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 2025

The AIH transcript for July 23, 2025

For more episodes of this podcast, please click this link.

MEGAN WILLIAMS: Hello, I'm Megan Williams, sitting in for Nil Köksal.

ACEY ROWE: And I’m Acey Rowe, sitting in for Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[theme]

AR: Tonight:

MW: Breath of fresh air. A Canadian lawyer representing small island states most affected by climate change calls it an "extraordinary day" after a major ruling by the UN's highest court.

AR: Taking exception to the rule. Rare protests in Ukraine call out new legislation that brings some of the country's anti-corruption bodies under the president's control.

MW: Worried sick. An Alberta woman describes seeing her infant daughter suffer from a case of measles. She's sharing her story in the hopes that more parents will vaccinate their kids.

AR: Cashing out. South Australia's premier tells us why the state's near-total ban on political donations is the only real solution to the undue influence of money in politics -- and says other democracies should follow suit.

MW: Putting the hollow in hologram. Elvis Evolution promised ticketholders a performance by a life-sized, AI-powered hologram of Elvis himself. But what they delivered was...definitely not that.

AR: And...balancing the scales. Big snakes get all the attention. So we're pleased to tell you the world's tiniest known snake has been spotted in Barbados, after almost two decades in hiding.

AR: As It Happens, the Wednesday Edition. Radio that doesn't hiss and tell.

[theme]

Part 1: ICJ Climate Case, Alta Measles Mom, Barbados Tiny Snake

ICJ Climate Case

Guest: Payam Akhavan

AR: A “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right. That was part of a landmark advisory opinion delivered today by the UN's International Court of Justice. The top court said countries must address the QUOTE "urgent and existential threat" UNQUOTE of climate change -- and failing to do so could breach international law. Payam Akhavan is a Canadian lawyer and former UN prosecutor. He represented Bangladesh and small island states at the International Court of Justice in this case. We reached him in The Hague.

MW: Mr. Akhavan, how big a win is this for you and the nations you represent?

PAYAM AKHAVAN: This is truly an extraordinary day in the history of international law. The world court, the highest judicial organ in the UN system, has delivered an opinion on what it called an existential threat of planetary proportions for the future survival of humankind. And in unmistakable terms that the international community, including in particular the major polluters, must use all means at their disposal to deeply and rapidly curtail their greenhouse gas emissions. And that this is not a matter of discretion, it is not a matter political winds of the moment, but that it is a legally binding obligation to take all necessary measures to avoid significant harm to others in the international community, including especially climate-vulnerable states, such as small island states that are going to disappear because of a sea level rise. But also, that this is a principle of fundamental human rights. It implicates the right to life, the right to health, and the right to an adequate standard of living. So, I think this is truly a historic moment.

MW: The judges said that failing to comply with climate change treaties was a breach of international law. What could the consequences be?

PA: Well, the consequences include, among others, the duty of cessation, basically to stop emitting inordinate greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to this catastrophic harm, but also the duty to pay compensation. If a small island in the Pacific is going to be fully submerged. If an entire Indigenous nation, such as Tuvalu, which I represent, a small island the Pacific, is going to lose their ancestral lands and be displaced because of the negligence of the major emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, then the principles of justice require the payment of compensation. And I would add that this isn't just a question of international law because what we call customary international law is directly applicable before courts in countries such as Canada. And in effect, what the court has done may seem radical, but it is really straightforward. There is a principle, which provides that states should not knowingly cause harm to others. And all that the court has done is to apply that established, time-tested principle to the novel context of climate change.

MW: Right. Now, the ICJ is not binding. So, in reality, is there anything that can be done if a country, say the United States, fails to comply with these treaties?

PA: You know, when we say that advisory opinion is not binding, it's a bit misleading. Because an advisory opinion sets out an authoritative pronouncement of the binding law. And we have this same procedure in the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, where the attorney general can in a reference request the opinion of the Supreme Court. So, that opinion may not be binding in the sense that it's not a specific dispute that's being resolved, but it is an authoritative statement of the binding law. That's the first point. The second point is that, of course, international law cannot be enforced in the same way as domestic law can. But, you know, for those who are lecturing others about the rule-oriented international order, And for those who base their legitimacy in global affairs on respect to international law, this is certainly a challenge. And third, the fact that the statements of the courts, its pronouncement on international law, will be taken seriously by domestic courts, including in Canada.

MW: Now, when you say those lecturing other countries about international rule of law, you're basically referring to rich nations lecturing poorer nations?

PA: Well, in some respects, yes, but of course, it's not just the industrialized or developed states that are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. It's also petroleum-exporting states. But clearly, you have a situation where the most wealthy nations are responsible for a disproportionate share of the greenhouse gas emissions. And the climate-vulnerable states that make a negligible contribution are its biggest victims. And it doesn't take incredible expertise in international law to understand that that is just unjust. That is not fair. But beyond that, we also have to realize that the small island states, countries like Bangladesh, the vulnerable countries that have been leading this process are exercising what I would consider to be planetary politics because what they're suffering today, we are also in the wealthy, industrialized north going to suffer tomorrow. And we're already suffering today. So, they're the canary in the coalmine of climate catastrophe. And what they're doing is a favour to all of us.

MW: Now, you know, when I said the ICJ is non-binding and you said that's not exactly accurate, I guess, you know, what I was getting at there is how likely is it that this kind of decision, this kind ruling is going to do anything to get these wealthier or petrol states to pay out to these countries that are taking the brunt of climate change, the negative effects of climate change?

PA: We're in a very difficult situation because in recent years, we've seen the rise of insular nationalism, very cynical, short-sighted politics in respect of the need to transition out of fossil fuels. So, perhaps in the short run, some of the countries will choose to ignore the authoritative opinion of the court. But sometimes it's important to be on the right side of history.

MW: Mm-hmm.

PA: And what the court has done is not to look at political realities and what is reasonable in terms of what certain countries may or may not want. Because this is a historical problem. We have to think about the consequences of having reached the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold last year in 2024. We're not just up against international law as an abstract set of principles. We're up against the laws of nature. We're against the Earth. And in the contest between humankind and the Earth, there's no doubt who's going to win. So, I think that the court was on the right side in its very bold, far-reaching, unanimous opinion today, and it will be vindicated by history -- sooner or later.

MW: Mr. Akhavan, thanks very much for speaking with me today.

PA: Thank you.

AR: Payam Akhavan represented Bangladesh and small island states at the International Court of Justice. He's also a professor at the University of Toronto's Massey College. We reached him in The Hague.

[plucked instrumental]

Alta Measles Mom

Guest: Morgan Birch

AR: Measles is spreading -- and the number of infections is rising fast. In Canada, nearly 4,000 cases have been reported so far this year, and Alberta now has the highest per capita measles spread rate in all North America. Doctors and public health experts are sounding the the alarm, urging parents to get their children vaccinated. But some kids do not have that option. Morgan Birch lives in Alberta. In April her daughter Kimie got sick. She was just four months old -- too young to be vaccinated. We reached Ms. Birch in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

MW: Morgan, take us back to earlier this year. When did you realize something was wrong with Kimie?

MORGAN BIRCH: Um, back at the beginning of April, she had her immunizations. And a day later, she got fever and it lasted for about five days. So, that's when I knew that it kind of wasn't, it didn't have anything to do with immunizations. Like, you know, the doctors might've saw it. So, on the fifth day, she actually developed a really bad rash on her belly and her back.

MW: And what did you think it was?

MB: At first, we thought it was a heat rash from just having such a high fever for so long. And I sent a picture to both my grandmother and my mother, and they both texted me back within like five minutes and said that it looked like measles.

MW: And were you surprised? What was your reaction?

MB: Um, I was shocked. I was surprised. And yeah, we ended up taking her after that to the Stollery in Edmonton.

MW: Were you aware measles was a risk at this point?

MB: No, I had no idea.

MW: Doctors hadn't warned you that it was a possibility?

MB: The doctors at the Stollery didn't even think that she had it because she didn't have the white dots in her mouth.

MW: So, how sick was Kimie at this point?

MB: Um, she was pretty sick. She was very swollen. Her eyes were pretty much swollen shut. She was in pain. She's a very happy baby. She rarely cries, but when this was going on, her cry was, it was like a heartbreaking cry.

MW: That must've been difficult for you?

MB: Yeah, especially not being able to really do anything, but keep her comfortable.

MW: So what was that time like for you? I mean, this all lasted what, about a month?

MB: Yeah.

MW: What was that like for you as a parent?

MB: Scary, because you don't know what's going to happen. You hear all different kinds of stories about the long-term side effects of it. So, it was scary and frustrating.

MW: How is Kimie doing now?

MB: She's doing better. She has no immune system. So, essentially, she has the immune system of a newborn now. So, she's pretty sick all the time, like she's with a cold. She has a cold and a fever right now, too. It's been a long road for her, but thankfully she's still smiling.

MW: I mean, why do you think she's getting sick so much?

MB: Well, the doctors said that the measles virus, essentially, destroys your immune system. Right now, as we go, it will hopefully build back up, but they don't know how long it will take.

MW: And, I mean, I can only imagine that that must be pretty nerve-wracking when she gets sick?

MB: Yeah, yeah, it's pretty, she was never sick before. She had never got a cold. She'd never really had anything. So now, it's, she just got over croupe a couple weeks ago. And now, we're onto her cold and like a, you know, chest congestion.

MW: Oh, poor little thing.

MB: Yeah.

MW: Now, children are meant to get the measles vaccine at 12 and then again at 18 months, but in some hotspots Alberta is now offering a dose at six months. That's in response to the current outbreak. What do you want parents to take away from what you've experienced?

MB: I just want them to be proactive if they can. Um, you don't want to see your baby sick, especially, it's so painful. Like, and when you can't help them, it's really, it's even more. And if you're not immunizing and your kids get sick, it really, like, that, as a mom, in my opinion, my guilt would be so high, like, knowing that I could have prevented it. I just want people to take Kimie's story and really, you know, look at, like, you can just see it in her in the pictures, her eyes, and how painful and sad she was. And just, you know, if you can get them vaccinated for you know MMR early, I would 100 per cent do it.

MW: Morgan, thanks very much for speaking with me today.

MB: Thank you for having and hearing our story. I really appreciate it.

MW: All right, best of luck to you and Kimie.

MB: Thank you.

AR: We reached Morgan Birch in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

[ambient]

Barbados Tiny Snake

Guest: Connor Blades

AR: Most people go into the woods hoping not to find a snake. Connor Blades and Justin Springer, yeah, they are not most people. When the conservation scientists entered the forests of Barbados, and started flipping over rocks -- they were hoping to find not just any snake...but the smallest snake in the world: the Barbados threadsnake. It’s about the width of a spaghetti noodle. It only grows to be about 10 centimetres long. It could wear a Cheerio as a hulahoop. And it hasn't been spotted in nearly two decades. Until now. We reached Connor Blades in Saint Philip, Barbados.

MW: Connor, when you turned over that rock and saw a tiny little snake, did you get your hopes up?

CONNOR BLADES: I tried not to, tried to keep my head. It looks a lot like another snake that we have in Barbados that's actually invasive. But when I first saw it, it just looked different to me. So, I got excited, but tried to keep a level head.

MW: And what was it about the tiny snake that looked different from the other one?

CB: I guess you have to work with snakes to kind of describe it. I guess it's kind of body shape was a little different. It was a bit, it's head was a bit more slender than the invasive Brahminy blind snake. It was certainly the right size, though. They only grow to about 10 cm in length, about two millimetres in width.

MW: I mean, I have to say, I looked at a few videos of them and they just look like a worm. Even the way they wiggle around, they kind of flop around, Is more worm-like than snake-like. Are they commonly mistaken for worms?

CB: Yes, they're actually sometimes called worm snakes. So, yeah, that's a pretty common thing.

MW: So, you took it back to the lab at the University of the West Indies for confirmation. And, like, how do you transport a snake of that size without harming it?

CB: Yeah, you're right. They're very tricky to handle because of how kind of delicate they are. So, we have these very small forceps. They are called entomology forceps, so they're really for insects. But they're kind of a very thin metal that we use to pick them up and transport them. And, in a container, we'll take it kind of in the car to our university to validate the identity of the species. Basically, like little glass jars, and with some soil and leaf litter so that they're not too stressed out.

MW: No, you say when you first saw it, you didn't want to get your hopes up. So, what went through your mind when you realized it actually was a thread snake?

CB: Yeah, I was very excited. The species is actually on Rewild's list of lost species. It hasn't been seen in basically two decades. So, it was quite an exciting find, to say the least. Probably one of the highlights of my career so far.

MW: Wow! So, how did the smallest snake in the world end up in Barbados?

CB: What we call worm snakes or blind snakes, they're in a group of snakes that's actually a very ancient lineage. They're called Scolicophidians. They're actually around since Gondwana, the supercontinent. So, they've kind of travelled around the world on these continents, drifting around the ocean. And most likely, they came to Barbados through rafting. Barbados is a limestone island. We're actually not that old. I think we're less than a million years old. So, very, very young geologically. So, they most likely, well, they would have rafted to Barbados probably from another Caribbean island, or from South America.

MW: And how did they get to be critically endangered?

CB: Barbados has lost a lot of its native forest, which is where they are found. They love to live in moist forest. We've lost a lots of that habitat since colonization. I think Barbados lost about 98 per cent of its natural environment. There's benefits now. I mean, things are improving, I should say. In the last 50 years, we've had a seven-fold increase in tree-covered area. So, that kind of bodes well for habitat availability. But where they were found is one of the, I guess, last stands of relatively natural forest on the island, so it's quite an important kind of habitat in Barbados.

MW: Do you think that the rewilding that is going on, do you think think that's gonna bring back more of these little snakes?

CB: Certainly, if it's happening in the right areas with the right species, rewilding for kind of recolonization of these endemics really requires you to have the right kinds of native species being reintroduced.

MW: Now, I wonder, I'm sort of curious, is the reason that it hadn't been spotted is because it's so small, or because there were just so few of them left, or maybe both?

CB: Probably both. So, the record that I would have, my record, basically, is only the fifth ever in the 135 years that we've known it existed. So, it probably has always historically been both rare and cryptic.

MW: So, it's quite a find then. I mean, what does it mean to you to be part of this, you know, a big part in rediscovering an endangered species that is unique to Barbados?

CB: Yeah, it's very exciting. It's exciting to be, I guess, almost part of a legacy of lists of names of people who have seen this very rare cryptic species. It is really exciting because Barbados, because it's lost so much habitat, has also lost a lot of its endemic species, and that means it's only found in a specific area. So, the fact that we know it still exists is a huge win for us because it it means that it's still contributing to our island and, I suppose, global biodiversity.

MW: Are you hoping to find another out there?

CB: We have, [chuckling] we found a second one, I think, last month in a different location. Yeah, so it's really been helpful kind of learning about the environment it likes to really pin down surveys better in the future.

MW: Connor, thanks so much for speaking with me, and congratulations.

CB: Absolutely. Thank you so much.

AR: Connor Blades is a project officer with the Ministry of Environment in Barbados. We reached him in Saint Philip, Barbados.

[dream pop]

Elvis Experience

AR: Disappointed fans are all shook up over a new immersive Elvis Presley experience in London. Elvis Evolution promised to tell the story of the King’s life and rise to stardom. And fans were willing to shell out a hunk, a hunk of burning cash to be there — paying up to 300 pounds -- or $550 Canadian -- for the chance to see a life-sized, AI-powered hologram of Elvis himself, strutting his digitally resurrected stuff across a London stage for the first time. But instead…they got archival footage. And a cardboard cutout!! Which is not so much Elvis Evolution as Elvis…Slideshow. Layered Reality -- the producers behind the show -- say fans simply misunderstood. Ok yes, they did advertise, back in January 2024, that audiences would see a, quote, “life-sized digital Elvis who will perform iconic moments.” But by the time tickets went on sale, they said they'd made a, quote, “creative decision” to cut the hologram…because Elvis’s performances were, quote, “too iconic.” The Love Me Blunder has left some fans disappointed, with one man reportedly so upset, he had to be escorted out by security. As for the critical reception of the show? Time Out described it as “enjoyable once you accept it for what it is.” Which, I guess, is essentially saying you can still technically eat a peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich that's been left out in the sun. But there is a rhinestoned lining here. We now know there’s at least one job that won’t be replaced by AI: Elvis impersonator.

[folk]

Part 2: Ukraine Anti-Corruption, Aus. Political Donations

Ukraine Anti-Corruption

Guest: Tetiana Shevchuk

SOUNDCLIP

[protestors chant in Ukranian]

AR: For the past two days, Ukrainians have taken to the streets in a rare display of disunity during wartime. They're protesting changes signed into law by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy yesterday -- which bring two of the country's main anti-corruption bodies under executive control. Mr. Zelenskyy says the move is about ensuring the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office are free from foreign -- and most notably Russian -- interference. But his critics say in this case, the interference is happening at home -- and the president is the one to blame. Tetiana Shevchuk is the international relations manager of the Ukrainian non-governmental Anti-Corruption Action Centre. We reached her in Kyiv.

MW: Tetiana, I know you've been out on the streets of Kyiv this evening, describe the scene for us, and the protests that you've witnessed over the past two days.

TETIANA SHEVCHUK: This is the first protest we have since full-scale invasion, and it's huge. So, yesterday, we had around, like, 3,000, 4,000 people on the square. And now, this is twice more or even more. So, the mood, the people are angry but very peaceful. So, everyone is chanting, there are lot of slogans, but there is no kind of leadership on that, that's really grass-rooted. There is no stage, no leaders of the protest. This is, like, pure emotion from the people of Kyiv.

MW: How significant is this to see Ukrainians out in the streets protesting against their government, especially in a time of invasion?

TS: We have mixed feelings about this, especially now. Because, first of all, I'm happy to see a lot of young people, a lot people getting serious with the issues of justice, but also I'm saddened that we have to do that. We really refrained these three-and-a-half years not to go on the streets to protest because we understand the gravity of that. We understand how it's seen from outside. We don't want to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the government. But you should understand that during martial law, during this wartime, we are really limited with our democratic expression of the views. We don't have elections. So, mostly our free speech is limited to internet media and social networks. And, unfortunately, it doesn't work all the time. So, this is kind of either last resort, what we have, or attempts to get away all this negative energy people got.

MW: Now, as you know, President Zelenskyy had said these reforms were needed because of Russian influence over these anti-corruption bodies. What do you say to that claim?

TS: I say it's fabricated to at least give some taste of national security to the to the issue. We do have problem with Russian espionage, but not only in anti-corruption bodies. And somehow, other bodies do have to be rebooted or put under the political control because of that. So, yeah, so this is a time when there's anti- corruption investigation institutions, they got close to his close political allies, personal friends, and he could not allow that. And therefore, he had to show that he still gives protections.

MW: Now, just this afternoon, the president signalled his intention to reverse at least some of these changes. He posted on social media, quote, of course, everyone has heard what people are saying these days. It's not falling on deaf ears, end of quote. What do you think protesters will need to see to assure them that the country's anti-corruption bodies will remain independent?

TS: We want the reversal of these changes immediately, not in a week or two. They were implemented in 24 hours, so we see that they can reverse it in the same speed, or at least early next week.

MW: Another aspect to this is the EU, the European Union, its enlargement commissioner had expressed concern about this legislation as well. She called it a threat to Ukraine's membership bid. Do you think Europe will be satisfied if Zelenskyy walks this back?

TS: I think so. And he walked this back and we'll be back on the reform track. There were very strong signals today, both from the European Commission and foreign ministries of member states calling Ukraine to keep on going on this anti-corruption track, because we really have a good track record of fighting corruption in recent years. And probably, that's a good track record was the cause of such attack on anti-corruption institutions.

MW: Now, this is all happening at a time when your own Anti-Corruption Action Centre is already at odds with the Ukrainian government, which has charged your boss, Vitaly Shabunyan, with evading military service. What's your response to those charges?

TS: These are completely phoney charges. You cannot evade military service being directly in the military unit. These are complete phoney charge, made up to, first of all, smear Vitaly's reputation among the general public, among the media. And also, if it goes on, this would be an attempt to put him in jail and silence him. And show example for other critics of the government and other people who expose corruption, especially in the defence sector.

MW: Now, as all of this is going on, delegates from Russia and Ukraine are holding the first peace talks in nearly two months in Turkey. At the end of the day, what do you think all of the signals about the moment your country finds itself in three-and-a-half years into this war?

TS: This is a difficult moment because these peace talks doesn't look like it will give immediate results. Because if Russia wanted a peace, they would at least do a ceasefire, or step back. But they keep attacking, keep pushing Ukrainian lines, keep shelling the frontline cities. So, it's hard morally for people because it's very hard to sustain this war so long. But it's also hard politically because our government is not ideal, but we have to keep living with them because we understand that we cannot do elections right now because of the wartime situation. So, that's why people are so emotional and concerned about the issues of corruption.

MW: Yeah, understandable. Thank you so much, Tetiana, for taking the time to speak with us.

TS: Thank you so much.

AR: Tetiana Shevchuk is the international relations manager of the Ukrainian non-governmental Anti-Corruption Action Centre. We reached her in Kyiv.

William McNeil Update

AR: You may have seen the cellphone video -- a Black man in Jacksonville, Florida is punched in the face, pulled from his car and beaten by police during a traffic stop. This follows an exchange where he repeatedly asks the officers why he's been pulled over and asks to speak to a supervisor, as they demand he leave the car. His name is William McNeil Jr. and today the 22-year-old college student spoke about what happened to him -- as his lawyers demand accountability. Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters, however, urged people not to rush to judgement. He says the cellphone video, quote, "does not comprehensively capture the circumstances." Unquote. Mr. McNeil was with his parents and their lawyer, Ben Crump, when he spoke to reporters today. Here's what they had to say, beginning with his mother Latoya Solomon.

SOUNDCLIP

LATOYA SOLOMON: The day I seen that video, I couldn't finish it past the window breaking. It wasn't until maybe a few months ago I finally finished the whole video. But I'm thankful to God for protecting him, because I know what the outcome could have been. But I believe in faith in God is protected my only son.

ALTON SOLOMON: Morning. I'm Alton Solomon, the father, stepfather. But I can't call him my stepson, because this is my son. I've been through what he's been through. To see that video made me go back to the moment when I was 22. It hurt. It made me upset. But I've seen what my son did that I had to do, and he sat right, and he did right. To see that, [deep breathing] it's a hurting feeling to be a father that loved God first. And to see all my kids not being able to wake up in the morning, get my phone call saying your child is gone. That's a hurting feeling, but I thank God. Because God got him.

BEN CRUMP: William's just gonna make a few remarks. And keep this family in prayer, because as his mother and father both said, they knew he could have been the next hashtag. It could have a different result had he not kept his demeanour.

WILLIAM MCNEIL JR.: First of all, I want to thank God for bringing everybody here together. And thank y'all for supporting me. That day, I just really wanted to know, you know, why I was getting pulled over, and why I needed to step out of the car when I knew I didn't do nothing wrong. I was really just scared. Yeah, that's it.

AR: William McNeil Jr. and his family, along with lawyer Ben Crump, speaking today in Jacksonville, Florida.

[ambient]

Aus. Political Donations

Guest: Peter Malinauskas

AR: There's not a lot that voters across the political spectrum are aligned on these days. Or perhaps...ever. But for a long time now, everyday people of all political stripes have tended to agree that the wealthy have undue influence over politics. And that's something South Australia is seeking to change. Beginning this month, the state is implementing first-of-their kind campaign financing reforms that ban virtually all political donations to candidates. It's an idea that South Australia premier, Peter Malinauskas championed -- and one he says should serve as a model for democracies around the world. We reached Mr. Malinauskas in Adelaide.

MW: Premier Malinauskas, these reforms were inspired by a trip that you took to the U.S. in 2014. What did you see there that set you down this path?

PETER MALINAUSKAS: I was in the United States on a study tour around the U.S. midterm elections that were occurring then. And we had a great opportunity to be able to meet with a whole range of people running in different races across the nation. And one consistent thing came through, and that was the defining variable that professional campaign managers had cited that would define the respective election contest was money. And that the professional campaign managers were at the point where they were effectively insisting that their candidates spend no less than 80 per cent of their time fundraising. And, you know, money has always existed in politics, but to see a candidate spend the overall majority of their times fundraising rather than talking to constituents or developing policy sort of made clear to me that we had now crossed a threshold where this is compromising the integrity of the process. And something needed to be done, and that's what motivated our change.

MW: Now, the U.S. is arguably an outlier in terms of the influence of money over politics, so what was happening in South Australia that made you believe a ban on almost all political donations was warranted there?

PM: It is true that the US is an outlier, but it's also true that in almost every other liberal democracy in Western nations, we have seen the actions around fundraising continue to professionalize and grow. And although it is true no one else is at the point that the U.S. is, there is a growth trajectory, and better to intervene now before we get to that point. But regardless of the U.S. comparison, it's people's confidence in a democratic process is waning throughout the Western world. And one of the things that I believe is contributing to that challenge is the sense that politicians are working for the interests of big corporations, or big institutions, rather than the interests of people themselves.

MW: Now, campaigns, of course, cost money, so how will candidates in South Australia finance them instead?

PM: Every election at a state and federal level in Australia already has public funding. What we are doing is introducing spending caps that are at the same level as the public funding regime for political campaigns and parties. With exempted new parties and independents running for the first time from the donation ban. They will still be able to fundraise politically. They will also get access to public funding in a new initiative. So, we had to get the balance right here to ensure that there was nothing that this public funding regime was doing that would benefit incumbents over new entrants. And that's a balance we''ve worked very hard to get right.

MW: Now, when these reforms first passed a parliamentary vote back in November, critics at the Australia Institute and elsewhere expressed concern that they would benefit major incumbent parties like yours. These, you know, what you were just talking about there, I mean, is that enough to address these fears?

PM: What people have to appreciate is that there is no level playing field without reform. Because the truth is incumbent parties' ability to be able to fundraise dramatically outweighs the ability for a new entrant to be out of the fundraise. Because donors are attracted to incumbents. They are attracted to donating to people that already have power. So, this legislation actually goes a long way to levelling the playing field. And the way the legislation ended up following all of its amendments and changes, [chuckle] in actual fact, the party that is at most disadvantaged in my case is my own, which created my own internal challenge with my own MPs. [chuckle] But nonetheless, we were committed to the reform. So, for instance, in my own seat at the next election where I will be running, my opponents will be able to fundraise ad nauseam, but they'll be subject to a donation cap of $5,000 per donation. I, however, will not be able to fundraise at all.

MW: Now, Australia is an outlier country in the sense that it has compulsory voting, you fine people, no, a nominal fine for not voting in elections. Do you see this reform in South Australia as a kind of continuation of that same policy of democratic enforcement and policy in a sense?

PM: Absolutely. South Australia was the first place anywhere in the world to give women the right to vote and run for parliament. We were the first. We are familiar with these types of reforms in South Australia that are progressive in nature. And many of those have been adopted by other countries around the world. I think it's a little bit ambitious to hope that this reform will be replicated in other jurisdictions around the world. But nonetheless, we think it sends a very clear signal that the community don't want to see big money in politics.

MW: But there are many other jurisdictions around the world that do have strict limits on political donations, Canada included. Why not pursue some kind of hybrid model where you've got transparency and fairness, but ordinary voters can still contribute to the campaign of a candidate, or a party that they believe in?

PM: Where those limits and attempts to regulate donations exist, there is almost always still the capacity for people to donate very significant sums of money. We have to ask ourselves, what do we want our politicians, candidates, and members of parliament doing all day? If we want them doing the work that we expect them to do, then it is far better to remove the requirement upon them to spend more and more hours of their day fundraising than doing the job of representing their constituency.

MW: Premier Malinauskas, I know you have elections coming up. We'll be following them with interest. Thanks very much for speaking with me today.

PM: My pleasure, cheers.

AR: Peter Malinauskas is Premier of South Australia. We reached him in Adelaide.

[ambient]

Same-Sex Marriage Anno

their “I do”s. The ceremony, it looked like many other weddings -- vows and rings and kisses -- but the marriages weren’t legally recognized at the time. It was four years before same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada. But the church went ahead anyway, becoming the first religious institution in the world to marry same-sex couples. And the legal battle that followed helped push the issue into the national spotlight. That fight ended 20 years ago this week, when the Civil Marriage Act officially legalized same-sex marriage in Canada. Lawyer Douglas Elliott represented the Metropolitan Church of Toronto. He spoke to CBC Radio about what the fight for marriage equality meant to him and his lifelong partner.

SOUNDCLIP

DOUGLAS ELLIOTT: We attended Metropolitan Community Church, and a lot of people encouraged us to be the first couple to get married, or one of the first couples to get married, but we felt differently about that. I didn't want to feel that I was fighting to have my own marriage recognized when I was in the Supreme Court. I wanted to make sure that everyone had the right to marry, and that the whole matter was settled before we, uh, considered whether or not we were going to get married. So, we waited until after this bill passed, um, before we even talked about getting married. And it took, anyone who's organized a marriage -- I think you're one of them -- you know it doesn't happen overnight.

JESSICA POPE: [chuckle] No, it doesn't.

DE: It took us until 2008 before we were actually able to have the wedding, but it was fantastic. It was the happiest day of my life. And I realized that one of the reasons that people fought against us having equal marriage is because they wanted to deny us that joy and that social recognition that comes with gathering your family and friends on your wedding day.

JP: Do you ever hear from same-sex couples across the country now about what equal marriage rights have meant to them?

DE: All the time. There are some people who know that I was involved in this, and it's very heartwarming that I get expressions of gratitude for having made it possible for them to marry. And when people don't know and find out, it's very common for people to hug me and thank me. They're very, very appreciative. You know, it's a wonderful thing as a lawyer to be able to bring so much happiness to so many people you've never met. You know, it's a lasting legacy of my work that I'll always take a great deal of pride in my contribution.

AR: Lawyer Douglas Elliott speaking to Jessica Pope on CBC Sudbury's Morning North.

[R&B]

Seat Turtle Sighting

AR: At first, Victoria Bradshaw didn't know what -- or who -- she was looking at. Recently, while fishing off the coast of Haida Gwaii, B.C., Ms. Bradshaw saw a head pop out of the water. But it took a moment before everything snapped into place.

SOUNDCLIP

VICTORIA BRADSHAW: Just off the back of the boat, I kind of saw this large head pop up, and I instantly thought sea lion just because we see them quite often. And Aidan, who I was with, he kind of announced, like, that's not a sea lion, that's a sea turtle. And he kind was just cruising along, and spent about 20 or 30 seconds with us. And then, went for his dive down, I'm sure to eat some more jellyfish.

Victoria Bradshaw recalling the moment she saw a leatherback sea turtle during a fishing trip in B.C. Leatherbacks are the largest turtles in the world, but are critically endangered. So, few people in B.C. have seen them. Jackie Hildering is among the lucky few. Ms. Hildering works with the Marine Education and Research Society.

SOUNDCLIP

JACKIE HILDERING: I am amongst the, there have only been 151 leatherbacks sighted in 94 years. And I saw one as well in an offshore survey with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I'm in the bridge of this big Coast Guard boat, the Tully, Captain Brent looks down and says, oh, and Captain Brent is very tall, so he could see down. He goes, oh look, it's a turtle. I may have hurt people running from one side of the bridge to the other because there were only two of us on the boat who could identify the species. And just as I reached the other side of the bridge. And I looked down and could just see the turtle slip down. And then, we looked and looked and looked and looked, but they can dive down for, like, part of their amazingness is that they can drive them for 85 minutes. You are unlikely to ever see one, but your actions every day do impact them. So to rejoice for the sighting, but also in our daily actions to think about these species that we're so lucky to still have off our coast. We'd love people to check out leatherbacksinbc.org where we've housed all this information, including the video that has the reverence in Victoria's voice as she respectfully watches this awe-inspiring animal.

AR: Jackie Hildering works with the Marine Education and Research Society in Port McNeill, B.C. She was speaking with our CBC colleagues in B.C.

The AIH Transcript For July 23, 2025

Social Sharing