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 June 16, 2025

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

NIL KÖKSAL: Hello, I'm Stephanie Skenderis, sitting in for Nil Köksal.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening, I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[theme]

CH: Tonight:

NK: The American resolution. Prime Minister Mark Carney's team says he made great progress on tariffs during his meeting with Donald Trump at the G7 summit today. Our guest reads the room and tells us what success might really look like at the end of the talks.

CH: Out of the blue. A Minnesota state politician remembers his longtime friend and colleague, Melissa Hortman -- who was assassinated along with her husband this weekend by a shooter targeting politicians.

NK: Weapons of mass distraction. A non-proliferation expert says Israel's explanation for bombing Iran doesn't hold water. He believes it's not about nuclear power -- but regime change.

CH: Send in the clown. A Holocaust researcher gets the rare chance to see footage from Jerry Lewis's unfinished, long-buried Holocaust film The Day the Clown Cried -- and says it's full of surprises.

NK: Diamonds are a girl's best friend. We'll hear about the late Betsy Jochum -- who made history as a pioneering player in the first professional women's baseball league.

CH: And...putting the "bothers" in "brothers". A secret report reveals that Edinburgh, Scotland fears an influx of middle-aged, drunk, rowdy people when Oasis plays there. And one of the Gallaghers is not a fan of that description of his fans.

CH: As It Happens, the Monday Edition. Radio that tells Edinburgh: where there's a will, there's Oasis.

[theme]

Part 1: Trump/Carney G7, Nuclear Analysis, Betsy Jochum Obit

Trump/Carney G7

Guest: Peter Harder

CH: Mark Carney's team says this morning's meeting with Donald Trump led to progress on tariffs. Today, the prime minister kicked off the G7 in Kananaskis, Alberta with bilateral talks with the U.S. president. And there was a lot to talk about -- the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, Ukraine, and a trade war, to mention a few subjects. But during a joint press conference, President Trump was mostly fixated on one thing: that it should still be the G8 -- because Russia shouldn't have been kicked out a decade ago. Once he made that point clear, the president had this to say.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Other than that, I think we're going to accomplish a lot, and I expect to. And I think our primary focus will be trade and trade with Canada. And I'm sure we can work something out. Thank you very much.

MARK CARNEY: Yeah, so am I. Thank you very much.

CH: U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking in Kananaskis, Alberta earlier today. That last time the president was in Canada, at the 2018 G7 in Charlevoix, Quebec, he left early and called then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “very dishonest and weak" over his tariff comments. Clearly a result that Mark Carney and his team are hoping to avoid. Peter Harder is a Canadian senator, and was the sherpa -- or top diplomat charged with making sure everything goes smoothly -- at three G8s under Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. We reached him in Ottawa.

NK: Senator Harder, from what you've seen and heard so far at this year's summit, if you were there, would you be breathing a bit of a sigh of relief, or are things still tense?

PETER HARDER: Well, I wouldn't say it's tense, but, you know, you don't breathe a sigh of relief until it's all over. I think that the first few hours have been very good for Canada, for Prime Minister Carney. The arrivals of leaders and the comments that others have made publicly, including President Trump, are quite encouraging, both on the agenda of the meeting itself, the G7, but also on the bilateral relationships with Canada, with United Kingdom, and with other participants.

NK: Tariffs, of course, are top of mind for people right across Canada. The U.S. president did say, you know, some kind of agreement was achievable. He also said he was a, quote, tariff guy. How much do you think can be solved or accomplished during these meetings?

PH: I think that these meetings help encourage or are propellant to action. If you have two leaders together telling their respective ministers or secretaries to accelerate the discussions, that is a very significant signal. And the rapport between leaders matters, not in terms of, necessarily, the conclusions, but at the pace at which they are prepared to discuss, and the give and take of any negotiation is done in a better spirit.

NK: So, they did seem to be, you know, they did seem to get along, Prime Minister Carney and President Trump, and it was certainly a different kind of tone from Donald Trump that we heard in the introduction there. But when the minister of Canada-U.S. trade, Dominic LeBlanc, was asked about the relationship and if Trump had gone over some of the other statements he's made about Canada in the past, here's a bit of what the Minister had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

DOMINIC LEBLANC: We're not going to go into the private details of the conversation.

[lots of crosstalk]

REPORTER: That's not private, that's a national conversation we're having.

DL: Our focus was on the economic opportunity of working with the United States, and that was the conversation that the prime minister had.

NK: Given what happened, and I'm sure you haven't forgotten about what happened in Charlevoix between Trump and former Prime Minister Trudeau. are ministers, are all the folks there really choosing their words wisely, even more so than usual?

PH: Well, I think leaders always choose their words wisely at these summits. So, it's not unique, but surely the experience in Charlevoix reminded us all that it's not even over after the conference is over. You've got to wait for people to get home. So, I'm very much in agreement with Minister LeBlanc that it would be completely inappropriate for those attending meetings to interpret them publicly, certainly. And that let's keep the momentum that this bilateral conversation has given, hopefully supplemented by the multilateral conversations with other leaders, and we get some progress on this tariff issue that not only is affecting Canada but is affecting the global economy.

NK: What is also top of mind for people across this country, but around the world certainly, is what is happening between Israel and Iran right now. It is deeply frightening and worrying for many, many people. What do you think could and should come out of this summit on that front? Is there any way that discussions there could actually lead to an end to what we're seeing?

PH: Yeah, I don't think the discussions in and of themselves can conclude on that issue. But hopefully, that the calls from the summit for a ceasefire, and for a hopefully, in my view anyway, a continuing of dialogue with iran on its nuclear engagement can be stimulated by the leaders' discussions. But it is unfortunate that particularly on the eve of a G7 meeting this incident and this prosecution of military action is taking away from the focus that I hope that the G8, G7 would have had on the economic matters before us.

NK: What does success look like at the end of this, from where you sit?

PH: Well, bilaterally, of course, it's that our prime minister is seen as having a successful summit. That the leaders, particularly with Mr. Trump, agree to accelerate the discussions that are underway with respect to the tariff, that the prime minister has established good bilateral relationships with key partners. We've got a NATO summit coming up in just literally less than two weeks. That the bilateral relationships are strengthened multilaterally. That the world sees that even in these trying times the leading democracies of the Western industrial world, the economic powerhouse, can come together and deal with the issues of the day, particularly tariffs, which is not just a bilateral issue. But also deal with other important global matters including the situation in the Middle East and other parts of the world which deserve leader attention.

NK: Senator, I appreciate this. Thank you.

PH: Most welcome.

CH: Peter Harder is a Canadian senator. He’s in Ottawa.

[newsy theme]

Iran Attacks

Guest: Hamid Gholamzadeh

CH: Meanwhile, in Tehran, residents are also getting used to the sound of explosions. Since the early morning, Israel launched over 200 airstrikes on Iran. Hamid Gholamzadeh is an Iranian analyst with the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. We reached him in Tehran, before Iran's counter-attack against Israel.

NK: Hamid, early this morning when these attacks first began, what did you hear and see?

HAMID GHOLAMZADEH: It was actually around 3 a.m. local time that rounds of explosions were heard across the city, and I actually woke up to the same sounds. And it continued for one or two hours in the early morning, and then gradually, the sirens were heard. And then the news came out that some military commanders and nuclear scientists have been targeted.

NK: This has long been threatened. Were you and others bracing for this? I mean, did you know immediately what was happening?

HG: It could be easy to guess, because at that time of the day with loud sounds being heard, it could be easy to get that there is attacks. The dimension of that, the expansion of that, was not clear at that point that how strong it is.

NK: Even if it was expected, were you frightened?

HG: Frightened? No, I cannot say I was frightened. You know, even when you go to the city during the day, the normal life has been going on, it's not like a war situation in Iran, it is not like that at all. People rushed to the places that were hit early in the morning to find the other news and to help the people there, but the rest of the city, life was going on.

NK: When you were out and about as things went on, how were people reacting? You know, just Iranians going about their day, how were they reacting to these strikes?

HG: People are not reacting with fear, but with anger. They are very angry that the attacks have been happened, and they are demanding the government to respond to that, and do it strongly. You know, this is Friday, and Fridays are the weekend in Iran, and people go to Friday prayers around noon. And after that, in many places, including Tehran and many other cities, people demonstrated after the prayers and chanted against Israel and the United States and called for retaliation from the Iranian side, revenge for the loss of the people who have been killed by the Israelis.

NK: An Israeli military official was speaking to journalists, and said that these strikes were necessary. You know, they framed this as a pre-emptive attack, but also have said that the strikes were necessary to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. And that from where they sit, they believe that Iran was just days away from having enough material to assemble 15 nuclear bombs. That's the Israeli military's take on this and their reasoning behind this. What's your response to that?

HG: Actually, the whole idea of nuclear weapon is a false flag and just an excuse for the Americans and the Israelis to carry out such strikes. If Iran wanted to have nuclear weapons, it had already made it. So, it didn't need any permission or it didn't need any approval from the others. And the fact is that they don't want Iran to be a nuclear power in terms of having indigenous science of nuclear energy, not nuclear weapon. India and Pakistan, both of them are nuclear countries. Both of them have nuclear warheads. But they attacked one another just recently. And Iran knows that, and Iran doesn't need that. Even if it had nuclear bomb, it would not be helpful in stopping enemies like Israeli regime to attack it.

HG: That's the only choice for de-escalation of tensions. Escalation for the Escalations is the only choice that remains in place. So, if Iran wants to stop this war machine and Iran wants to keep peace in the region, and stability in the regions, it needs to strongly react, and to push Americans toward controlling this war machine in Israel.

NK: That would just escalate things even further, though, and expand it, though. You think the United States would back down at that point?

HG: They need to, because if they want to be dragged into a war, that would be a nightmare for their foreign policy. Since President Obama, they had decided to remove their focus from this region and to move toward East Asia to contain China. And they have failed so far. And when they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, they got into endless wars, quote/unquote, from themselves. But the wars were endless wars. So, let alone what would happen when they attack Iran or they get into a full bridge war with Iran.

NK: Just to get back, Hamid, to what you're seeing and experiencing tonight in Tehran. What are you seeing and hearing around you given these new attacks now?

HG: In the evening, there was just one explosion here, one loud sound of explosion was here and reported in the city. There might be some more, but for now we cannot say anything.

NK: Hamid, I appreciate your time. Thank you for this.

HG: Thank you very much for having me.

CH: Hamid Gholamzadeh is an Iranian analyst with the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. We reached him earlier today in Tehran.

[ambient]

Nuclear Analysis

Guest: Jeffrey Lewis

CH: This evening, while Iran’s state news channel was broadcasting live, this happened.

SOUNDCLIP

[a woman speaks Farsi, an explosion is heard, followed by distortion]

CH: That was Iran's state TV station being hit by an Israeli strike this evening. Israel also hit what it said were 10 command centres in Tehran. And Iran vowed more missile attacks on Israel. Iran says over 200 people have been killed in the attacks since Friday. Dozens have been killed in Israel as well. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netahyahu has said the continued attacks on Iran are meant to prevent the country from obtaining nuclear weapons. Jeffrey Lewis is an expert in nuclear non-proliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. We reached him in Niskayuna, New York.

NK: Jeffrey, our listeners have heard why Israel says it is doing this. Have these strikes managed to disrupt Iran's nuclear program in any way?

JEFFREY LEWIS: Well, I think the strikes have destroyed some facilities, and they've definitely probably delayed, or hampered, or impeded some aspects of the nuclear program. But to a first approximation, I think the answer is no. The most important Iranian facilities are buried deep under mountains. And at least so far, Israel doesn't seem to have been able to strike those.

NK: We've seen from Israel and heard from Israel in years past of these kinds of concerns and allegations that Iran is very close to making bombs. They're saying this time, 15 nuclear bombs within days, according to the intelligence Israel says it has about Iran. From where you sit, is that a fair assessment?

JL: No, that does not seem accurate to me. The information that we have comes from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which doesn't seem to think that Iran is days away from building a bomb. And from the U.S. Intelligence community, which said that as recently as mid-May that Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program. So, I think that Iran has been months away from a bomb for 20 years, and I don't think there is anything technical that has happened that would have changed that assessment.

NK: We should also mention, though, that last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, was saying that Iran was not complying with its obligations under the safeguards agreement.

JL: That's correct. Iran was not complying with its obligations under the safeguards agreement. That is a factual statement.

NK: So, does that add credence to the argument that an attack was necessary?

JL: No, because there is a difference between violating one's safeguards agreement, which the Iranians have been doing very directly. They haven't been doing the violations and then hiding it. They've been violating it and showing what they're doing. I think largely because they were trying to put pressure on the international community. I mean, that does seem to have backfired spectacularly for them. But the violations that are being discussed are wrong and they needed to be addressed. But they did not amount to Iran actually weaponizing the highly enriched uranium that it was accumulating.

NK: From what you've seen from the reporting, and we've seen the video, strikes targeting top military leaders in Iran, state-run TV in Iran as well, what does all of that suggest to you about what these attacks might be all about?

JL: Well, I think the name of the operation says it all. It's Rising Lion. The lion is not the national animal of Israel. That's a gazelle. The lion as a symbol of Iran. And so, I do think that the strikes are primarily intended to topple the Islamic regime. And I think we've seen some other evidence of that from strikes on television broadcasting to reports that Israel had sought permission to try to kill the supreme leader of Iran. So, I think this is fundamentally an effort at regime change, and the strikes on the nuclear program and the invocation of the nuclear program are more an act of window dressing to make this more palatable to others.

NK: Netanyahu -- as you've likely heard, Jeffrey -- has said Israel is not trying to topple the regime in Iran, but he said he would not be surprised if that happened as a result of these strikes. What do you make of that messaging?

JL: Yeah. I mean, it sounds like a mafia boss, right? I'm not saying I want the government to fall, but it'd be a real shame [chuckling] if that were to happen. Netanyahu did give a speech very quickly after the beginning of the bombing in which he did call for the Iranian people to rise up, and in which she did describe the strikes as clearing the pathway for them to do so. So, I think this is a situation where he at least is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

NK: And actually doing that regime change. I mean, what would happen afterwards? Do you know what would happen afterwards? What is the realistic scenario?

JL: I think no one really knows. This is, I think, a tremendous gamble that the Israelis are taking. And it's not clear to me that one can bomb a regime out of office, but perhaps they can. But there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that. And then, you naturally have a question of what comes later. There's no guarantee that the next government of Iran will be any easier to deal with than this one.

NK: How far do you think he and his government are willing to go?

JL: I think that they will continue this bombing as long as it takes, or at least as long as they can. I don't think that there is any particular evidence that they wish to stop. Netanyahu has already told Israelis to stock up on patience. So, these are probably early days in what could turn out to be a very long conflict if the Iranians can tough it out.

NK: What would end this?

JL: I think there are a number of things that could potentially end it. If the Iranians completely capitulated, I think the Trump administration would probably lean on the Israelis to stop, although I don't think the Israelis would want to. I think Iranian government could fall. Or, you know, there could be political upheaval in Israel. I think Israel and Iran are locked in a bit of a suffer fest at the moment. And it's really an interesting question to see who can meet out and who can take more abuse.

NK: It's the people who are taking the abuse.

JL: Well, it is always the people.

NK: That's the thing, the people who were worried about their safety in Iran and in Israel as well. Those scenarios that you listed there, from where I sit at this stage at least, I'm not an expert like you, they all seem very unlikely that Iran would capitulate at this stage. Is there something the U.S. could and should say right now that could end this?

JL: Well, I think brokering a ceasefire would be an appropriate thing to do. So, I do think that making a real, durable, lasting piece is worth doing. The question is whether any of these men are interested in that?

NK: Jeffrey, thank you for this.

JL: It was nice to talk to you.

CH: Jeffrey Lewis is an expert in nuclear non-proliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. We reached him in Niskayuna, New York.

[plucked instrumental]

Betsy Jochum Obit

Guest: Carol Sheldon

CH: Betsy Jochum came from humble beginnings. She was born in 1921 in Cincinnati, Ohio, and came of age during the Depression. But in 1943, her life changed -- when she was recruited to try out for the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, before its inaugural season in Chicago.

SOUNDCLIP

BETSY JOCHUM: We had trials again. They ran us all over the outfield, the outfielder's batting practice and all that stuff. The big thing is we tried out Wrigley Field, you know? Women were never on that field. [chuckling]

CH: That league would eventually become the first-ever professional women's baseball league. And those tryouts were fictionalized in the 1992 movie A League of Their Own.

SOUNDCLIP

MADONNA: Are these girls going to be in the league?

ROSIE O'DONNELL: You wish.

GEENA DAVIS: You do wish.

RO: They're gonna have four teams, 16 girls to a team.

GD: That's right. Sixty-four girls.

RO: Yeah, what are you, a genius?

MADONNA: You know, they got over 100 girls here, so some of yous are gonna have to go home.

CH: Madonna, Geena Davis, and Rosie O'Donnell in A League of Their Own. Betsy Jochum was successful in those tryouts -- and played for the South Bend Blue Socks for years. Ms. Jochum has died at the age of 104. She was the last surviving player from her league's first season. Carol Sheldon is the vice-president of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League's players association. We reached her in Royal Oak, Michigan.

NK: Carol, I remember the first time I saw A League of Their Own, and I think like a lot of people, you know, was surprised that we didn't know anything about this league. Do you remember when you first saw the film?

CAROL SHELDON: [chuckle] Yes, I do. It was right after it came out in the theatres. It was the first movie I ever went to that got a standing ovation. And I walked out of the theatre like many people going, how come I don't know about this? [laughing] And I went straight to the bookstore the very next day and found a book by Lois Browne with an E on the end called Girls of Summer. And I thumbed through the book to start with. And I noticed that the last chapter was "Where Are They Now?" And it talked about an archives in Fort Wayne. So, I ended up calling the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. They gave me Dottie Collins's number who was president of the players association at the time. And by the end of our conversation, Dottie had me signed up for the players association as an associate, [NK laughs] and coming to one of their many reunions down in Fort Wayne, where I actually got to see these gals play.

NK: You ladies get it done fast.

CS: Yeah.

NK: Just like the players, but you had played with some of the players that the film was based on, right? But you didn't even know.

CS: Yeah, I didn't know about it. Yeah, I played fast pitch against a couple of the ladies and slow pitch, too.

NK: So, you get involved with the players association. That leads you to Betsy Jockum. What was she like? What was your first encounter?

CS: Um, just at reunions, um, she was a very unassuming kind of person. Uh, you would never have known that she was one of the major stars of the league, uh, because she would rather talk about her team and, and how they played and everything, not herself. Um, so she, you know, she just was a good teammate, you know, you could tell. She grew up playing in the neighbourhoods, like many of these ladies did. She was from Cincinnati. But she just loved playing ball.

NK: She was known as Sockum Jockum, so she might have been modest, but it sounds like she was a pretty fierce player.

CS: Yes, I mean, she had some power in her bat. She hit a lot of doubles, hit some home runs. But the home runs, at the time she was playing, they weren't the over the fence type of home runs. So, they hit a lot of double and triples and things like that because they were playing, the ball was bigger when she was playing. Early on, like fast pitch softball, it's pitcher-dominated. And then as the league went along, after three years, they started moving towards regular baseball. They went to sidearm and then went to total overhand. And that's where Betsy kind of reinvented her career a little bit because a lot of the pitchers in that league that started in '43 and pitched through '46 or so that were underhand pitchers, they had a hard time changing over to overhand. And so, Betsy being a really good outfielder with a strong arm, they turned her into a pitcher for the '48 season.

NK: And for people who have not seen the film, they should, first of all.

CS: Right, they should.

NK: But the league started as a way to keep baseball in the public eye, fill those stands and the seats while men were fighting in the Second World War.

CS: Right.

NK: But sexism being what it is and what it certainly was then, they still, they had to, I think there was a quote in, in some of the coverage where it said, you know, they, they have to throw like men, but still dress or behave like women, right?

CS: Yeah, they had to look like Garbo. They had to hit like to DiMaggio, but look like Garbo.

NK: We have a clip of Betsy Jochum talking about some of the rules they had to deal with.

SOUNDCLIP

BETSY JOCHUM: We always had to wear skirts. We were not allowed to wear shorts in public. And for the four or five years, we rode the North Shore and South Shore. And then, each team had their own bus. When you're on the bus, you can wear shorts. If you got off the bus you had to put a wrap-around skirt on. Those were the strict rules. No smoking, no drinking.

NK: No smoking, no drinking, you had to wear that skirt. That, of course, was Betsy Jochum talking about the rules that they had to contend with. How do you think that league, Carol, shaped your career and the careers of other players?

CS: Well, many of those women ended up having careers in education, especially into the colleges. And they were very instrumental in helping to pass a law here in the United States called Title IX. And Title IX was a law that went into effect that equalized funds for everybody. So, if you were trying to become an athlete, you know, they spent X amount of dollars on male sports. They had to spend the same kind of money on female sports, or giving out scholarships. They had the equal those out. That's what helped my career out. I didn't see a whole lot of that when I was in high school or anything. I saw it more when I coaching.

NK: So, you've been experiencing and seeing this growth. What does the future look like to you?

CS: Oh yeah. I think the future's bright for all sports, as far as women are concerned. I'm hoping that the baseball that's supposed to start next year, I hope that it's run well, because it's important that it succeeds. I mean, fast-pitch softball has started up and finished a few times over the years. Same thing happened with basketball, though. There were several basketball leagues before the NBA backed the WNBA. You know, it'd be nice to see a WMLB.

NK: Yeah, sure would.

CS: Yeah.

NK: Carol, I appreciate this. Thank you very much.

CS: You're welcome.

CH: Carol Sheldon is the vice-president of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League's players association, and a member of the U.S. Womens' Baseball Hall of Fame. She's in Royal Oak, Michigan.

[indie pop]

Oasis Fans

CH: I mean, listen: there's this one.

[Champagne Supernova by Oasis/Britpop]

CH: And you don't just quietly hum this one to yourself.

[Live Forever by Oasis/Britpop]

CH: And you know people will just be bellowing along to this.

[Wonderwall by Oasis/Britpop]

CH: When that band starts playing that song live for the first time since 2009, everyone in the crowd will feel that it's normal to tell someone that they are not just a wall, but a “wonderwall". [NK chuckles] That's the power of Oasis. People are very excited that Liam and Noel Gallagher have put aside their extreme differences to reunite the band after 16 years, and embark on a tour that will attract obnoxious middle-aged dudes who'll shriek drunkenly along while shotgunning beers and occupying space. That is not my assessment. That's the assessment of an advisory group appointed by the city council in Edinburgh, Scotland -- which is preparing for three Oasis shows in early August. Two hundred and ten thousand fans are coming to town, so they decided to do a safety review. And now, The Scottish Sun has published some of their secret observations. And they are not flattering. The experts warn that these Oasis fans will be include a lot of "rowdy" "middle-aged men" who will "take up more room", and be in a state of "medium to high intoxication". [NK chuckles] On one hand: that's insulting, and condescending. On the other: there may be a whisper of truth to the "medium to high intoxication" part. Not to mention the part where the experts expressed concern about the "tone of the band". A concern Liam Gallagher did nothing to dispel by ranting to Edinburgh city council on X that, quote, "quite frankly your attitude...stinks", and "I’d love to see a picture of all the people on the Edinburgh council bet there’s some real STUNING individuals.” Unquote. He meant "stunning". But he's upset. And, of course, no one should be shamed for going to an Oasis show. To fans, we say: may this tour go on forever, and may wonderwalls never cease. Whatever they are.

[industrial]

Part 2: Minnesota Attacks, Lost Lewis Film: Crispin, Lost Lewis Film: Lee

Minnesota Attacks

Guest: Steve Simon

CH: He's been arrested for shooting two Democratic politicians and their spouses. And allegedly, he planned out those attacks in detail. The acting U.S. attorney who laid charges against Vance Boelter of Minnesota today says he stalked his victims, and then posed as a police officer. Here's Joseph Thompson describing the attacks:

SOUNDCLIP

JOSEPH THOMPSON: Political assassinations are rare. They strike at the very core of our democracy. But the details of Boelter's crime are even worse. They are truly chilling. It is no exaggeration to say that his crimes are the stuff of nightmares.

CH: Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson speaking earlier today. Democratic state senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, are recovering from serious injuries. Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot dead. Speaker Hortman is being remembered for her dedication. In 2017, she spoke to As It Happens from the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany. She was there with other American civic leaders in support of the Paris Agreement -- even though President Trump had pulled her country out. Here's part of what she said.

SOUNDCLIP

MELISSA HORTMAN: If people didn't believe in the banking system, there would be a run on the banks. In the same way, this international climate agreement rests on belief. People have to believe that it will work, and so it is important that a significant part of the United States economy is here to say that it will, in fact, work. And many Americans believe in it and we are working towards its goals.

CH: Steve Simon is Minnesota's secretary of state. He was also a friend of Melissa Hortman. We reached him in Hopkins, Minnesota.

NK: Secretary of State Simon, we hear there, we just get a little sense of who Melissa Hortman was. Who was the Melissa Horton you knew personally?

STEVE SIMON: I had known Melissa Hortman for over 30 years. We went to law school together. We then came into the Minnesota House of Representatives the same year, learned the ropes together. She attended my wedding. And just hearing her voice is a reminder of her spirit, her sense of public purpose, her pragmatism, her tenacity, but she's a very strategic person, too. And you can hear that in her voice. She's thinking a few steps ahead. And she never lost her humanity. Though she could be a steely negotiator, she always treated people with not just respect but warmth, including and especially those who didn't agree with her, those who were on the other side of the political spectrum. And that's why she was so well respected and so well-liked. She was a tremendous person, and she'll be deeply, deeply missed.

NK: This is a professional loss, but clearly a personal one for you as well, Secretary of State Simon. How are you dealing with it?

SS: You know I'm just glad that I and the people I know who are other office holders are safe. I'm so, so glad that the suspect has been apprehended, that he was taken alive, frankly, and that he will now face justice. So, I'm feeling better now about the whole situation than just 24 hours ago. Though, I'm still in shock, to be honest. And I haven't fully absorbed this yet. And that's going to take some time for all of us.

NK: That's understandable. And I'm sorry for your loss, Secretary of State. When you were in school together, what did Melissa Hortman tell you about why she wanted to go into politics?

SS: Well, she was very public-spirited, and driven by sort of a sense of purpose, and I would say even justice-oriented. I remember one conversation that I had with her, she and I and several others, talking about the trade-offs after law school. On the one hand, there were people who went to large law firms and that's perfectly appropriate, and they would make a lot of money but they wouldn't have the same early impact and experience. Whereas having the early impact and experience would mean making less money. And that's what she opted for. She opted for public-spirited, purpose-driven ways to use her law degree. And it was no surprise to me at all that within, I think, three years of graduating law school she ran for office the first time. Interestingly, she lost that first time, she lost the second time, and most people would give it up at that point. She didn't. She was tenacious and committed. And she got there on the third time. And then of course, a decade, a decade-and-a-half later, was running the place as speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives.

NK: You mentioned her ability to work with others, with people she didn't agree with, or who didn't agree with her. In one of her last votes, she crossed party lines to pass the state's budget, and that meant dropping health coverage for some undocumented immigrants. She teared up, as I understand it, after that vote, saying she knew people would be hurt, but she felt she needed to compromise. For people who have never met her, they can certainly take a lot from what I just said there. But what did that experience say to you about her?

SS: It was very consistent with the person that I'd known. It was about self-sacrifice. She hated having to cast that vote. It upset her, but she did it because as a leader, she knew she had to do it. And the bigger objective was making sure that the state government didn't shut down. And this was a painful pill to swallow, you might say, but she knew she had to do that. Even though she wrestled with it very obviously. And that's really consistent with her as a person. She put others before herself. She wasn't a credit claimer. She wasn't flashy. She just did the work and she centred other people in the discussions. And that's what that demonstrates, to me.

NK: We heard from the acting U.S. Attorney, Joseph Thompson, a moment ago in the introduction, and he talks about these kinds of incidents still being rare -- although, of course, chilling. I was working, I remember, in 2011 when Gabby Giffords was shot while meeting with constituents and that was stunning, to say the least, for people right around the world, certainly in the United States. But it doesn't seem as rare as it did at that time. Does it feel that way to you?

SS: Yes, it does feel that way to me. And it's something that really concerns me for a number of reasons. First is the actual horrible result of politically-inspired violence, which is harm and in some cases death. But look what this might do in a broader cultural sense. There are talented people all over the place, in communities everywhere, that would be well-suited to be in elected office. But I can understand how with this elevated threat level a lot of people are going to take themselves out of that consideration for that, and that's a lot of wasted talent. And then there's, of course, the poisoning of our politics generally. Forget people running for office or not, but what this does and how it corrodes our democracy when the political intensity inspires even just a few people to express themselves through violence and murder. And it is something we absolutely have to come to grips with and work to reverse.

NK: Secretary of State Simon, I appreciate your time. Please take care.

SS: Thank you so much.

CH: Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon was a friend of Democratic politician Melissa Hortman -- who was killed on Saturday. He's in Hopkins, Minnesota.

[sombre instrumental]

Lost Lewis Film: Crispin

Guest: Hans Crispin

CH: This is the story of a controversial, never-released film by Jerry Lewis. And it involves a clown car, if you will, of unknowns. Mr. Lewis was, of course, best known for his comedic roles. But in 1972, he starred in and directed a drama called The Day the Clown Cried -- in which he played a German circus clown who ends up in Auschwitz. Eventually, his job becomes entertaining children as they are led to the gas chamber. The movie was never finished. Mr. Lewis disavowed it and buried it. No one ever saw it. So it developed an almost mythical status -- and a reputation for potentially being the worst film ever made. Now, a bombshell: for decades, a Swedish actor by the name of Hans Crispin has been hiding a stolen copy of that film. And now, he's ready to come clean. We reached Hans Crispin in Stockholm, Sweden.

NK: Hans, how many times have you watched this film now?

HANS CRISPIN: Um, not as many as you would think, I suppose.

NK: More than most, though.

HC: [chuckle] It's been with me for 45 years. And, um, I can't honestly tell you. It's not all that many. I would say it's less than 50. The first 10 years was quite simple because I stashed it in my bank deposit box. And it was with me from 1980 'till this Friday, actually.

NK: How do you feel now that it's not in that bank vault anymore? How do feel being without it?

HC: It's a funny feeling, honestly. To be honest with you, it has been a curse and a blessing at the same time.

NK: In the '80s, you're working for a film company, dubbing, you're in the dubbing department, dubbing over adult content, let's say, on VHS tapes, a little side business for the company. When did you decide to copy this film?

HC: That's a good question. The company I was working for was breaking into the porno market, the adult film industry market, because VHS was brand-new in Sweden, and it was very lucrative, but they didn't want to advertise that this was done for regular customers. So, they hired a bunch of us misfits to do this nightly. And I knew about this copy. I dug around the company and the woman who cut it. In 1974, Vic Cheline, she told me about it, but she said that you can't see it, you can touch it, hands off. So, curiosity took the hold of me, and then we got the key to the outhouse locker because this was a locker for nitrate film made in the '30s that were very explosive. We found the copy and we took it up at the video department and we scanned it with the scanner to one-inch videotape in 1980, in the spring of '80. And that's what we did. We saved this copy because I was pretty sure that if I didn't do that we wouldn't sit here today with the situation like we have now.

NK: So, it was a bit of mischief, but also for archiving purposes you wanted to protect it?

HC: Yeah, I think so. I knew it was theft. I was quite worried to get caught if I would have done it. So, actually, I checked out in the beginning of the '90s. I have a friend who is a police. I asked him if this was petty theft, and how long would the laws have been able to grab me. And he said after two years, it would have been written off if they would have known about it. So, it wasn't all that serious a crime, but it was, of course, illegal.

NK: So, why take that risk?

HC: I like Jerry Lewis a lot. I grew up with him on Swedish television with all his films from the '60s. I can't honestly tell you exactly why, because I don't know why, I was very worried in the situation. Because I realized if somebody walks in on us now, that could be my career down the toilet. But nobody did, and nobody knew about it.

NK: Where is it now, since you've let it go on Friday?

HC: It's in good hands, I can't tell you where it is because I signed a disclosure deal, but it's in a very good hand, and it's in a very good situation.

NK: As you probably know, Hans, Jerry Lewis has said this film was either better than Citizen Kane, or the worst thing ever loaded on a projector. What did you think after watching it so many times?

HC: That's also a very good question. This film is very special to me because I'm Swedish. Ninety-five per cent of all the actors are Swedish in the film. And you have to put yourself into the situation for Swedish actors to work in a situation where they have to pretend to be Jews in, down in Europe during the war, speaking [chuckle] English. There are three people in the world now who are sort of, I wouldn't say royalty, but people who knows a lot about this. And once we're gone, there's nobody left.

NK: Well, you're still here, Hans, and I bet you we'll speak again. [chuckle] I bet you we'll speak again.

HC: Yeah, call me anytime.

NK: We appreciate this. I'm glad we could speak, Hans. Thank you.

HC: So am I. You're welcome. Bye-bye.

CH: We reached Hans Crispin in Stockholm, Sweden.

[cold into next story, no music]

Lost Lewis Film: Lee

Guest: Benjamin Charles Germain Lee

CH: As I mentioned, the late Jerry Lewis himself swore the film would never see the light of day. But in 2015, he donated his personal collection of the footage to the Library of Congress -- with the stipulation that there would be no public viewings for nine years. When that embargo lifted last year, Benjamin Charles Germain Lee was first in line to view it. We reached him in Seattle, Washington.

NK: Ben, I just spoke, as our listeners heard, with Hans Crispin. He's had, he had a cut of this film, we should say, for decades, and he did a bit of a diplomatic dance there when I asked him whether The Day the Clown Cried is actually any good. You've seen five hours of footage. What did you think? Was Jerry Lewis right to shelve this film?

BENJAMIN CHARLES GERMAIN LEE: You know, I think the film in so many ways looms so large in so many people's imaginations because this idea or this conceit of a clown in a concentration camp, of course, seems rather objectionable to the imagination. But what I saw genuinely surprised me. I think in many senses, the film makes a more nuanced attempt to engage with this question of humour in the face of atrocities, specifically around the Holocaust, in a way that I didn't find as objectionable as I thought I might. And in many ways, I think, felt as though the film, and of course, was not finished, and what I saw were bits and fragments, but what I thought was far from objectionable in that way, and I think more in many ways was a reflection in a very nuanced kind of layered way that was surprising to me.

NK: And do you think that nuance was their intention?

BCGL: I think so. I have to think that the film is not without its faults. As one can imagine, there are many components [chuckling] of seeing these scenes that are harrowing in ways that I think are both, due to the subject matter, and also due to way it was filmed, and due to production, etc. But I also do really think that Jerry Lewis himself was someone who really was able to capture this idea or this tension between humour and tragedy. And I think this is a place where he really brought it out.

NK: There's certainly lots of film lore out there about other productions, other movies, other flops in the history of cinema, certainly. But why do you think there's such a fascination with this one?

BCGL: You know, for me, I think maybe speaking to my own fascination with the film to begin with, it comes from my own family history. My grandmother survived Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. And so, for myself, Holocaust film, Holocaust cinema is something that I find myself continually drawn to. And this opportunity to engage with something that looms so large, I think specifically because it was never finished, and because it's an opportunity for people to sort of interpolate what's not there, for myself, was also really fascinating. I think it's not just about the nature of what Jerry Lewis himself did, or those who were involved in the production were responsible for, but rather it's the way that this has become its own myth.

NK: And our previous guest, Hans, sort of talked a little bit about the time that it would have been released in. How do you think it would've been received in 1972?

BCGL: I think in so many ways, Jerry Lewis was very forward-thinking. And I think, in this context in particular, the same can be said reflecting on where Holocaust representation was in 1972 was very, very different than we would imagine now in a sort of post-Sindler's List era, and we understand collective remembrance in a very different way. I think the fact that Jerry Lewis was forward-thinking here is important to note. I also think that if the film had been released, I suspect that it wouldn't have led to the giant spectacle that it's become.

NK: So, that raw footage, the entire archive, is at the Library of Congress. Hans Crispin doesn't have his VHS cut anymore, but says the tape is in good hands. There are documentaries out there about this film, as you know. Do you feel that this is the end of The Day the Clown Cried saga, the end of the mystery?

BCGL: It's such a great question, and my suspicion is that we will continue to have bits that end up emerging in various ways. It's really exciting to hear what Hans has. And for me personally, I think the film itself is almost perfect as this sort of set of fragmentary bits that we reconstitute and we interpret ourselves. And so, I think it's only perfect if we continue to see bits discovered here and over the coming years and decades.

NK: Ben, a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you.

BCGL: Thank you, Nil. I appreciate it.

CH: Benjamin Charles Germain Lee runs the Lab for Computing Cultural Heritage at the University of Washington. We reached him in Seattle, Washington.

[calypso]

Fisherman Finds Missile

CH: On Saturday afternoon, Tara Saunders' husband, Stewart, was out checking lobster pots off of Bell Island, Newfoundland and Labrador. Just routine stuff. But what he found during that trip was nothing short of remarkable. And so is what happened next.

SOUNDCLIP

TARA SAUNDERS: Himself and his skipper, Randall, they were out pulling their lobster pots, and they were up in the Lance Cove area of Bell Island when they stumbled upon our pot. And my husband said to Randall, he said, that's a missile. Randall said, no, 'by, he said that's not a missile. Stuart said it is. My husband said, okay, I'm jumping in. And Randall went, no you're not. Before he had a chance to say no you are not, my husband was already in the water. And here's my husband in the water, and he brings up this big metal object. And once it was up above the water, he realized this is a potential missile. He puts this potential missile in the boat, they continued lobster fishing and finished off what they were doing. They took this missile in the boat to the shore and put it aboard the truck, where my husband was scraping it with a knife to see how shiny this thing was. In the meantime, Stuart had phoned me and said, you better bring me down some dry clothes. He said, I got what we believe is a missile in the boat. And I said what?! You got to be kidding me. I didn't believe him at first. When I got down to Randall's with some dry clothes, here's this missile sitting on the back of the truck. And I immediately just stood back and I thought oh my goodness me, this thing is absolutely massive! Like, pictures don't do it justice. I said well, 'bys, like, I'm gonna have to call the RCMP. We have to get, you know, this figured out. So, I contacted the local Bell Island RCMP detachment. And the officer said a missile?! He said okay, everybody needs to vacate the boat. And I chuckled. I said no, my darling, like, they're not at the boat; it's home in the garden. And he immediately said, okay, I need everybody to evacuate the property. So, that was fine. Within five minutes, you know, the officer showed up. And, you know, within reason, it was very quickly discovered after the officer, you know, sent pictures off to authorities and the Ontario military, et cetera, et cetera, that it came back that they believed that it was live. That's when we were waiting for, I'm not sure if you want to call it the bomb squad or the explosive unit to show up. And they arrived approximately 8 o'clock last evening, and we were talking with them. And he said he believes it was from World War Two, and he believed it was live. At that point, with, you know, with very much precision, it was incredible, Abby, to see these officers, the way they handled the missile or whatever, you know, the actual term of it is, with such caution and precision. It was absolutely incredible. But yeah, it was quite exciting.

CH: Tara Saunders lives on Bell Island, with her husband Stewart; she was speaking to CBC Newfoundland and Labrador.

[dreampop]

Part 3: Maplehurst Crackdown, ICE Detainees In Alaska

Maplehurst Crackdown

Guest: Louis Century

CH: It began with an assault on a single guard by a single inmate at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton, Ontario. It culminated in the apparent collective punishment of nearly 200 inmates there, over the course of three days. A year-and-a-half later, that incident has become the subject of a major Toronto Star investigation, two internal investigations by Ontario's solicitor general, a separate provincial ombudsman's probe, multiple individual lawsuits, and now, a proposed class action. The suit was filed last week with former Maplehurst detainee Jamarey Chisholm as its lead plaintiff. It has yet to be certified by a judge. Louis Century is one of the lawyers representing Mr. Chisholm. We reached him in Toronto. And a warning, some details in this conversation are disturbing.

NK: Louis, the inmate who initially punched a guard, as our listeners heard, he had already been moved to another facility when this particular crackdown occurred. So, in December 2023, give our listeners a sense of what happened to your client, Jamarey Chisholm, and the other inmates there.

LOUIS CENTURY: You're right to point that out, Nil. It was on December 20th that the punch happened. And the inmate was immediately apprehended and removed from Maplehurst later that day. It was over the course of the next 36 hours that the superintendent at Maplehurst and other senior managers met to devise this operation, which was really an operation of collective reprisal against the nearly 200 other inmates who were not involved in any way in the punch. In terms of what unfolded, Maplehurst deployed what's called the ICIT, the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team, which is effectively a SWAT team armed with pepper spray and pepper ball guns, among other things, against all 192 inmates in the unit. This began with a flashbang as they entered the facility. They then proceeded cell by cell to systematically strip search each and every inmate. There were systematic assaults, there was pepper spray deployed, as each inmate was removed from their respective cell. And for the next one to two days, each inmate was deprived of all clothing except for a pair of boxers, as the temperature in the facility was reduced to freezing temperatures. Remember, this is December.

NK: There is video of a lot of what you're describing as listeners if they look to Brendan Kennedy's reporting in the Toronto Star. What has your client, Jamarey Chisholm, told you about the impact of all of this on him?

LC: Well, we've, of course, spoken with many other inmates as well. And it's really just unthinkable to imagine being in this situation. One judge who's reviewed these facts has described this as the institution abusing the inmates that they're entrusted to protect. You know, one thing I didn't mention is the use of zip ties. And you can see if you go to Brendan Kennedy's reporting, you can see the images of inmates being herded, and I'm using the word herded because this is a word used by one of the judges who've reviewed this, herded out of their cells, dragged by zip ties that are surrounded, that are attached to their wrists. And the zip ties were used as a mechanism to inflict pain on these inmates. And when the inmates indicated that they were hurting, the zip ties were twisted tighter. This is just one example of what Jamarey and almost 200 others went through.

NK: I hear in your voice, I mean obviously you've seen a lot of cases, but I hear, still, deep shock in your voices even after having seen this quite some time ago.

LC: Well, it's really unconscionable, and I don't use that word lightly, right? You know, the idea that prisoners, right, have rights has to mean something. And I want to remind listeners that the vast majority of these individuals were awaiting trial on charges. Put differently, they were presumed innocent. Um, you know, the right violations, it's just, it's difficult to imagine something like this happening in Canada, and yet it did, right? And it took a long time for these events to come to light. The Crown, in various individual criminal cases, has conceded that individual inmates' rights have been violated. But the reason we're bringing forward a class action is because the state has to be held to account for this collective wrongdoing. This was a high-level decision from the very top of the institution to inflict mass systematic punishment against all of the individuals in this unit. And a class action is the way to get at this collective wrongdoing, and to obtain remedies for all of the individuals who are impacted by it.

NK: We did reach out to the Ontario Solicitor General's Office for a response to your proposed suit and have not heard back yet. As you know, that office has had its own internal investigations. And those investigations have found the actions of Maplehurst guards were, quote, unnecessary, excessive, and not proportionate, unquote. Does that, though, necessarily mean that they were illegal?

LC: Well, legally speaking, we, of course, expect to have to prove our case, right, in court, and intend to do that. The idea that this mass strip search was unnecessary, disproportionate, and excessive likely means that it was a violation of section eight of the charter; it was an unreasonable search and seizure. But the extent of the wrongdoing goes far beyond the strip searches themselves, right? It includes the systematic assault. It includes the mass deployment of pepper spray. It includes deprivation of clothing, the infliction of extreme cold temperatures, etc. But the acknowledgments to date only scratch the surface of the full extent of the wrongdoing.

NK: Ontario's ombudsman has announced an investigation into what happened at Maplehurst. That won't lead to disciplining anyone found to be involved. Your suit won't lead to discipline either. For your client and other plaintiffs involved, potentially, what would justice look like?

LC: A class action by nature seeks damages, and damages are not just intended for compensation for injuries. The courts acknowledge that damages for violations of the Charter also serve the function of vindicating rights and deterring the government, this is crucial, deterring the government from future misconduct of this nature. I want to remind you this is misconduct from the top. This is a planned systematic operation from the various highest levels at this institution. And that kind of wrongdoing can only happen where there is years-long impunity. And this is why a significant damage award is needed to convey the gravity of the wrongdoing and also deter Maplehurst and any other institution from engaging in this kind of misconduct in the future.

NK: Louis, I appreciate this. Thank you.

LC: Thank you so much for having us.

CH: Louis Century is a civil litigator with Goldblatt Partners LLP. We reached him in Toronto. And as Nil mentioned, we reached out to the Office of Ontario's Solicitor General for a response to the proposed class action by former Maplehurst inmates -- but we did not hear back before airtime.

[indie rock]

FOA: Buzz Hargrove Obit

CH: Buzz Hargrove was born "Basil" Hargrove in 1944, to a New Brunswick family. But in social media posts today, another family is claiming him, too. After the news of the union leader's death, representatives of Unifor in Windsor, Ontario wrote, quote, "We join the entire labour movement in mourning the passing of one of our own — Brother Buzz Hargrove — a proud son of Local 444." Unquote. It was in Windsor that the longtime president of the Canadian Auto Workers got his start as a worker -- and later, an organizer. And it was there that his efforts would arguably have the largest impact. As C-A-W president, he led countless negotiations with the big-three automakers -- and with the likes of Air Canada and CN Rail. And he was a frequent guest on As It Happens -- including an appearance in September 1996, when he spoke with then-host, Michael Enright. At the time, the Canadian Auto Workers had just secured a celebrated, eleventh-hour deal with Chrysler -- and many were praising Mr. Hargrove as its architect.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Mr. Hargrove, you've just pulled off a contract that's the likes of which we haven't seen in many years, increases in wages, vacation benefits, and so on. Is this an anomaly here? I mean, we know you're a genius and a great Canadian, but how did you do it?

BUZZ HARGROVE: I wish I could attribute this to my bargaining skills, [ME chuckles] but I can't, Michael. The thing we rejected was this idea, Michael, as we look to the future, that success, corporate success, only means higher salaries, bonuses, stock options, big pensions, and other perks for executives, and high dividends for shareholders. And workers, their families, and communities got to scramble for the crumbs. We just went in determined that we were going to do a couple of things. One was the idea that somehow, this auto industry that is making so much money, and has for the last three years, three of the most successful years in its history, can announce day after day, after day, another job, another 20 jobs, another 1,000 jobs that are being outsourced outside of the company, in spite of their success, just so they can make more money. The simple principle, and we refer to it, and it's in our language, as work ownership. Company owns the buildings, they own the equipment, they own the machining, the tooling, the design of the vehicles, and they own all the vehicles and the product lines, and they have complete control over all of that. But as long as we're producing quality products in a productive manner at reasonably low cost and they're making a reasonable profit, then we own the work. And they can't take that work unless they bargain with us for replacement work.

ME: I guess what I was wondering is, is the agreement something of a fluke, or does it mean now that labour management relations, especially in the auto industry, have turned some kind of corner here?

BH: Well, I think that Chrysler didn't come in and throw this on the table. We built our membership. And said, in spite of the fact that Chryser's hired 2,500 people over the last three years, they've also sold two plants that reduced the workforce by 1,200 people. Everyone's job is in jeopardy unless we find a solution to this issue.

ME: I wonder what this says to people who have been talking for years saying that unions are passe?

BH: Well, this is the analysts that add nothing, in most days, to the debate. The unions are passe, that strikes are outdated. The only power working people have is collective power through their unions, and the only time you put the pressure on to get the kind of agreement we did is working towards a strike deadline. And most times, almost 100 per cent of the time, doing that, you will avoid a strike.

ME: You're the happiest union leader I've talked to in the last five years.

BH: [laughing] I'm happy all the time, even when I'm in a tough situation and we're losing, Michael, I try to keep my sense of humour.

CH: The late Buzz Hargrove, speaking with Michael Enright on As It Happens in 1996 about a deal with Chrysler. A month later, he'd go on to settle a historic strike with General Motors. In a statement yesterday, Unifor announced that the longtime Canadian Auto Workers president had died. He was 81 years old.

[ambient]

Louise Penny

CH: Over the weekend, fans of Louise Penny's mystery novels got the chance to step into the world of her novels. Readers, neighbours, and families gathered in Knowlton, Québec, to sip coffee and soak up the atmosphere at La Joie de Lire -- a new cafe taken straight from Louise Penny's detective novels. It was almost two years in the making, and it opened in the basement of the Lac-Brome bookstore -- a real-life replica of the Three Pines bistro. So, for fans, it did not feel fictional at all. Louise Penny spoke with Radio-Canada reporter Laurence Trahan from inside her no-longer-imaginary café over the weekend.

SOUNDCLIP

LOUISE PENNY: I wanted it to be like the bistro in my books; not wanted, needed. If it wasn't going to be like that, then I wasn't doing it. The bistro in the books is about belonging, it's about community. I didn't want it to feel like a bistro. I didn't want it feel like a restaurant. I wanted it to feel like someone's living room. So, there's sofas, there's fireplaces on either end, there's bookcases that people are welcome to just take a book if they want and leave with it. I'm inviting people to bring books and leave them here. So, it's a place of peace, of safety. A lot of people work from home, as you know, and still do. And that can be very isolating. And I know what loneliness is. I've suffered from it, not now, but in years past, and how it can bring you to your knees. So, this is a place where I'm saying come here. Bring your laptop, work here all day if you want, have one coffee, that's okay. You know, it's almost like a drop-in centre, a nice, in a nice way, of course. Yeah, and have the smell of croissant. I don't want to compete with the other restaurants, so we have a sandwich, but we don't have cooked meals. People can go to other places in town; I want to encourage that. But mostly, it's a place of community, of comfort, of safety.

CH: Louise Penny speaking to Radio-Canada from her new coffee shop in Knowlton, Québec.

[folk]

ICE Detainees In Alaska

Guest: Nicolas Olano

CH: The Trump administration's immigration crackdown isn't just resulting in detainees being flown out of the U.S. Dozens of people picked up on suspicion of being in the country illegally have been sent to a far-flung prison within the U.S. -- in Anchorage, Alaska. The detainees were arrested in Washington State -- thousands of kilometers south of Alaska. And they're now being held in a prison that's known for its poor conditions. Nicolas Olano is an immigration lawyer based in Anchorage.

NK: Nicolas, I know you've had a chance to visit some of the detainees. Can you describe the kinds of conditions that they're living under inside this prison?

NICOLAS OLANO: Sure. So, these detainees are civil detainees, which is what the immigration system is in the United States. And the conditions that they are sent now are the conditions of a criminal setting for somebody that has been arrested for a crime. So, they are significantly harsher here in Alaska than they had back where they were detained in Tacoma, Washington. When the attorney talks to somebody here in ACC, the Anchorage Correctional Complex, the person has to be shackled. That generally does not happen in an immigration centre. When the person is transported to different places, the person is shackled, so the treatment is significantly more strict here.

NK: We've seen stories, and certainly reported on them, of people being sent to El Salvador or South Sudan. This facility is obviously still in the United States, but what do you make of the decision to send them to Alaska? Is there any practical reason, do you think?

NO: Well, I do think there's a psychological component to sending somebody to Alaska. We are far away. We are five hours by plane from Seattle. We are a ways, [chuckle] we're above Canada. So, for somebody that's in the lower 48, has family or has ties to the lower 48, clearly there's a psychological component of distance. From a practical point of view, I think that there is a reason, and it goes to Stephen Miller's requirement of 3,000 immigration arrests per day. That has caused immigration detention centres to be overwhelmed, to be at full capacity. And what was done here was they're using the space in the ACC in Alaska to create a pressure valve, to allow them to detain more people and bring in more detainees into Tacoma.

NK: The administration, we've seen them frame this as deterrence of a sort, or punishment, perhaps. From where you sit, what do you see this as?

NO: Well, I see it as, in part, a punishment. These people are in a place in their process where there generally has been an order already given, be that a positive or negative regarding their case. So, it's a place where they are trying to perhaps discourage these individuals from continuing to fight their appeals. And I think that transferring them to a setting where you have stricter controls, and that is so far away from them, creates a punishment that speaks to maybe tell them to throw up the towel or give up.

NK: Who are the people that you met with? Who are some of the detainees?

NO: They were from different countries, different nationalities. I cannot go into specifics of where they are, but I can tell you that the people I met had already had a hearing with an immigration judge. And in at least two of those cases, they have been granted relief. That means that Immigration found that they should have some form of status, or some form relief from removal from the United States.

NK: So, why are they in this facility then?

NO: Well, that is a good question. I really don't know. I think that we are having an immigration system that is overworked. And in some of the cases, I think people that should not be detained are falling in through the vents, and we may be having that issue here. That there's so much going on that they're not realizing that people that should be out because they have relief should have been let out.

NK: Realistically, how long might it be for those folks in the situation you were just describing to actually get out then? What do you tell them when you're sitting with them face-to-face?

NO: [chuckle] So, two things. So, we've been told that as far as the transfer to Alaska, we're talking about one month. They're going to have him here for approximately one month, this is not permanent. And what I tell them is if I see a way that I can try to get them out, I will try to get them.

NK: I was listening to a clip from Alaska's governor just before coming in to speak with you, Nicolas. He spoke last week and was asked about this, and essentially said, you know, these contracts exist and there's nothing unusual here.

NO: It is unusual. It is unusual because how it works in Alaska is a brief detention in the ACC by, when a person is detained by ICE, and then they are transferred to Tacoma. Usually, the fight is to not get them transferred to Tacoma. When a persons detained in Alaska, we want to keep that client close by for a period of time, maybe perhaps to ask for bond, perhaps to go to federal court and file some suit on their behalf. But generally, what ICE wants to do is to transfer them promptly to Tacoma, Washington, where there is a large detention centre, correct? Here we have the opposite. We have a group of people that have been taken out from the large detention centre and brought to the Alaska setting, so it's unusual.

NK: If there's an existing contract, as the Alaska Department of Corrections has said, I mean, there's money in it for the state.

NO: There is an existing contract. It's approximately $200-and-some per bed, per day, that the federal government is paying the state of Alaska. I don't think that this is being done for revenue purposes. I think this is been done more for the pressure valve to allow more detentions in the lower 48, and just have these people that don't have a case that needs an immediate resolution in certain aspects, they already have a decision from the judge, to kind of leave them here for that period of time.

NK: Nicolas, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

NO: No, of course. Thank you for having me.

CH: Nicolas Olano is an immigration lawyer. And we reached him in Anchorage, Alaska.

[synth]

Tanya Talaga Award

CH: Every year, the Canadian Journalism Foundation recognizes one journalist who has made an impact around the world. It's called the CJF Tribute. And this year, the honouree is journalist and author Tanya Talaga -- for her commitment to Indigenous storytelling over the past two decades. Here's what she said when accepting the award.

SOUNDCLIP

TANYA TALAGA: Don't get me wrong, I was very grateful, but I really do not feel like I've been doing anything out of the ordinary. I have always tried to find the story. I've tried to follow the story. And all I've really done for over 25 years is ask this question in newsrooms, newspapers, in books, and on film, why don't you care? Why don't listen? Why don't you do something? You know, words are meant to haunt, they're meant to stay with you, rattle around in your mind. You're meant think about what you read, when you sleep, when you're at your desk. Words are meant to get into the place where you think it's only you. Those words permeate. Organized, powerful words, can bring comfort, and they can bring change. They can move legions, they can bring justice, and they bring conflict. They can change hearts and they change minds. You know that it really, truly wasn't until the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, until Murray Sinclair, and the commissioners travelled across this country speaking to over 7,000 survivors of Indian residential school, until he used the word genocide, until that word was all over the newspapers, the front pages, until those 94 calls to action came out in all those reports, no one was really watching. You weren't caring as much. It's been 10 years this month since the TRC reported -- 10 years, 94 calls to action. How many have been done? Thirteen. We have a roadmap on how to heal the spirit of this country, and I hope we all follow it.

CH: Tanya Talaga speaking at the Canadian Journalism Foundation awards ceremony last week.

[wistful instrumental]

Earwig Pincers

CH: Bias has no place in science. And yet, somehow, it's found one. But, you know, bias always ends up creeping in. Like an earwig. Those intrusive insects with the large pincer-type things have nothing to do with ears, by the way. Or wigs. Also, they do not crawl into your ear at night to lay eggs in your brain. Or your wig. That's a myth, and we should, frankly, leave the earwigs alone. Unless we're scientists, in which case we should not leave them alone: we should study them. All of them. Because, to date, all the scientific attention has been paid to male earwigs and their showy pincers. They are believed to have evolved as weapons to use against rivals in the hunt for a mate. The bigger the earwig, the more disproportionally large the pincers are. It's a whole sexual selection thing. Except, wait, female earwigs have pincers too! It's just no one really knew why they'd evolved -- because no one had bothered to study it. Until now. Two scientists at Toho University in Japan have done what they say is the first ever quantitative study of female earwig forceps. They found evidence that the females' pincers also evolved as weapons -- used to battle other female earwigs for, quote, "small, non-aggressive males." And they found the female's pincers also get disproportionately larger the larger the she-wig. Suggesting it's also a whole sexual selection thing for them -- and up-ending previously held assumptions in evolutionary biology. And proving it's not only male earwigs who pinch above their weight.

The AIH Transcript For June 16, 2025

Social Sharing