'It tore me in pieces': Men switched at birth regret never meeting biological parents

Guests: Craig Avery, Tracey Avery, Clarence Hynes

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

CRAIG AVERY: Mother's 79th birthday. I'd Say that was father's last birthday.

TRACEY: That's the nicest picture I've ever seen of your mother. It's beautiful. She got a nice smile on her face.

CRAIG AVERY: Yes.

MG: Craig Avery and his wife Tracey are flipping through Craig's family photo album. The couple's at home in Hill View, Newfoundland and Labrador. And the album tells the story of a happy life, but also holds clues to the story of what happened 57 years earlier at a hospital in Come by Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador. Craig Avery was born just before Christmas in 1962. And on that same day, there was another baby born at that same hospital. His name was Clarence Hynes. Craig and Tracey Avery are with me in St. John's today. Good morning.

CRAIG AVERY: Good morning.

TRACEY: Morning.

MG: Craig, do you look like the people that are in that photo album?

CRAIG AVERY: Well, everyone always told me I didn't look like the family. And my poor mother that raised me up said my son, I don't know where I got you. You're so much different than the rest of them.

MG: Describe the differences.

CRAIG AVERY: Well, I was pretty. outgoing, you know, and outspoken. And I was, you know, almost bigger than the rest of the family.

MG: Did you think at all? I mean, families look like any number of different things. And, you know, sometimes people don't look exactly like their parents did. Did you think anything of that?

CRAIG AVERY: No, not really. I didn't. Growing up, I never really thought much about it. To me, it just, Idon't know, probably looked like the other side of the family or somebody down the line. I don't know. But I didn't really, didn't feel that I wasn't part of our family.

MG: What happened, Tracey, when you started working at a construction site with your husband?

TRACEY: Pretty much my first day there, I saw Clarence. And when I seen him, I couldn't get over the resemblance he had with Craig's brother. And I went to Craig. And because Craig worked there as well. And I said, my God, Craig, I said somebody here looks so much like Clifford, and that's all we thought of it until, you know, I got to know him, after a while, I got to know Clarence. Then once I got to know him, he told me a few stories on how over the years, people had mistaken him for Clifford. So it just stayed with me.

MG: When did it click to you aside from hearing those things that something wasn't right? There was a birthday party.

TRACEY: It was Craig's 52nd birthday. And that day I just happened to be talking to Clarence and he said it was his birthday, too. And I'm like, really? Because I had no idea up until that point. And when he told me how old he was, my first question was I. Where were you born? And he said, Come by Chance. And as soon as he said, Come by Chance, I knew that there was something going on there because it was just too many coincidences.

MG: Craig, what happened after that?

CRAIG AVERY: Well, after that, we, me and Tracey, talked about it a lot and all the time and we talked about if this happened like how could it have happened. And was it possible that this happened. Then when I seen that these two, four, people in Manitoba were switched at birth, it kind of shook me up a bit. And we were talking about, my God, could this have happened to us, too?

TRACEY: We spent a lot of nights sitting up in bed drinking tea, saying, is it possible? Is it possible? And after a year, Craig talked about it like to one of his siblings and stuff, and they decided to get this Y chromosome test on. And all that proves is if they shared the same father. And when the results came back with Craig and his brother Clifford, it proved that they didn't share the same father. But really, that's all we knew at that point until this past year.

MG: Craig, when you got the results of that testing, do you remember that moment?

CRAIG AVERY: Yes, I do. It floored me. I just couldn't believe it. It was- it was unbelievable.

MG: I mean, what changed in that moment, do you think?

CRAIG AVERY: I think everything changed. You know, you had a million questions like what is going on there?

TRACEY: I know when results. When you got the email from the lab that did results before he opened it, I just looked at Craig. I said, you realize when you open this. I said your life could change. And he said, yes. And I'm like, are you ready for it? And he said, no, not at all. But he said, I got to know. So you went into the email and here were the results. Our lives have been in turmoil ever since pretty much.

MG: What a moment to know that you open that e-mail and your lives could change.

TRACEY: Yes. Yes. Our lives have never been the same.

MG: What happened then?

TRACEY: Craig contacted Clarence and told him the results. And at that point, I can't speak for Clarence, but I know he wasn't prepared to get a DNA test done. And it took up until this past year before Clarence got his DNA test on.

MG: Clarence Hynes is the other man at the centre of the story. And like Craig Avery, Clarence was born at that hospital at Come by Chance on the 8th of December 1962 and Clarence has been listening in. Clarence, good morning to you.

CLARENCE HYNES: Good morning.

MG: Tell me about that conversation. What did you think when you were contacted about this story and about these suspicions?

CLARENCE HYNES: Yes, at the time I wasn't ready for it and I just couldn't get through it. I was a little boy later after that, I guess, months after I finished work in there and I fell into a depression. I guess it was about a year or so. And after that, with a bit of a help and everything, I got back on my feet and I said to my wife and kids, I said, look, I need to get this done. Like I need to get this done for you guys later, for my children, for your children down the road. So I went ahead and got my DNA done and waited a few months and I got the results and I think it was February 2019.

MG: When you say that you weren't ready for this, what weren't you ready for?

CLARENCE HYNES: I just didn't want to know. I don't know. I just I just didn't want to know anything. I was- It's hard to explain.

MG: Craig had talked a bit maybe, but the suspicions that he had. But the fact that maybe he didn't look like the siblings that he was raised with, did you have those suspicions as well?

CLARENCE HYNES: No, not growing up. Growing up, I was different than my my siblings. But I looked like my mother's side. My mother's side, her sister's children was also a dark complexion. My size, growing up for me was just looking like my mom's side.

MG: Tracy talked about that moment in getting the email when Craig got the email and knowing that it would change her life. Is it the same for you?

CLARENCE HYNES: Yes, it was. When I got mine, at first, I sat down with my wife before I opened it, and I looked at number one to 20 and number one was a match with [unintelligible]. And I skipped over all the rest, went to number 20. And it was a match. And I said, oh, my. And that's when I broke down. It was devastating. That's all I can say.

MG: You said you went into a depression.

CLARENCE HYNES: Yes, like I just slipped. And I'm a very outgoing person, energetic. And it just hit me like a ton of brick. I was probably in the house back and forth for probably a year, living room to the bedroom to the [unintelligible] until I got out.

MG: You just could you couldn't go beyond that.

CLARENCE HYNES: I couldn't. No, no. That was it. I was down.

MG: What was the hardest part about it for you?

CLARENCE HYNES: The hardest part was my children, my wife, family. They were only for damn. I wouldn't be where I'm due today.

MG: What about for you, Craig? What was that? What was the most difficult part of all of this for you?

CRAIG AVERY: Well, when you find out that you have siblings that you grew up with and then all of a sudden you got siblings that's in another family. And now you find out that you got different parents and then you find out to your parents that you should have grown up with are passed on and you never got to meet them. And you didn't grow up with all your siblings. It was crazy. It was heartbreaking. Tear the heart right out of your body.

MG: How hard is that knowing? I mean, both sets of parents died before any of this was discovered. How hard is that for you, Craig, knowing that you didn't get to talk to the people who were truly your birth mother and father before they passed?

CRAIG AVERY: Well, when I went to the grave site and I stood in front of the stones and looked at the red stones and knowing that's close as that you're ever going to get to them, it tore me in pieces.

MG: And it's still really hard for you now.

CRAIG AVERY: Oh. It'll be art forever.

MG: Tracey, how do you process this?

TRACEY: My heart is broke for the two guys and. Sometimes I wonder, is it a good thing that it all came about?

MG: I look, Clarence. I'm looking at it right now, the photo of - a picture of you and then a picture, a separate picture of your birth mother. You look really similar.

CLARENCE HYNES: Yes, we do.

MG: What is it like for you to see her picture?

CLARENCE HYNES: It's hard. I wish I hadn't got to meet him and, well, Craig said a lot of unanswered questions; what if. I guess our whole life now be what if this, what if that. But I guess we're trying to make the best of it.

MG: What do you think the woman who raised you would have thought about all of this, Clarence?

CLARENCE HYNES: Boy. Knowing My mom that raised me. She went out very, very difficult time. Yes.

MG: What do you think would have been most difficult for her about this?

Like just probably knowing that I'm not her real son. Cause me and my mom was really close. Very, very close.

MG: And for Craig, what do you think about what the woman who raised you, what she would have made of all of this?

CRAIG AVERY: This would have torn her heart right out of her. She was a very loving mother and all of her children came first. You know, and if she knew this,I don't know if she'd ever got through it.

MG: Would you change anything, knowing what you know now?

CRAIG AVERY: I don't know if there's anything you can change, because when you were growing up, you know, you grew up with family. You grew up with. You helped them. They helped you. Everybody help everybody. So I don't say whether anything you'd be able to change, you know.

CLARENCE HYNES: Like a lot of unanswered questions, like what if I had grew up in [unintelligible] what I have the wife I got now and my children? Probably not. I'm pretty content to my fit with my family and what I've got right now. I wouldn't change that for the world.

MG: But you said you think about it all the time.

CLARENCE HYNES: I think about not meeting my parents, never growing up with my real brothers and sisters.

MG: What are the questions that you ask? What are the questions that you want answered, Clarence?

CLARENCE HYNES: Why did it happen. Like how? How could this happen in the hospital? And why did it happen is beyond me. I just imagine if this was today and this happened right now, how would it be? No, it's not easy.

MG: It doesn't sound easy.

CLARENCE HYNES: No.

MG: Craig, you and Clarence are suing the province for negligence in all of this mix up. Tell me about why you're doing that.

CRAIG AVERY: Well, we want some justice for all the injustice that's been done to Clarence and myself and our families.

MG: What does justice look like in this?

CRAIG AVERY: I don't know if you can describe what justice looked like in this, because this is something that's beyond anything that I thought I could ever experience. Somebody has to be held accountable for what happened to us.

MG: You also have your children and your siblings who are named in this, tell me why they're in the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

CRAIG AVERY: Well, their lives are never going to be the same again. You know, they're going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives. Also, children, grandchildren and so on. This is going to be a part of their life and this is going to follow them for the rest of their life.

MG: You now, in learning this, have a larger family and a family that you could have never imagined and a family that that you didn't know until this information came out. Craig, have you spent any time with your birth family?

CRAIG AVERY: Yes, I have. At first it was hard. You know, you're coming into a family that after 56, 57 years, that you wouldn't a part of. It takes a while for everybody to, you know, loosen up and come together and start bringing you into the family to be part of their family.

MG: What's it been like for you, Clarence?

CLARENCE HYNES: You know, it's about the same, I guess. Like you said, when you just got in on a new family. And here I am. I'm your brother. It takes a while. And this still is going to take a while. Like you used to have family you grew up with. Everyone is so different. So you get a adjust to their ways and.

MG: Are there familiar things about them?

CLARENCE HYNES: Yes, like if I put my hand on my face, one of my brothers might put his hand on his face, lean on it or crosses our arms. He might cross his arms, but it resembles that I didn't see growing up. And I can see it now because I'm looking for it, I guess.

MG: Do you see them as family?

CLARENCE HYNES: Yes, now I do. Yes.

MG: What about for you, Craig? I mean, is that. That's a process, I'm sure. But do you see the family that you were born into but we're not raised with as family?

CRAIG AVERY: Yes, I do now. Right now they're a part of my family, too, and they're my siblings. And, you know, hopefully that we can keep going and build a really good relationship.

MG: What has this been like for you to watch, Tracey?

TRACEY: It was very difficult at first. The hardest part is the parents, that the boys never got to meet their biological parents, but they are forming relationships with their siblings. And that's a good thing.

MG: You said something earlier about that moment of discovery and how difficult it was for every one, Tracey. Do you ever regret being the detective in all of this?

TRACEY: Yes, I do. Sometimes when I see people, someone that people are struggling with it, some of the siblings and both Craig and Clarence. I do wish that I never had that conversation with Clarence that day. Would I go back and change it? Probably not, because, you know, they got just siblings and biological siblings that they never knew they had. And since this story has come out, there's been people contacting us, saying that they have had similar situations with Come by Chance hospital, that two people that we know of contacted us and said that their parents or someone they knew had brought the wrong baby from the hospital and discovered it in the night, and had to take the baby back and get their real baby. So how many cases are out there like it?

MG: I think for any parent, I mean, it just it sends your head spinning and thinking about something like this.

TRACEY: Oh, sure. Yes. Yes.

MG: It's hard for you, Craig, to talk about this still. And I'm just wondering, do you think that there's going to be a point when it's not as painful for you as it is today?

CRAIG AVERY: I don't think the pain will ever go away. I really don't. I don't think the pain will ever go away, especially the pain of not having your parents in your life. That's pain that you will never, ever get over.

MG: And whatever for you, Clarence?

CLARENCE HYNES: Now, some days it seems like it's getting easier for me. And then it just switches around again. I got to try to deal with it again and again. I just tried to put out the best side again for my wife and children.

MG: What's the relationship like between you two, Craig?

CRAIG AVERY: Clients have a really good relationship. We will spend time together. We talk about it together. And our wives are really big help to us because there are both of our rocks. They they listen and talk and deal with true struggles every day. But me and Clarence, have a really good relationship.

MG: Clarence, what's it meant to have Craig alongside you as you go through this?

CLARENCE HYNES: It means a lot. And every time I sit down with Craig it's like sitting with my father that I grew up with. It's that much similar. And my father passed away at 64. Craig is 57. So my father was that age. The resemblance is unbelievable. And the actions.

MG: Wow.

CLARENCE HYNES: It feels like I'm sitting with my father. It's just a weird feeling.

MG: It's really something you've been through. You've been through something that I think for a lot of people is just unimaginable. I wish you the best. I hope you find some peace in this. And it's good that you have each other and your families to lean on in the midst of this. Thanks for speaking with us.

CLARENCE HYNES: Thank you very much.

CRAIG AVERY: You're very welcome.

MG: It's a real pleasure. Thank you very much. Craig Avery and Clarence Hynes believed that they were switched at birth in 1962 at a hospital in Come by Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador. They are suing the provincial government for negligence. We contacted the provincial health department. They said they would not comment on this story because it's before the courts. You heard Tracey Avery mentioned that she'd been contacted by two other families, both of whom say that they also took home the wrong babies from the same hospital in Come by Chance. The CBC is currently investigating these cases.

[Music]

MG: What a story. The CBC News is next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crowds cheering]

COMMENTATOR: Here's a ball on the right side. Could do it. The Houston Astros are world champions for the first time in franchise history.

MG: Well, it might have been the first time for a reason. You see that victory in 2017 is now under scrutiny because the Houston Astros didn't actually win the World Series fair and square. That was a bit, well, actually, quite a lot, of cheating involved. We will hear about the cameras, the garbage can drums and how cheating, it turns out, is nothing new. That's coming up in about 40 minutes. My name's Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current.

Families could charge Iran for 'perpetrating terrorist act' in jetliner attack, lawyer says

Guests: Chris Hall, Marie Vastel, Susan Delacourt, Mark Arnold

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the prime minister is pushing for a complete investigation and justice for the families of the people who died when Ukrainian airlines plane was shot down over Iran last week. Could justice include compensation? We'll speak with a lawyer who has actually sued Iran. That's coming up in half an hour. But first, navigating foreign affairs when Iran is on one side and the United States is on the other.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: The U.S. makes its determinations. We attempt to work as an international community on big issues. But sometimes countries take actions without informing their allies.

MG: Justin Trudeau was not informed before the United States killed Iran's general Qassem Soleimani, something he tells global news. He would have appreciated. It is a bit of a harsher tone from the prime minister as he pledges to get answers in the downing of Ukrainian airlines flight. PS 752. Transportation Safety Board officials are now in Tehran, but it's still not clear what comes next for the families of the 57 Canadian victims and for Canada's relationship with Iran. Our national affairs panel is here to help us sort through these stories. Chris Hall, the CBC national affairs editor and host of the House on CBC Radio One. Marie Vastel is parliamentary correspondent for Le Devoire. And Susan Delacourt is national columnist and Ottawa bureau chief for The Toronto Star. Good morning to you all morning.

GUESTS: Good morning.

MG: Susan, I'll start with you. What do you make of the prime minister's handling of this crisis thus far?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Well, I'm judging by the mail I'm getting. And people who I have received a lot of notes from, people who were not well-disposed to the prime minister, let's say, who think that this one has hit the right tone. There was an initial fuss in the early days, you know, that he wasn't appearing. And then he appeared three times in four days and that he wasn't hostile enough or outraged enough. And I think some of that has gone away. And I think as days have evolved, we are seeing that, I think, a lot of planning and a lot of other people have, I'm told hundreds, across government have gone into this response. But I think this one, they've handled pretty well. It could have gone quite differently.

MG: You wrote that his fury has been diplomatic and strategic. What did you mean by.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Well, the headline writer. But, yes, it was strategic and it was diplomatic. I think there was a feeling that if they had gone all Trump on Iran, in other words, fulminating and getting furious and yelling and shaking their fists at the sky that it would have put Iran into a corner. And I think it was a very careful diplomatic dance to get Iran to admit rather than having to wait, you know, years as with Air India or years as when it came to the Malaysian air crash, we actually saw and this happened in a matter of days.

MG: Marie, I can hear you agreeing in the background.

MARIE VASEL: Yeah, I agree. I think it was an able juggling of showing empathy and compassion for the families and also being resolute to get answers. But as Susan said, not, I guess, poke the regime in Iran and make them bulk. He did give them the opportunity to actually admit what happened. It took a few days, but they did. But in a sense, I also I almost feel like it's a good step, but it's really only a first step. They've admitted blame, but there is so much more to come. And I don't know if the government is that optimistic about the rest. So Mr. Trudeau saying that people need to be brought to justice. We're hearing Iran arrested some people, but we don't really know who. We don't know how many. Is it really actually that people high up who made this call or is it just scapegoats? Mr. Trudeau also asking for compensation for the families. That's going to take a while. So there is still a lot of diplomacy to have to ensure that that does happen. And then on the more immediate front, these families who want to repatriate their loved ones. Well, first of all, it's going to take weeks, maybe months to identify what remains. But also, we're hearing again from The Globe and Mail yesterday that Iran is only recognizing three of those people as Canadians instead of 57 as the Canadian government is saying. That to me seems to be the I guess, the next first challenge on Mr. Trudeau's list. How are we going to deal with Iran who does not recognize dual citizenship ever? How are we going to deal with them right now in the immediate aftermath and get those remains for the families who want to bury them? And because of their religious traditions, want to do it quickly, it's already too late for them to do so. That to me, I'm not sure how that's going to work out. Yet, there is a strict strategy by Mr. Trudeau to get allies onboard and he's making a lot of calls and trying to get help from allies. But it doesn't look for now like Iran wants to really play ball.

MG: Like, you know, the United States, and it's interesting, there has been a lot of discussion around this series of tweets by Michael McCain, CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, Marco Mendicino, the immigration minister was on this program a couple of days ago and said that the tweets, in his words, reflect the anger felt by Canadians but wouldn't endorse the tweets. There's some needle threading that's going on there, Chris. What do you make of what the government's trying to do, particularly around the anger that many Canadians feel about the fact that Canadians were put into this position in the first place?

CHRIS HALL: Yes, I think Justin Trudeau was trying to walk the finest of lines here. In one sense, he is trying to get access for the families. And like Vladimir Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, insisting on an admission of responsibility to the people who are responsible, be held to account and that there be compensation, perhaps even a case before the International Court of Justice. At the same time, he doesn't want to lay blame with the United States. He doesn't want to be seen to be caught in the middle as we are with China and the United States now with Iran and the United States. So everything that they have tried to say up until this point has been that there are tensions in the Middle East. There have always been tensions there. You can go back and look at whether this event sparked up at. That event was a response to another event by the other side. So what they're trying to do is make sure that the families have some closure before they take the more difficult steps of trying to find accountability and perhaps compensation for the families.

MG: Susan, what does closure, what is justice, what does accountability look like in this case?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Oh, it's huge. And we've touched on it a bit. You know, there is there's issues of compensation. There's also just the emotional connection that needs to be made. And unfortunately, Canada has some not good experience with this. Air India was, as everyone remembers, first treated as a foreign tragedy. And I did think it was interesting that one of the first people that Justin Trudeau phoned when looking for advice on this was Bob Ray, the former Ontario premier and Liberal leader who led the Air India inquiry. And what he told the prime minister allegedly was that, or reportedly, was that where Canada really needs to be, the Canadian government really needs to be, focussing at the moment is on the victim. So when you see the prime minister right now making all these trips to vigils and talking about the victims and keeping them front and centre, and that's the lessons of Air India and and how some of these things have been mishandled in the past.

MG: Have a listen to our friends. And as it happens, at an interview on Tuesday with an Iranian Canadian who is in Tehran, knew six passengers on the down plane. The CBC protected his identity because he fears for his safety in Iran.

SOUNDCLIP

To be honest with you, since about nine years ago when I came to Canada, I've never felt, you know, Canadian. I was thinking that, yes, we are we are immigrant and the society accepted us, but not as a real Canadian. But everything changed in the last week. Last few days after what we saw from the Canadian government and from the people in Canada.

MG: He said this response from the prime minister and Canadians has made him feel embraced by this country for the first time. And Marie, that picks up a bit on what Susan was talking about. How do you think the wider Iranian Canadian community feels in the wake of this tragedy?

MARIE VASEL: Well, it was quite touching to see all of these victims stories, see how they were. So they had such promising lives ahead of them, so many students, so many professors. And you did get a sense from social media that people really were interested in their stories, really were quite upset legitimately with what happened. And I do agree that Mr. Trudeau put the emphasis on that. But I do think also people in their communities put the emphasis on this. You saw universities come out. You saw community groups. It did seem like it was really a national response. But I also think that may be what puts pressure on the government for the times to come in the sense that right now they're getting a really good review on their response to the accident or to the missile accident. But I don't know how long you can count on that empathy from the Iranian community and from Canadians. And the fact that so many people have taken these people's stories to heart probably means that there is that much more pressure to get answers and accountability and to go back to, question to Susan, I have no idea what that looks like. And I think it will be very difficult to obtain. But I think a lot of people will not just let this go because it is seen as a hostile act that was uncalled for and not acceptable.

MG: Put some pressure, Chris, on, for example, the foreign affairs minister, Francois-Philippe Champagne, who you spoke with on the House on the weekend. What stands out to you from that conversation in terms of, as Marie's saying, the building anger and the real calls for accountability and justice?

CHRIS HALL: Yes, I mean, he's going to meet on Thursday in London with other foreign affairs ministers from Ukraine, from Afghanistan, from Sweden, countries whose citizens perished when the plane was shot down. So I think the focus that they're trying to do there is to ensure that there is a consistent message from all of them. To the Iranian government that this needs to be dealt with in a full and public fashion and needs to be complete accountability. What that looks like, as we've all indicated, it is really hard to tell at this point, but for Champagne. You know, you told me none of what happened was our choosing. In other words, Canadians would like to have been informed that there was going to be the attack on Soleimani. They would have really resisted and are condemning the missile attacks on the bases where Canadians are stationed. But in the end, what they really want is for some closure for the families. And unfortunately, as Marie's particularly indicated, that that's going to take months, if not years.

MG: He was on. As it happens, the minister was, last night. Have a listen to what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

We will be unwavering in our support to seek justice, to seek full accountability, to make sure that the will, the wish of their families are respected with respect to the remains. We will be unwavering in asking the questions so that people can get closure, they can get compensation, they can get as grieving families as much as we can do to day care, as Canadian government to help them go through this crisis.

MG: Chris Hall, does the government know what accountability looks like in this?

CHRIS HALL: Yes, interesting. I almost think that the answer to that matter is that it ends up in an international court of justice. That's where, for example, the Russian backed attack on Emma, the Malaysian Airlines aircraft is going to end up. That trial begins later this year, of the four people that they have identified. I think ultimately that's what happens when you have full accountability. Iran says that people have been charged. We don't know who they are. And more to the point, we don't know if they're the people who are ultimately responsible for deciding that we would have our antiaircraft guns still trained on the skies around the Tehran airport and why this plane was even allowed to take off, for that matter. So these are all the kinds of questions that will be asked and we'll have to see where, where and when the answers come.

MG: We're going to speak with a lawyer coming up on the program who sued Iran and Alford, some perhaps insight into how that process might unfold. But, Marie, I can hear you in the background. What does the government know what accountability looks like? I keep saying these these words, accountability and justice. But I just wonder whether it has a sense as to where it wants to land.

MARIE VASEL: I think they probably have a sense of where the hope accountability would lie. And I agree with Chris that it's probably in international courts, I don't think they have a sense of what Iran is ready to do in terms of accountability. That's the other big question in all of this. It's not like you're dealing with an ally. It's not like you're dealing with a regime that is necessarily predictable.

CHRIS HALL: And one with whom we have no formal relations.

MARIE VASEL: And that's the other challenge of all this is, yes, we have no diplomatic relations. They are isolated on the world stage. And it's unclear how much they will be willing to admit. They admitted that it was an unintentional, in their opinion, missile launch. But there is a lot more that we don't know. Why was the airspace open? Why was this plane allowed to take off? Why weren't we warned about the shootings on Iraqi bases where we had soldiers? All of these questions have not been answered. And if the Iran government decides to not play along and to just keep to their own version of events and not answer all the other questions around it, I don't know how far we can go in terms of getting answers when essentially you're talking to an interlocutor who is not willing to respond to any of what you're asking or who wants to lie about it.

MG: Susan, how much accountability can we get when we really don't have control of this situation?

SUSAN DELACOURT: It's a very good question. First of all, some of this accountability is being driven by the situation in Iran right now, too, where the street protests, I think, are forcing a certain measure of candour and admission from the Iranian leadership. I think we can't control that. I think we will see and we have seen sensible people making this comment that we have to talk about Canada-Iran, diplomatic relations again to we got to where we did through intermediaries. I again, I was told that the Canadian government only learned through the news in Iran that Iran was getting ready to make this remarkable admission on the weekend. I think this is an argument about why you need a diplomatic presence even when you don't agree as well. And I will say , too, that maybe just out of nowhere, it's notable that that Donald Trump has not said anything. He was apparently very good on the phone with the prime minister.

MG: But not publicly.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Nothing publicly. There has been no Twitter statements about this regrettable incident. I'm not saying that Trump has to take it. The Canadian government has been saying that Iran should take full responsibility, but a situation has been created over there and Donald Trump has said nothing about.

MG: Somebody who has been speaking about it is the former prime minister, Stephen Harper. He weighed in on Iran with these comments.

SOUNDCLIP

STEPHEN HARPER: I don't think any of us believe that Iran would have deliberately shot down an aircraft. But the very fact that Iran believing such a thing could happen would be allowing normal civilian traffic, I think tells you something about the nature of that regime and its priorities. And I you know, I do believe we need to see a change in Iran if we are going to see peace in the Middle East without a change in the nature of the government of Tehran, the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil.

MG: There's some debate on Twitter as to whether he was calling for regime change or not, but he says a change in the nature of the government. Susan, what do you make of what Stephen Harper had to say?

SUSAN DELACOURT: There's actually there's a really good article in The New York Times in the last day, I think in the last few hours at talking about the what change in Iran looks like, or how to affect it. And they contrast the Obama coaxing to change and Trump's believe that you need pressure to change. And I think that's the conversation we're having right now, is I think Canada, you've seen through all this diplomatic dancing has been of the coax Iran to change school of thought, whereas Donald Trump is on the pressure, hard handed pressure to change. So I think Stephen Harper is talking about the same thing, that something needs to change in Iran. But I think the methods to change it are what is the dispute?

MARIE VASEL: Marie, will we see the opposition conservatives in this country push for the government to take a stronger stance on Iran going forward? Or do you think that there is a shared consensus that that this is an opportunity because of what we don't have on the ground right now to look at re-establishing some form of diplomatic ties with that country?

MARIE VASEL: I don't see the conservative opposition pushing for diplomatic ties. I agree with Susan that it would very much be helpful to the families right now if we did. But the conservatives have been critical of Iran for years. I mean, as ever since Mr. Harper was the prime minister and he cut ties with Iran in 2012.

MG: They also put a list of demands calling for Iran to be declared a terrorists state.

MARIE VASEL: So I don't see that changing. They have these demands of listing the IRGC as a terrorist group of imposing Magnitsky sanctions on Iran or on some of its leaders. I'm not sure that the government would go as far as that. There's also questions from experts as to how useful that would be. I think first off, because Mr. Trudeau still has, as we said during this panel, still has to tread carefully with Iran. I don't think he would go that harshly against Iran. But I also think the liberals desire in 2015 to renew diplomatic relationships with Iran have definitely been stalled by what has just happened. It would not be very popular. It certainly wouldn't be popular with the Iran community, Iran Canadian community, to take back these diplomatic ties. And to go back to what Susan was saying earlier, I think what's going on the ground in Iran, it's too early to tell. But might also calm down any will of the Liberal government to renew diplomatic relations if we see that there's a crackdown on protests on the ground. And I think those protests might also explain Iran's reluctance to admit to the whole scope of what has happened, because they are admitting that they killed 100 and almost 76 of their own citizens, whether they're dual citizens of another country or not.

MG: Chris, briefly, last point on this.

CHRIS HALL: Well, it is interesting the question about whether or not there should be formal diplomatic relations. We obviously have formal diplomatic relations with China and involve in dispute over the arbitrary detention of two Canadians in apparent retaliation for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou. I don't know what ultimately can happen out of this, but clearly the government has signalled that the priority is to try to find some closure. And I would assume from that, including compensation for the families and every decision they make from this point on working through the international community and direct relations and conversations with Iranian figures that that will have to be resolved first before anything further is called.

MG: Politics will creep into this. And we're if we're talking about the liberals and what the conservatives are doing, the conservatives are the centre of some discussion right now as their leadership race begins but also the release sort of this internal document prepared by former Cabinet minister John Baird about what went sideways during the last election. Susan, what's the headline for you out of that?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Well, the headline is that they're not releasing it publicly.

MG: Although bits are dripping out here and there.

SUSAN DELACOURT: And I don't want to be one of those journalists who just complain because they won't give us access to information. But I do think for the conservative members as a whole, I think this conversation would be healthy. It would be good to have it out there. They've had these conversations publicly before on what went wrong in the 2015 election was a public discussion. So I'm not entirely sure about that. That being said, I'm not sure what it would solve either, because they've already- there's been one measure of accountability, shall we say, when Mr. Scheer is gone.

CHRIS HALL: Well, thanks to our colleagues, Catherine Cullin and Hannah Thibedeau we know the gist of what John Baird is blaming inexperience, staff, too much control in the hands of the campaign manager, Hamish Marshall. Poor communication. I got to tell you, none of this is a huge surprise to any of us who covered that campaign. They had communication problems that Andrew Scheer could never put behind him, issues around his views on same sex marriage. And then we find out he has dual citizenship with as an American, but also was never really a licence broker, even though he may not have specifically said him that himself. He certainly left the impression. So I'm not sure what to take away from all of this, except it was a badly run campaign. The question, I guess, for everybody who wants to run and so far there are very few candidates have thrown their hat in the ring. We'll see how they use this report to try and change the manner in which next campaign is.

MG: Marie, where does this leave the party as it gets set to begin this leadership?

MARIE VASEL: Well, the part of a report that I would really want to read is the part on the platform. What was wrong with their platform? I think that's what would be interesting in terms of we're heading into a leadership race. We're heading into someone offering some sort of new version of the Conservative Party.

MG: But to you, it's not just about the personalities, it's about what you're selling.

MARIE VASEL: Oh, absolutely. And that's what members have said. That's what conservative voters have said. Yes, there were problems with the communications, with the centralized campaign, with candidates screening. There were problems with some of Mr. Scheer's Position. As Chris said. But there are also problems with what was on offer. It was a lot of recycled Stephen Harper tax credits, nothing on the environment, nothing really on social issues like the opioid crisis. I would be interested to see what the verdict is on what was wrong with the platform. And does that indicate how open conservative members will be to a candidate that has something different to offer? Are we just going to vote for another? Or are they just going to vote for another same old leader? That is along the same lines what we've seen for the past 10 years.

MG: Susan, in the remaining seconds that we have, where does this leave the party getting set for its leadership race?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I think there's going to be a lot to be said about this, but I think a lot of these questions about what went wrong won't be settled until they have a new leader after June 27.

MG: We will see how that process unfolds and whether more details of this report become public. In the meantime, it's great to speak with you all this morning. Thank you.

GUESTS: Thanks you.

Chris Hall, CBC national affairs editor and host of The House right here on your CBC Radio One. Marie Vastel, parliamentary of correspondent for Le Devoire. And Susan Delacourt is the national columnist and Ottawa bureau chief for the Toronto Star. They were all in our studio in Ottawa. Coming up in the next half hour of this program.

SOUNDCLIP

Now it's anger. Now it's why. They should not have allowed this plant to take off at that point of time.

MG: Grief mixed with anger as more details about the downing of Flight 752 emerge. Politicians are vowing to get answers and justice. And as we heard in that conversation, what exactly those two words mean is still up for debate. It's not clear how that might look and if any compensation could actually be involved. In 90 seconds, a conversation with a lawyer who has taken regimes like Iran to court. We'll hear from him about what this process might look like. And we'll talk about baseball and cheating. They can't possibly be cheating in baseball, can there? Well, there was and there is. We'll talk about the long history of stealing signs and how that might actually win you the World Series. My name's Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

[Music]

MG: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current. New video shows not one, but two missiles being fired at Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752. Iran claims it was a mistake by one person who thought the plane was a cruise missile. Grieving families have been left wondering if there will ever be any justice or compensation for the loss of their loved ones. Mark Arnold is a Canadian litigation lawyer who has experience with claims against Iran. Mark, good morning.

MARK ARNOLD: Good morning.

MG: What legal options to the families of these victims actually have in a case like this?

MARK ARNOLD: So before getting to the substance, I want to acknowledge the loss that all of us are feeling. Now, the options, from what I can see, are threefold litigation in Canada. In other words, a claim can be brought under Canadian law against Iran, naming Iran as a defendant for perpetrating a terrorist act. In my view, what happened was a terrorist act. Someone intentionally pushed a button and may have pushed it twice, even though the Iranians may now be saying it was an accident. And Iran, under Canadian law, is deemed a state sponsor of terrorism as an exception to sovereign immunity. The second option under the Montreal Convention permits, as I understand it, claims to be paid by the airline, in this case, Ukrainian air under the convention of amounts of approximately 230,000 dollars. That is an obligation of Ukrainian Air. There is no defence to that. They are obligated to pay that to the victims. Even though I don't believe Ukraine Air was culpable. The third option is the diplomatic option. To me, the diplomatic option is problematic. Canada has no diplomatic relations with Iran. So when I go through the three option, from my perspective as a litigator, the only option is to commence legal proceedings in one of the provinces against Iran for this terrible act of terror.

MG: Just in a second or two. Can you explain what the Montreal Convention is?

MARK ARNOLD: I understand that the signatory states to that convention, which, by the way, doesn't include Iran, but does include Ukraine, obligates an airline to compensate a victim, whether it be at the lower end of the scale lost luggage or at the higher end of the scale loss of life.

MG: 57 Canadians died in this, many more people who were on their way to Canada. The prime minister says that he's going to push Iran to provide compensation for the victims. How do you begin to figure out what that compensation should be? I mean, how do you put it? How do you put a dollar figure on the lives lost?

MARK ARNOLD: That's exactly the dilemma that we face. But there is a way to do it. If we commence litigation, we would get into a very detailed analysis, case by case of what the financial losses have been, not just the loss of the loved one. You can't put a price on the loss of someone, but if you look at that individual, look at their occupation and profession, look at their age, look at their prospects, look at what whether they intended to bring children over. Look at the children who died. Each one would have a separate right to damages. Ultimately, it's the court that makes that decision.

MG: You yourself have sued Iran on behalf of a few different people. How do you go about doing that? I mean, how difficult of a target is Iran when it comes to a lawsuit on behalf of a country then and citizens of a country that Iran has no diplomatic relations with?

MARK ARNOLD: Well, first of all, diplomatic relations have nothing to do with the lawsuit. Actually, issuing the claim is simple. Frankly, I've got a claim ready to go. The federal government is obligated under the state immunity act to actually serve Iran with a legal paper, even though there's no direct diplomatic contact. Canada will go through an intermediary and is obligated under Canadian law to effect service of the client. Iran then has 40 days to defend it. They don't defend. They get noted in default. If they do this, then we're off to the litigation. The importance of families litigating is that it gives them control over the process. The problem with the diplomatic approach is that is that the families don't control that they're at the behest of the government and its bureaucracy.

MG: But does Iran have any obligation to listen to you or to the courts in something like this if?

MARK ARNOLD: Well, in the last case that we were successful and we formed a group of parties that had claims against Iran from a number of different sources. Initially, Iran ignored it. And when they couldn't ignore it any longer, they came to the court and asked for standing. And the court, frankly, refused to give them standing, because - by that I mean to lift their default - because they hadn't defended the claims. And ultimately, this past year, in 2019, we recovered substantial Iranian assets in Canada that were distributed to the victims of other terrorist acts, including a Canadian who had been blown up in a cafe in Tel Aviv at the hands of Hezbollah, an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including my two clients who had been kidnapped and held hostage in Beirut, Lebanon. And years ago, I went to the states and recovered judgments. So we were successful last year in concluding that lawsuit.

MG: Is the fact that Iran hasn't only admitted responsibility here, but also their foreign minister was saying this morning that the country lied to its own citizens about what happened. Is that an asset, in any case, that would go forward?

MARK ARNOLD: In fact, in the in the preparation of a claim that I've done today, there's an admission of liability. I mean, I take that to be an admission of liability insofar as the president of Iran has authority to speak for Iran. So in a way, it makes the claim a little easier. Iran's defence will be, I anticipate, this wasn't a terrorist act. They will say this was just simply negligence. Well, my view of it. So when you pull the trigger and you've got your bullet aimed at the wrong person, you are culpable for doing that. And that's my view. This was a terrorist act.

MG: Families are grieving. The prime minister has said that this country will not rest until accountability and justice is served. How long would this take to play out? At what point in time would these families see some sort of legal resolution?

MARK ARNOLD: So it can never be predicted how long litigation will take. If Iran is of its word, and I think there may be a geopolitical element to that, if Iran really wants to get back into the community of nations, now they are outside the community of nations, we may see this claim go very quickly. On the other hand, I don't think that's going to happen. My experience with Iran is that they ignore claims until they can't anymore and then they reluctantly come to the table. That's my experience with Iran.

MG: Mark Arnold, we'll leave it there. It's good to speak with you. Thank you.

MARK ARNOLD: My pleasure.

MG: Mark Arnold is a Canadian litigation lawyer. This morning, we reached him in Brisbane, Australia.

[Music]

Do cheaters ever prosper?

Guests: Julie Fenster, Michael Baumann

MG: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. My name's Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crowds cheering]

MG: There are few sweeter sounds to a baseball player than the crack of a bat. Especially if you're hitting a homerun like Alex Bregman did in 2017 for the Houston Astros. Here's the thing, though. It wasn't the crack of the bat that Alex Bregman was listening for. It was something else. Listen again before the bat smacks the ball and we turned it up, in case you missed it.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crowd noise]

[Sound: Bang]

MG: Did you hear that noise? The bang is actually the sound of the Astros cheating assigned to the batter of what kind of pitch was coming. And what you should know that it worked. It worked a lot. The Astros ended up winning the World Series that year. Michael Baumann is a baseball writer for the sports and culture website The Ringer. Michael, good morning.

MICHAEL BAUMANN: Morning,

MG: We heard that noise, kind of a bang there. Tell me what I was hearing and how this system of stealing signs actually worked for the Houston Astros.

MICHAEL BAUMANN: So the way this works is, it's called electronics science field, and that's why it violated the rules. But it's really, I think, that understands how simple it is. Essentially, the Astros had a camera in centre field. They routed the feed to a monitor in the tunnel behind it, originally in the tunnel behind the dugout, where players and coaches would look at the catcher sides and they were able to decode those signs after watching them for long enough. And they could signal to the batter that a certain type pitcher was coming by hitting a large plastic trash can. And you can hear it on the game feed. It's audible from home plate. The hitter would go to look for that kind of pitch and gain quite an obvious advantage.

MG: So when you hear the thump of the whatever two by four on the garbage can, that means a fastball is coming or that means a curve balls coming or something.

MICHAEL BAUMANN: Off speed pitch, yes.

MG: An off speed pitch.

MICHAEL BAUMANN: Yes.

MG: When were they using this?

MICHAEL BAUMANN: So the scheme happened for two years, according to the commissioner's report that was released on Monday. The actual trashcan banging was their method of communication in 2017 and then they feared detection by other players, other teams started to catch on to what they were doing. There was another separate science dealing where the Boston Red Sox were implicated that year in the commissioner's office, cracked down on that. So in 2018, they got a little more ingenious. They moved the monitor. They used different in-person methods of communication and eventually abandoned the scheme sometime that season because they thought it wasn't working anymore.

MG: Who is running the show? Who are the ringleaders in all of this?

MICHAEL BAUMANN: So the commissioner's report names only one player specifically. That's Carlos Beltran. He was a- It is H-40 season sort of a bench DH type of veteran, halting calibre player who is involved in the scheme. The other players were either not named or not punished either for immunity purposes or because it was just too difficult to take out take apart that pile of who benefited and who was involved. The real ringleader was the bench coach, Alex Cora, who is the top assistant to manager AJ Hinch, who later went on to manage the Boston Red Sox to the World Series the year after that. He was fired just last night by the Red Sox for his involvement in the scheme.

MG: You said this had gone on for a good stretch of time? How were the Astros eventually caught?

MICHAEL BAUMANN: Well, this came to light as players from other teams start to pick up on this and you could see their video clips of pitchers sort of looking suspicious towards the end of the 2017 season. And this is something that's been endemic throughout baseball. The Astros have been involved in different camera related espionage scandals last season. So this is something that has been going on around baseball and sort of whispered about for at least the past two or three seasons. And it came to public attention when a former Astros pitcher, Mike Fiers, blew the whistle on the team just this past fall. And talk to Andrew Luck and Ken Rosenthal, the athletic that prompted Major League Baseball to launch the broader investigation that led to the suspensions of firings we've seen so far this week.

MG: You wrote a piece saying the sign stealing operation didn't make the Astros into a good team but when championships are won on such fine margins, the assumption will always be that cheating put the Astros over the top. Did this scheme win the Astros the World Series?

MICHAEL BAUMANN: In my personal opinion, no. And I think that I don't know how popular that opinion is. I will say this is going to cause the 2017 Astros for one of the best baseball teams I've ever seen up close, to be viewed in much the same way that Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds do their PED usage. Those guys were all time greats before they before they even touch steroids but because of the extra advantage they gained on top. And I think the advantage here is much smaller than the advantage of a PED, just to be clear. That's going to cause everybody to think twice when re-evaluating the legacy of this team.

MG: Major League Baseball put out a report that most people believe was scathing in its tone and nature. What was the punishment for the Houston Astros?

MICHAEL BAUMANN: The Astros themselves were fined five million dollars, which is the maximum allowed in the Major League Baseball Constitution. They were docked for high draft picks, a first round or in second round or in each of the next two drafts. And their general manager, Jeff Luhnow now and field manager AJ Hendrick both suspended for one season, which is its drop in the hammer by the standards of Major League Baseball. And then immediately after the report came out, both Hinch and Luhnow were fired by Astros owner Jim Crane. So that's about as heavy and additional, I should say, The Red Sox are still being investigated for allegations of a similar but distinct sign stealing scheme under in 2018. So final, this one for him hasn't been meted out, but all indications will be extremely harsh.

MG: But the Houston Astros are still the 2017 World Series champions.

MICHAEL BAUMANN: And I think that I don't see another alternative.

MG: Really? In other sports, you take the title. You if you're Lance Armstrong, you're no longer the Tour de France champion. Your titles are stripped from you. Why are they still the champions if they cheated?

MICHAEL BAUMANN: And just to use that example. It's an incredibly unsatisfying conclusion. And you'd see that as a remedy used by, just anecdotally, by bodies like the NCAA, the IOC, UCI, in Armstrong's case, and these are institutions without a whole lot of clout and legitimacy that are sort of looking to rewrite history. And whatever else, I prefer, personally, I'd prefer for the record of the title to be an accurate reflection of what happened. Now that this information's out there, people can make their own distinction or make their own decisions about what how legitimate they view this title to be. And there's a lot of information out there.

MG: So they get fined, they lose some draft picks. A couple of people get fired. There's still the World Series champions. Given how successful the system was, do you think that the Astros or other teams would try it again if they thought that they could get away with it?

MICHAEL BAUMANN: Well, they always think they can get away with it. That's the whole thing. I think that the suspensions to-- and Luhnow and Hinch were crucially not actually involved in this scheme. They were suspended for knowing about it and not doing enough to stop it. I think that's a powerful deterrent to individual GMs and coaches, managers who might see something like that's going on among their subordinates in the future. But you don't undertake something like this unless you think you're going to get away with it. That's the worrying trap of the cover up that we've seen across sports and society for longer than I've been alive.

MG: And ultimately, I mean, they still have their World Series rings and the banner still hangs in the stadium. So what I mean, in some ways, it was worth it.

MICHAEL BAUMANN: At that was the kicker of my column on Monday. Reporters asked Jim Crane, the Astros owner, if he views the 2017 title to be tainted, and he said no. And if you take him at his word, then, you know, as much is as hard as MLB came down on the team. In my opinion, they did everything. They threw every punishment they could at the Astros for this. And you just do the maths in your head and I don't see how it wasn't worth it.

MG: Michael, thank you.

MICHAEL BAUMANN: Thank you.

MG: Michael Baumann, baseball writer for the online sports and culture magazine, The Ringer.

SOUNDCLIP

[Indistinct Chatter]

VOICE 1: Come on. Who is the big chief? Who did all the framework?

VOICE 2: Why do you wait so long to still it Joe?

VOICE 1: Because a sway is a hard [indistinct].

VOICE 3: Joe.

VOICE 4: Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it ain't so.

MG: Spoiler alert. It was so. Shoeless Joe Jackson, seven other members of the Chicago White Sox were banned for life for conspiring to throw the 1919 World Series. Cheating in baseball, as in life, is much older than that scandal. Historian Julie Fenster is the author of Cheaters Always Win: T he Story of America. Julie, good morning.

JULIE FENSTER: Hi, Matt. Good morning.

JULIE FENSTER: What did you make of this scandal involving the Houston Astros? It now seems like the Boston Red Sox, given the fact that their manager has been fired and there's this investigation under way, they're rolled into this as well. What did you make of that?

JULIE FENSTER: First, I want to congratulate the Montreal Nationals, as some of us think of it. You have the old Expos winning the World Series. I hope without cheating. But I was a big fan of the Houston Astros until I heard about this scandal. You know, the rule has been clear. And my definition of cheating is anytime you go into any activity, accepting proactively certain rules, and then you break them for your own benefit. And Houston did exactly that when they used electronic means. So I think they are cheaters. I'd take a little bit more draconian attitude than Michael, your previous guest. I do wish that the punishments had been harder. I don't think five million dollars in the realm of Major League Baseball is even a blip on the on the financial record. And I think a one year suspension for the managers, it's cataclysmic, maybe temporarily. But will those, will AJ Hinch, get another job as a manager? I would say 100 percent, yes. He will be back.

MG: What happened? What happened to baseball's first cheats? I mean, there's a long history of cheating in baseball. So if you go right back to the beginning, what happened to those people who were cheating? Way back when?

JULIE FENSTER: Yes, I think, you know, the organization of baseball occurred in the 1970s, and one of the reasons it held up and was sort of, you know, admired, almost pushed that of the National League first commissioner banished a ring of cheaters in baseball for life, for life. No more baseball.

MG: That's not the case. Well, that's not the case now.

JULIE FENSTER: Well, exactly. And of course, you had that wonderful sound on the 1919 Black Sox scandal, those players equally were heartbroken and, you know, their lives ruined because they were banned for life. Now the current management of Major League Baseball is saying there's no way to punish the players because some of them have gone onto other teams. Some of them, one of them is even a manager himself now. But I don't know that it'll stick. I don't think that that temporary suspensions, small monetary fines, I don't think that that is going to be a lesson for a generation or two the way those previous scandals really served as a warning for decades to come.

MG: Why do you think eating is the story of America?

JULIE FENSTER: Well, I think the title of the book is really in reference to sort of the current era. You know, my book covered things beyond sports even. And kind of delineates how in our country things have slipped a little bit where people who cheat are given second chance, third chance, fifth chance. And in so many areas of life, that wasn't true in the past. So talking really in the present tense, cheaters always win today, it seems. And again, we are talking about this baseball scandal. I'm not putting it in the past tense until I see what really does happen.

MG: Well, one of the arguments that gets made is that it's OK to cheat because everybody's cheating. And just some people get caught.

JULIE FENSTER: Yeah. And that's so easy to disprove. Actually, everybody does not cheat, but just about everybody or everybody lets cheaters get away with it. And I find that's what's fascinating. What's fascinating is that the attitude toward cheaters by non cheater becomes so much softer.

MG: Do you think that people sometimes maybe it's begrudgingly, but they would admire a cheat for her or his craftiness? I mean, you listen to that scheme and they had people banging on garbage cans. And so the batter would know what's-- That's actually pretty sophisticated in some ways. Do you think that people might admire something like that?

JULIE FENSTER: Well, I think they admire the use of the electronics and the fact that - you know, what scares me again is that the means this time we're just that much easier to catch. You played a sound bite of one of them. But, you know, are we now going to go to where it's just a laser blip in the outfield and the batter can catch it? You know, I'm just saying. Is this going to stop it or is it just challenged to make it even more harder to detect. As two people admiring cheaters, yes, I think that. Now, look, I watch Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The movie sets about some cheaters who are living in the south of France. I watch it a lot. I love it. I guess I admire them. But in truth, politically, today, cheating is not the death knell it once was to a political career. And I almost think that it does indicate that the person is in control, that there's a sense that they've risen above the rules that govern normal people.

MG: So in the last few seconds that we have, two final questions. One is, what do you hope that baseball would take away from this cheating scandal?

JULIE FENSTER: Well, actually, something you mentioned. I would have liked for some of the honours to be dedicated. Maybe even the team championship, but also the individual players statistics. I think that would have been a better deterrent. I really do think something permanent has to happen.

MG: And given the fact that that hasn't happened, what do you think will actually happen in the future because of this?

JULIE FENSTER: I do think that, I'm predicting now that everyone involved with this will be back in baseball just fine in three years. And I hope that I also think that the cheating will be more sophisticated because the punishment wasn't - as I said before - draconian or heartbreaking. It has to hurt has to hurt as much as that cheating for the Dodgers, for example.

MG: The thing that we told our kids maybe isn't true. Winners maybe do cheat and cheaters sometimes win. Julie, thank you. It's great to talk to you.

JULIE FENSTER: Thanks, Matt. Take care?

MG: Julie Fenster is the author of Cheaters Always Win: The Story of America. She was in Syracuse, New York. Any thoughts on cheating? Happy to hear from you. Twitter, you can reach us @CBCCurrent or through the Web site cbc.ca/thecurrent. That is our program for today. Coming up on Q, the offered author Jeff VanderMeer, pioneer behind the literary genre known as The New Weird. You'll hear him speak about what actually that is with Tom Power. That's coming up on Q. If you listening to the show yesterday, you know what I'm talking about when I say Meghxit, Harry and Meghan. Sorry. We're still supposed to call them. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are stepping back from royal life. They will still be royals, but they will be members of the royal family with financial independence. Also members of the family with a bit of distance. The queen has given her blessing for the couple to spend some time here in Canada, where in Canada isn't exactly clear. But that hasn't dampened the excitement. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Talk to you tomorrow.

SOUNDCLIP

GOERGE ARAFAT: My name is George Arafat. I'm a realtor in Toronto. My first response when I heard that the royals would use spending time in North America was I was excited and I actually posted something on Facebook making a joke about the fact that I'm a realtor and I would love to help them find a new home. The average price of a house in Toronto is about 870,000, so I think they'd have the budget to purchase something here.

VOICE 1: What makes you think they're coming to Toronto?

GOERGE ARAFAT: Well, Toronto is the best city in Canada. You know, they're normal people. So I would just sit down with them like I'm would any other client and try to find out what they are looking for. Most people that I work with have a long wish list and then they have to whittle things off. But with their budget, I think pretty much the sky's the limit. They want something that's not so palatial. They're young, so I don't think they'd want anything too authentacious, liken not, you know, gold taps and all that stuff. A little bit more modern. They seem like they're modern hip people and they probably want something that has privacy. Torontonians, we have a long history of having famous people as neighbours, so we'd be fine with it. I mean, you know, we'd love to have them. In Toronto, and I think Canadians in general, we're very respectful of people's privacy. So I don't think anyone would go out of their way to make them feel uncomfortable. We tend to just smile and nod and ignore them, in a polite way. I would love to have royals living in Toronto because - especially these two - because they just seem so down to earth and friendly. I know friends of mine have met them on a few occasions and they're really lovely people.

The Current Transcript for July 24, 2019

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

'It tore me in pieces': Men switched at birth regret never meeting biological parents

Families could charge Iran for 'perpetrating terrorist act' in jetliner attack, lawyer says

Do cheaters ever prosper?

Wednesday 15 January, 2020 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode