG: It was a pleasure speaking with you as well. Thank you.

KG: Megan Gall is a biology professor at Vasser College. We reached her in Poughkeepsie, New York.

[Music: Ambient]

Disguises effective study

ATW: Science is good… usually. But sometimes, it seems like scientists aren't really thinking about the consequences. For example: artificial intelligence. In their pursuit of breakthroughs, scientists may be creating a nightmare future, in which our robot butlers are better at wine pairings than we are. Or think of this new study by British researchers — a study that unwittingly opens a Pandora's Box — or, more accurately, a Tickle Trunk. Here's the bombshell headline, from Science Daily. Quote: "Study reveals disguises are surprisingly effective". Unquote. In their irresponsible research, the researchers showed people two photographs of the same person. In one, the person's face was "normal". In the other, the person had made changes to their faces — which the scientists call "a disguise". And they found that participants couldn't always tell it was the same person in both photos. Dr. Eilidh Noyes of the University of Huddlesfield concluded, quote, "Deliberate disguise poses a real challenge to human face recognition." Unquote. Well, congratulations, Science. You just gave scoundrels a whole new tool for pulling off shenanigans. Now they know they can just make their faces look different! Maybe next time think before you research. Because to criminals, this study is a blessing in "disguise".

[Music: Folk]

Part three: Crude rail critic, Ivory Queen

Shamima Begum citizenship

ATW: Shamima Begum has been pleading with her country to help her come home from Syria. Instead, the UK government has sent notice to the British teenager's family that it is stripping her of her citizenship. We've told you about the 19-year-old, who left her home in London four years ago to join ISIS. She's now in a Kurdish-run camp with her newborn son, after fleeing the last remaining bit of ISIS territory in the region. Here is part of what Ms. Begum had to say when the British TV station ITV showed her the letter sent to her family about her citizenship.

SOUNDCLIP

SHAMIMA BEGUM: I don’t know what to say? I'm not that shocked, but I'm a bit shocked. I’ve heard other people are being sent back. So I don't know why my case is any different? Was it just because I was on the news four years ago? It's kind of heartbreaking to read, but, my family made it sound like it would be a lot easier for me to come back to the UK when I'm speaking to them. But it's kind of hard to swallow. I feel like it's a bit unjust on me, and my son.

REPORTER: What would your message to the Home Secretary be?

SB: To maybe review my case again, and have a bit more sympathy for me, and understanding. Maybe give me a reason why they've seen me as a threat to the U.K.?

REPORTER: And your message for your family?

SB: You know I want to apologise a lot for what I put them through. But right now, I really need the help to get me back because I can't stay here. I can't raise my son in this camp.

ATW: That was Shamima Begum speaking to an ITV reporter about the British government's move to take away her citizenship. British home secretary Sajid Javid appeared to have little sympathy for Ms. Begum today. Here is part of what he had to say in the House of Commons.

SOUNDCLIP

SAJID JAVID: Those who stayed include some of the most dangerous, including many who supported terrorism. Not least those who chose to fight or to raise families in the so-called caliphate. They turn their back on this country to support a group that butchered and beheaded innocent civilians, including British citizens. That tied the arms of homosexuals and threw them off the top of buildings. And that raped countless young girls, boys, and women. I've been resolute that where they pose any threat to this country, I will do everything in my power to prevent their return. This includes stripping dangerous individuals of their British citizenship. This power is only used in extreme circumstances where conducive to the public good.

ATW: UK home secretary Sajid Javid speaking earlier today in the British House of Commons.

[Music: Ambient]

SOD: Jeff Douglas

ATW: And now, let's all pause. Take a deep breath. And enjoy our Sound of the Day, courtesy of Jeff Douglas.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF DOUGLAS: I don't know if you can hear it or not, but this is the sound of rain on the clay tiles that are on the roof here in Columbia. And it's such a great sound. Perfect for a nap.

ATW: Making us all jealous here in the snow. Before you doze off to those sweet, sweet sounds — we want to give you a quick update. We've been getting a lot of calls, questions, and comments about Jeff's whereabouts these days. As you just heard, Jeff is right as rain. He's been enjoying some well-earned R & R in Colombia. And don't worry, he'll be back on the airwaves at the end of the month.

[Music: Electronica]

Crude rail critic

Guest: Rafi Tahmazian

ATW: Alberta is officially getting into the rail business. Premier Rachel Notley has announced plans to spend 3-point-7 billion dollars to get crude oil to market using leased rail cars. With a provincial election coming up, it's the latest effort to boost the price of Alberta oil — which dropped disastrously last year. It's also intended to be a stop-gap measure while the government pushes for increased pipeline capacity. But some industry players are skeptical. Rafi Tahmazian is a senior portfolio manager at Canoe Financial. We reached him in Calgary.

CO: Mr. Tahmazian, we've heard from Rachel Notley, who says there is, quote, no risk in investing in rail cars to get Alberta oil to market. You disagree. You see a risk.

RAFI TAHMAZIAN: Well, I mean I don't know if it's a risk. I think there are multiple risks when you think about all the variables. And she's saying she's going to put this capital to work. And then, as a result, we are going to generate this revenue. And when you start to look at all of the multiple factors that can come into play between now and the end of 2020, when all of these rail cars come into play, you start to see an elevated amount of variables. That if you tweak them one way or the other, it's quite easy to start to create risk.

CO: But it isn't that what it's all about? I mean you look at all the variables, and you decide ok, we need to take this risk. The game of risk means taking chances that may not pan out. And their argument is that well, they don't know how else they're going to get this oil to market. There may be things come along, maybe changes are made, maybe there are developments. But right now, this is the only viable course.

RT: But then you’ve kind of said the same thing I am. That means there is risk. And to the six billion dollars of Albertans money that she's spending, those rail cars may not get used for the purpose that the money gets put to work on. And that that money never sees the returns that she says will develop from it. We've got a government that is negotiating with the private sector. And the private sector — in this case the two rail companies — are not going to take the risk, and they put the risk on her.

CO: But I mean isn't that what her job is though to look at both? I mean if you say yes, it's the private sector, but it's a lot of public money that comes — a lot of tax money, a lot royalties as well that come in, and a lot of lot of people who are employed in this industry. So she does have a responsibility both to try and look for short-term solutions and long-term ones., does she not?

RT: I think figuring out short term-solutions was something she should have been doing three years ago. We created a long-term problem by not addressing it then. Now we have a long term problem that she should be putting 100 per cent of her time into. And that is basically we have to decide whether we have a terminal illness or not? And the terminal illness is are we going to get pipelines? If we do not get those pipelines, we have a terminal illness in Alberta here.

CO: What are the chances that we’re going to get pipelines?

RT: At this point, I think it depends on what kind of government we have federally come November. If we have a Liberal government that is clearly infiltrated with environmental zealots again come November, we have a higher probability of these pipelines being eliminated or not being built.

CO: All right. I just want to stop you there because this is really a lot of stuff you're laying out here. I’ll just say one thing. Didn't we pay, didn't taxpayers through this Liberal government pay 4.5 billion dollars to buy a pipeline? This doesn't seem like a pipeline-averse government that’s willing to put that much money on the line to purchase one.

RT: No, they overpaid for a pipeline that's 60 years old — that already exists. That wasn't what we wanted. What we wanted was kinder Morgan to twin that pipeline. And that is not being done.

CO: Right. I guess I am questioning you didn't get what you wanted, but the argument that this is a government overrun with environmentalists who are opposed to pipelines. I mean it's a bit of an exaggeration given the 4.5 billion.

RT: Well, all we did is we overpaid a private sector foreign company a bunch of taxpayers money for something that already exists, so that they could submarine the potential for twinning the pipeline, which is what we really need. And the minute they bought it then they got this thing quagmired into regulatory issues that have now gone on a year, and could go on what looks like at least another year potentially before we even see the light of day whether we're gonna have one or not.

CO: Okay, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has said that it supports this less than ideal solution. Both the Notley government and CAPP is saying the same thing. It’s less than ideal, but the considering pipelines are not getting built. They say this is something that they support for now. So what do you say to the Petroleum Producers?

RT: Yeah, I mean that's fine. That's what makes a market is people have differing opinions. I believe that our government is not spending enough time addressing the much bigger issue, which is to stimulate growth and give employees of oil companies the confidence that they've got a long-term plan here for their livelihood. That they've spent 20-25 years of their lives working in the oil patch, growing an infrastructure, and a family in a household in Alberta. And is it going to still exist five years from now? At this point, none of this stuff gives those people any comfort that they're going to have a job two-three years from now. You know, maybe the short-term she's done some fixes. This is very short-term with risk. But the long-term issue is developing and burgeoning. And we are not addressing it.

CO: We’ll leave it there. Mr. Tahmazian, thank you very much.

RT: Ok, thank you, Carol.

ATW: Rafi Tahmazian is a senior portfolio manager at Canoe Financial. We reached him in Calgary.

[Music: Indie rock]

Hernandez freed

ATW: Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz and her supporters had dreamed of that moment. In 2016, Ms. Hernandez experienced a stillbirth. But she was charged with murder — because, prosecutors argued, she hadn't sought out the proper care during her pregnancy. She was found guilty. But last week, after a year-and-a-half in prison, El Salvador's Supreme Court overturned her 30-year sentence. In 2017, "As It Happens" guest host Laura Lynch spoke with Sara Garcia, an activist who sat alongside Ms. Hernandez's mother when the sentence was handed down. Here's part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

LAURA LYNCH: Ms. Garcia, you were in the courtroom with Evelyn’s mother when the sentence was announced. Can you describe what happened?

SARA GARCIA: It was really disappointing. It was a really disappointing trial. Her mother was really, really sad, upset. She was saying that they are lying. My daughter is innocent.

LL: How did Evelyn herself react at the moment when the sentence was announced?

SG: Well, she was really sad. She broke into sobs in that moment. It was a really difficult moment because you know the police take her to the jail again. So it was really hard because she had a hope. She had hope that that day she was going to be released, and that didn't happen.

LL: What was she actually found guilty of doing?

SG: The judge said that she committed a murder.

LL: A murder?

SG: In that case, I have to say that Evelyn she didn't know that she was pregnant. It was a pregnant because of a rape. And also, the judge believed that Evelyn's failure to seek prenatal care was evidence of guilt. And that is a big problem also.

LL: Because she didn't seek any care during her pregnancy, or even after she gave birth. That was the crime she committed?

SG: Because she didn't know she was pregnant. So that's the evidence for the judge that make her guilt.

ATW: That was Salvadoran activist Sara Garcia, speaking with "As It Happens" guest host Laura Lynch in 2017 — after a Salvadoran woman named Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz was sentenced to 30 years in prison after having a stillbirth. Last week, Ms. Hernandez Cruz's sentence was overturned — and she was released from prison.

[Music: Sombre]

Tory independent

ATW: A group of rebel British MP's got stronger today. Three Conservatives announced they were jumping ship — joining eight Labour colleagues who formed a new "independent group" in Parliament this week. The Conservatives say they are fed up with Prime Minister Theresa May's refusal to compromise on Brexit. They are also upset at the influence of hard-core Brexiters in the party. Anna Soubry was one of the MP's who deserted the party. Here is part of what she had to say at a press conference this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNA SOUBRY: One nation Conservatives are pursuing a Brexit policy they don't believe in. And they know it will harm the economic prospects of this remarkable country and their own constituents. Others like Sir John Major bravely battle on, making the point that 63 per cent of people in this country did not vote for Brexit. And even more did not vote for the no deal Brexit that, unfortunately, Mrs. May appears willing to deliver. But the decision to leave the Conservatives as Heidi and Sarah have identified is not all about Brexit. It's about facing the reality of British politics as it stands today, and is set to continue unless we do our duty as elected representatives. I am not leaving the Conservative Party; it's left us. And to the millions of people who feel abandoned and not represented by either of our two broken main parties, and indeed all our parties, we share your values, your dreams, and your aspirations. We three have never been called your so-called typical Tory. Like everyone, we are tired of labels, we're tired of tribalism, and we're tired of British politics being dominated from its extremes. It's time for change. And we are a team with your support that will deliver that change.

AT: That was British Conservative MP Anna Soubry, announcing that she's leaving the party to join a new coalition called the Independent Group.

[Music: Orchestral]

Ivory Queen

Guest: Andrea Crosta

ATW: She was known as the Ivory Queen. A 69-year-old Chinese businesswoman living in Tanzania who operated one of Africa's biggest ivory smuggling rings, transporting millions of dollars’ worth of the contraband to the Asian black markets. Over more than a decade, it's estimated that she trafficked the tusks of as many as four hundred elephants. But the reign of the Queen is over. Yesterday Yang Fenglan was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in jail for her crimes. Andrea Crosta is the executive director and co-founder of the Elephant Action League. We reached him in Los Angeles.

CO: Mr. Crosta, what does it mean for your efforts to protect elephants that the Ivory Queen has been put away?

ANDREA CROSTA: It means a lot, especially for what we do at Elephant Action League because we have been saying for many years that too much attention has been put only on the poachers and not on the real traffickers — the real enablers and drivers that profit from ivory and rhino and other wildlife products along the supply chain. With the Ivory Queen, actually is pretty much the first time that an African country actually arrested and now prosecuted and sentenced a key enabler of the illegal ivory supply chain.

CO: How big was she? You called her a kingpin, or I guess a queenpin. But what role did she play in poaching elephants and selling tusks?

AC: So people like her are very, very important. They are the you know the breach between the poaching syndicates and the poachers and you know the big traders. Actually, the big wildlife traffickers are businessmen living in Hong Kong, living in Southeast Asia like Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand. And they need people like her — like the Ivory Queen — to actually buy and organize the illegal shipment of ivory and other illicit products. So we're talking about a very, very important person.

CO: But she wasn't exactly in hiding, was she? I mean she was in plain sight. She was working in Tanzania. She had a Chinese restaurant that she was running. She had a company. She was quite conspicuous, right?

AC: Absolutely. But that's the characteristic of most of these people. If you are like a poacher or you know a classic criminal then you hide. But these people always makes business legal and illegal business altogether. There is a big overlap in between the two things. So they run import/export companies. Like in her case, you know they work with that China-Tanzania Chamber of Commerce. They entertain diplomats and people from China. But at the same time, people like her use their connections to actually do illegal businesses. And that's the perfect cover actually to you know to ever illegal façade, but then behind the scenes, like doing all sorts of things.

CO: How did she end up there? She was from China, she moved there on her own. Why did she do that?

AC: Yes, she moved there when she was actually much younger. She was she moved there in the 70s. At that time, they were building the Tanzania-Zambia railway with Chinese money. Think about it already back in the 70s Chinese were already investing in Africa. She went there and help. She was there until around 75, then she went back to Beijing because she is originally from Beijing. And then she was back to Tanzania again in the late 90s, and decided to stay. And she slowly became I would say probably the most important Chinese in Tanzania not in terms of her you know official role, but because she knows Tanzania very well. She learned to speak Swahili. She had a daughter there. And in a couple of interviews, she even said that she felt Tanzania was her home.

CO: And how significant is it that that Tanzania actually prosecuted her, and is going to put her in jail for 15 years?

AC: This is super significant. I mean when they arrested her in you know in October 2015, I think it was Tanzania was really at the centre of international attention because it was clear that Africa had, and probably still has, two main poaching hubs. One was Central Africa. The other one was Tanzania. So they lost tens of thousands of elephants in a few years. So there was a lot of attention on Tanzania. And when this person got arrested thanks to the work of a special task force actually that was put together exactly to find this kind of people, I think the past government and the current government of Tanzania felt that they really had to deliver. They really had to show that they were not going after only the poachers, but also the real drivers behind this whole terrible crisis.

CO: But has it had an effect. I mean she was arrested a few years ago. Have you seen an effect on the actual smuggling — on the actual poaching? Has it made an impact on that whole business?

AC: I think in Tanzania it did. As I repeat all the times, It's very, very easy to replace a poacher. It’s not that easy to replace a person like her. They are not so many wildlife traffickers or ivory traffickers or rhino traffickers operating at that level, especially in Africa. You can replace a dead or jailed poacher overnight, but not someone like her. At the same time, of course, as you probably know last year, the Chinese government finally banned the Chinese legal market for ivory. That also had a significant effect, in my opinion.

CO: But you say it's more important to get these kingpins or queenpins than to get the poachers on the ground. But isn't the real villain of the story the consumer? That there's a market for this ivory, and as long as there is, you're going to still find people who are going to replace her?

AC: Yes, but we are operating in China. And we know China very well. And my personal opinion is that you need a full complete generational change in China before seeing some results. Current buyers of ivory or rhino or other wildlife products are not younger, and are not touched by awareness campaigns. That's my opinion. For families for centuries they have been buying rhino, ivory and other products. And there’s certainly not a billboard that will change their mind. That's why when we try to help China because with our work, we try to help law enforcement by sharing confidential information. We try not to be confrontational. It’s counterproductive. We try to explain the kind of crime that is happening under their nose. And we try to help them by taking down the real responsible behind the trafficking, which as you can imagine, they are not the poachers. They are people much bigger than them.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Mr. Crosta, thanks for telling us about this.

AC: My pleasure. Any time. Bye-bye.

ATW: That was Andrea Crosta, to the executive director and co-founder of The Elephant Action League. We reached him in Los Angeles.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 20, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode